Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 38

Implementation of WMF resolution requires new software features
The rather poorly quoted (in the current policy) foundation statement says: The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms that: [two Commons-related bullets omitted]
 * Wikimedia projects are not censored. Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. "Controversial content" includes all of these categories. We recognize that we serve a global and diverse (in age, background and values) audience, and we support access to information for all.
 * Wikimedia projects are curated and edited collections, according to certain principles: namely, we host only content that is both free and educational in nature.
 * We support the principle of user choice; readers should have control over their experience on the projects.
 * We support the principle of least astonishment: content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain.
 * We ask the Executive Director, in consultation with the community, to develop and implement a personal image hiding feature that will enable readers to easily hide images hosted on the projects that they do not wish to view, either when first viewing the image or ahead of time through preference settings. We affirm that no image should be permanently removed because of this feature, only hidden; that the language used in the interface and development of this feature be as neutral and inclusive as possible; that the principle of least astonishment for the reader is applied; and that the feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both logged-in and logged-out readers.

[[File:2011 meta image referendum question 1 map.svg|thumb|

I'm afraid that WMF has to put their money where their mouth is. It's unreasonable to expect Wikipedia editors to determine how "content on Wikimedia projects should be presented to readers in such a way as to respect their expectations of what any page or feature might contain" because those expectations vary widely, as it is actually acknowledged in the first WMF resolution bullet. So, the only reasonable way to implement user choice on something like the images of Muhammad without offending at least some group of readers is to have a "Muslim user" or perhaps more accurately "Sunni user" or just "hide Muhammad images" checkbox in the putative "personal image hiding feature". The ball is really in WMF's court on this. Until they implement their "personal image hiding feature", their resolution is unimplementable. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought such features already existed? I thought some of that was the basis for the instructions on the Muhammad FAQ page? No, I am not being sarcastic - I have no intentions of disabling any images on Wikipedia for myself, so I haven't tried those features. Does anyone know if they work? And do they adequately address this? R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  20:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Q3 there's a solution for logged-in but not logged-out users, so more software is needed for the latter part. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a BIG gap in coverage then. I wonder what it would take to make a cookie based version for anon users? It wouldn't even affect other users who eventually got a leased IP, or even users on say a library machine if written properly (cookie expires on browser restart or something). Thanks for pointing out the hole in its capabilities. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  20:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The foundation is working on a image filter, over which a great deal of discussion has occurred on meta. It is not without controversy itself, especially on the de.wiki. Resolute 20:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone should look at the map on the talk page there: m:Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en (now copied here). Pretty much what I expected with respect to the Arabic-speaking editors vs English-speaking ones. And given what you've told me about German speakers' resistance, their score (lower than that of English speakers) is not surprising either. [Correction: I was informed on meta that this map is language-based, not country based ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)]

I see that our esteemed arbitrators are flaming each other there m:Talk:Image filter referendum/en, so I suppose this feature is controversial too, LOL. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Getting the technical ability in place is just the first 1%. The next step will be creation of a classification system with the hundreds of different parameters for each image (e.g. women without head veils, women being allowed to drive cars, anything homosexuality related, etc.) to classify it per the hundreds of different definitions of decency.  Then comes getting somebody to classify each image according to each of those hundreds of parameters. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What's the word for "no" in German? 86%? LOL. m:Talk:Image filter referendum/Next steps/en. I suspect the consensus on en.wiki will be harder to discern. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The idea of creating a category system for the personal image filter appears to have been abandoned. There is a brainstorming page on Meta dedicated to finding a workable solution: . -- J  N  466  07:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So, the bruhaha in en.wiki is just the follow-up to that putative WMF abandonment of their reader-centered filter plan? If the WMF can't figure out how to prevent some Muslims from seeing images that piss these guys off, then we just remove them, even if those images are acceptable to everyone else? That's actually contrary to the WMF statement, which only supports hiding such contents from those who don't wanna see it, not deleting it altogether. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Undiscussed change to WP:NOTCENSOR?
I just realized that this change was made to WP:NOTCENSOR about a month ago which I don't agree with and which I cannot locate any discussion on. This edit primarily added in the line:
 * Per the Foundation, controversial material should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': one that respects the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic.

My own qualms with this are: I moving to remove this then as it seems like it could be a hassle in the future, leading to arguments centered around subjective judgements of what readers expect instead of whether the image objectively/realistically illustrates the topic.AerobicFox (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Just because the WMF states "We support the principle of least astonishment" along with other things they support does not mean it should be worked into an existing policy without some form of discussion. Why was this added and not any other part? Furthermore the statement "We urge the Commons community to... and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement" does not readily seem to apply to adding images to articles on Wikipedia.
 * 2) I don't believe a community consensus could be formed on just what "conventional expectations of readers" are. It is a better guideline to focus on placing the most illustrative, descriptive, informative, etc, images than it is to try and decide what the reader will expect and react to that. In practice this could be used to justify replacing accurate, medically relevant wounds/diseases with less graphic images that are less representative. As an example: in our classes in the US we were often times shown disturbing images of car crashes and the effects of drugs and tobacco, such a policy could be implemented by a tobacco employee or an editor for the legalization of drugs to censor out the more disturbing(but relevant) images of negative effects. The examples for the potential of abuse are numerous, editor X saying "I think we should show less graphic images on the (abortion/holocaust/animal testing/etc) article per least astonishment"
 * I mentioned above in one of the huge threads that I couldn't find a discussion for it either. While we must respect foundation policy, I don't think the board statement is nearly specific enough to be an actionable requirement for us to add it. I agree completely with point two, we are never going to be able to agree on anything approaching an objective standard regarding its application. It should be removed. Monty  845  23:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the Foundation resolution is guidance, and it's up to us whether we pay any attention. That's what's sparked this discussion. It's been mentioned on two article talk pages recently. Muhammad and Pregnancy. According to Jimbo, the advice applies across projects, but was prompted by problems at Commons. I confess I'm struggling with the applicability of the "principle of least astonishment" and see potential problems with the "community expectation" language. But I'd like to hear many more views on that before deciding anything there.


 * The part I understand, and believe could be better emphasised here, is the advice to pay particular attention to determining whether controversial content has a realistic educational use. I'm inclined to agree with Jimbo that we usually do a pretty good job in that, but I think it deserves emphasising. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hans Adler, in an earlier discussion, gave the example of an editor who insisted on including a photograph of a woman in the process of defecating, seen from below, in the article defecation, citing NOTCENSORED. Reputable educational sources wouldn't include such an image, so if we do, it violates the principle of least astonishment. -- J N  466  02:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is one application of the principle. But, we do have a wider brief than EB or a scholarly text. "Just like EB" is too constrained, in my opinion, but "We don't care about astonishing out readers" is too loose. But thanks, I'm beginning to get the picture, I think. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but it is the community collaborating together who need to determine how to apply it and what policy to add it to. Yet, Ludwigs2 adds it to CENSOR and then starts on his single purpose objective.
 * I am now going to be pushing for a full ban. This is getting ridiculous. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  01:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please leave editor behaviour out of one thread? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's clear from the section above this one that the WMF has trouble implementing its side of the resolution (the personal image filter), and its Executive Director appears to have postponed plans for that indefinitely. It makes no sense to introduce elements of that resolution which can't be solved at Wikipedia editors' level into a Wikipedia policy, e.g. the parts about reader choice/expectations. The so-called "principle of least astonishment" appears to be just a nebulous way to express that issue as well, if you read the original WMF statement, so I support removing that part as well, as it's not something Wikipedia editors can implement. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see any problem with that addition. It's what the Foundation board said. Generally, just like our text reflects the standards of our sources, so should our approach to illustration. Otherwise we are engaging in a form of OR. -- J N  466  02:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The WMF text refers to the reader's choice, not the sources' choice; see section below for what the WMF might actually mean by "least astonishment". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought readers' expectations are formed by the publishing standards they are familiar with. We are not trying to be "different" from our sources; our entire edifice of sourcing guidelines exists to ensure we aren't, and the very definition of NPOV is that we should accurately reflect the views expressed in reliable sources, in proportion to their prominence. If we do that, readers familiar with our sources will not be "astonished". -- J N  466  03:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to ascertain what will astonish the reader will always be OR. You seem to be saying that we should conform Wikipedia to style of more traditional sources to not astonish the reader, but many readers today are more familiar with Wikipedia than with traditional sources, and Wikipedia is different for a variety of reasons: we aren't restrained by the costs of printing color images, we have unlimited space for going in depth on articles and for creating new articles, etc. NPOV means that we represent sources in a neutral fashion, it has nothing to with emulating their method for representing the material(which would be a copyright violation).AerobicFox (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not the style of "more traditional" sources, but reputable sources, the kind we allow as sources for our text. Clearly there are differences: we are a website, and most of our sources are not; we can't use the exact same media as our sources if they're copyrighted, etc. But in general our editorial judgment reflects the judgment of our sources. -- J N  466  04:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My stance is that, where there is a choice of equally educational images (and there usually is) and one is more obviously shocking than another, we should go for the less shocking one, and determining that will be a matter of judgment and consensus.

Many editors here are reasonably concerned that careless wording of this "least astonishment" principle may be used to remove educationally important content because it's shocking or upsetting to some, without replacing it with equally or more educationally valuable content. Sloppy wording here might lead to the educational value of an article suffering on the alter of sensibility. Any change along the lines of the Foundation resolution would need to be very precise about the supremacy of real educational value over the principle of least astonishment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in broad agreement with you, though there may be exceptions. Basically I would always like us to look for precedent in the best sources to legitimise the use of an image. There are some horrific images (of the holocaust for example) that the highest-quality sources have seen fit to include, because they are needed to make the reader understand what happened. In such a case, a less shocking image may indeed be less educational. But the principle is that we should look to high-quality sources for guidance as to due weight for a shocking image, just as we do for text. -- J N  466  04:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do like that position, and will consider it in future image choices, but I'm not sure it's home is here, perhaps in a badly needed expansion of Image use policy. Here, at WP:NOTCENSORED, if the Foundation resolution has anything to inform this policy on, I'm leaning towards something more like emphasising "Where the same educational effect can be achieved without dismaying the reader, choose not to dismay the reader." But I repeat myself. (See the thread below this one.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think I'm on the wrong page here. The more I think about this, the more I think Image use policy is where this belongs. Sheesh. How's this not going to look like forum shopping? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with emphasizing that though, IMO, is that it deemphasizes this:
 * "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article."
 * I believe that emphasis should be given to the relevance and usefulness of the image to the article, and that by emphasizing choosing the least shocking image you are drawing attention away from the relevance of the image and emphasizing its potential to offend. The proposal's wording may also unintentionally lead to editors falsely equivocating the usefulness of two different images. No two images are ever going to have exactly the same educational value, and what this will inadvertently do is open the door to editors to try and replace offensive images with watered down images by arguing they both illustrate the same thing as much, an example being certain editors in Commons who believe illustrations are a complete substitute for actual images of sexual topics. This seems like unnecessary WP:Instruction creep and it may lead to arguments becoming centered around "Does the slight gain in realism outweigh the potential to offend" instead of "Is this image a superior image".AerobicFox (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot in good faith or with any honesty say I've got strong disagreements with most of what's posted above. I don't. There I think is only one point I have a... disagreement (not quite the correct word) - and that's the "of equal educational value" part. The image also needs to portray the same educational content - which the image substitutions proposed cannot. Both provide equal educational value - but not on the exact same topic. It's like comparing math to science. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  06:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What "least astonishment" might mean
The WMF board simply copied that expression from the 2010 Harris report (search threads above for background on that), so here is what the report says:

What we are recommending is that there be an option prominently visible on all WMF pages (like the Search Settings options on Google), available to registered and non-registered users alike, that, when selected, will place all images in Commons Categories defined as sexual (penises, vulvas, masturbation, etc.) or violent (images of massacres, lynchings, etc.) into either collapsible or other forms of shuttered viewing, wherever these images might appear on WMF sites. The rationales for this are several. Images of sexuality and violence are necessary components of Wikimedia projects for them to fulfill their mandates to be open, free and educational. However, these images – of genital areas and sexual practices on the one hand, or mass graves and mutilated corpses on the other – will inevitably still have the power to disturb some viewers, especially if they are children, or if they are happened upon unintentionally. The point of the “button” we’re proposing is to help alleviate that surprise and dismay, by making the images unavailable for viewing without a second command. Often, within the Wikimedia world, this is referred to as the principle of least astonishment, or least surprise. In our view, it needs to be strengthened.

On the other hand, we believe that this command should only delay the presentation of these images, not prevent the presentation of these images. Consistent with principle 7 we enumerated in our first part, we believe access to information on WMF sites should be compromised only as little as need be to satisfy our responsibilities to respect and serve all our audiences. In our view, a shuttered, rather than a deleted image, satisfies those responsibilities. We selected the Category approach to this shuttering because we thought it would be the simplest to administer.

-- ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. This issue arose from editors (well, one editor, really) pushing "least astonishment" as a reason to hide nipples at Pregnancy. Nipples are not "penises, vulvas, masturbation, etc." HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had read the Harris report, and the board working group report, but still struggle finding principle of least astonishment's relevance here. Sometimes I'm slow on the uptake. I'll think about it for a while. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems that they use a pretty original definition for "least astonishment"; I'm not seeing it in the article on principle of least astonishment or in the Wikipedia essay Principle of least astonishment. Don't wanna say "I told you so", but that's what happens when experts on music and TV series write recommendations for website interfaces. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the relationship to the (real) principle is just "application of sensible defaults". However, there are no sensible defaults for some controversial stuff. E.g. images of spiders cause problems for some but not all readers, and so do images of Muhammad. The Wikipedia essay (linked above) speaks of satisfying "the average reader", which if it existed, the WMF would not need to worry about personal image filters. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I always begin from the position there's something I'm not getting in these situations, because history has nearly always proven that to be the case. I'm thinking, "don't gratuitously shock or offend readers." With emphasis on "gratuitously." Meaning (to repeat what I just said to Jayen above) "If you can achieve the same or better educational effect without dismaying readers, choose not to dismay them." We could also encompass the Goatse decision with something like "This is an encyclopedia and grossly offensive content whose sole purpose is to shock or offend has no place here" (if that's a reasonable description of the Goatse principle).
 * Wrt spiders, we do consider their effect on readers at Arachnophobia. (Click "Newer revision"). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand that though since a spider isn't really needed to illustrate a fear of spiders, and since people going to that article may have arachnophobia(although if it came down to it and an image was needed I would fall on the side of including it). On an article on spiders though we would definitely include images of spiders since they would be necessary to illustrate the article, and arachnophobes would just have to accept that they may see spiders if they go to a spider article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AerobicFox (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 November 2011‎
 * We are in harmony on this point. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've discovered that "the committee" (I think it was the Image referendum one) on meta wrote in a FAQ on what they mean by "least astonishment" in this context m:Image filter referendum/FAQ/en As expected it was borrowed from the Harris report as well. Let me quote it here:

The principle of least astonishment means that users should never be surprised by content they were not expecting to encounter on Wikimedia sites. If you click on an article about cycling, you do not expect to see images of nude cyclists. If you click on an article about locks, you do not expect to see graphic images of - for example - sexual bondage. The image hiding feature allows you to make decisions for yourself that will reduce these possibilities.

I think that much is conveyed in our (recently modified) guideline on offensive material. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

shows how one particular editor is interpreting the term - it is "too astonishing" to summarize death tolls found in the body of an article in the lede .
 * Per WP:ASTONISH the lead should not start with attempts to astonish the reader (such as the given total victim numbers.

I had not known that essay before - but it surely uses a far different meaning of "least astonishment" than the WMF presumably intends, and extremely far from the technical use of the term. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's far too much. Something that is "astounding" should be something that should not normally be part of the coverage of a topic in an education manner and through presentation. The number of victims of a mass murder is a necessary fact about that crime, though one may be surprised by how large the number turns out to be, that's not the "astounding" information that we're concerned with.  It's more considering "astounding" as "is this really connected to this article" and "is this the least dramatic way to show an illustration on this topic?" --M ASEM  (t) 16:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of victims of a mass murder is a necessary fact - of course it is necessary if it is a fact indeed, that is if we know that for sure and it is not surrounded by controversy and manipulation. But in the case with Mass killings under Communist regimes we do not know actually and precisely how much people were killed by Communist regimes, because there were too many different Communist regimes and too many different events argued to be 'mass killings'. We have just estimates by some authors which significantly differ because of different interpretations of what events and categories of deaths are included into mass killings. Deaths from hunger (where hunger resulted from or was aggravated by by state politics), deaths of people imprisoned by the state (both from hardships and from old age, both for political and petty criminal crimes), etc. - are these really 'mass killings'? Just imagine the amount of controversy in the topic.
 * As for the astonishing 100 mln figure, even the co-authors of the guy who produced it disagree with the very approach of using such total figures - please read this explanation by another editor. I'll cite here just this fragment, relevant to the astonishment:
 * The motif is obvious: a reader, who will not probably read the article as whole, after seing the first sentence will say: "Look, Hitler killed just 6 million Jews, and Communist killed 100 million people. Definitely, Communism is much more deadly than Nazism."
 * This 100 million people is nothing but an attempt to manipulate the readers.
 * It's more considering "astounding" as "is this really connected to this article" and "is this the least dramatic way to show an illustration on this topic?" - As was explained in the discussions on the talk page of the article, the controversial figure is just inserted to the lead and is not discussed, along with its criticism, in the body of the article. Therefore the question "is this really connected to this article" is not entirely irrelevant. And the question "is this the least dramatic way to show an illustration on this topic?", if we take the total numbers for an illustration of the topic, is quite relevant. The least dramatic way to represent these numbers would be first to explain all the problems with making exact definitions of what was 'mass killing' and what was not, as well as the problems with making a sum from many controversial statistics, from many countries and events, from many different categories of deaths. Grey Hood   Talk  16:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, let's all be 100% honest. "Least astonishment", from the day it was written until now, has solely been used for (and understood as, by those who use it) "this offends my beliefs, and that trumps whether or not numerous others find these images educational and informative". I've concluded days of digging, and that is all I have found. Everything else, including the larger quote above, is already covered in other policies and guidelines.
 * Now, if someone wants to prove me wrong, I've got two suggested routes you can take (if you can think of another, by all means do so): since this resolution, (1) find me ANY instance where current policies didnt cover an issue and the resolution's "least astonishment" section was trotted out, or (2) find me ANY instance where the resolution's "least astonishment" section was trotted out for ANYTHING OTHER THAN "this offends my/his/their beliefs, thus I'll use this resolution and ignore numerous people claiming they find the image(s) educational and informative"
 * Just one! That's all I ask. ANY such example for #1 or #2. Anyone? Bueller? Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  17:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To GrayHood's point, if the figure of mass murders is a contested number but trying to be forced in, say, the lead, as a means to surprise or draw the readers attention, that's covered by WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as well as WP:V.  Eg, if the number if unsure, you don't use the upper, questionable bound (say "as many as 100 million"), you use the lower, verified bound ("at least 1 million") - that is, always use the conservative statement if there's a questionable range on it.  Using the former is a form of astonishment, but not one that needs to be called out as a problem per the Foundation since other policies nix that type of approach in the bud. --M ASEM  (t) 17:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lowest total of estimates appears to be about 85 million (using lowest for each case, and zero for contested cases). The claim is also made that a lede should not add up figures to give low to high estimate totals, but should only say "tens of millions" which I suggest would really astonish those who read the sources.  I responded that a summary was a ... summary, and does not need a separate reliable source for simple addition .   Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the statement "with estimates in the tens of millions" is better than any synthesis addition. It is a rough order of magnitude that establishes why this is an important piece of history, and while an "astounding" figure of merit to a reader discovering this piece of information for the first time, it's still not the type of astonishment that we're needed to avoid from the Foundation's statement because it is still a verifiable and necessary fact to state about the piece of history. --M ASEM  (t) 23:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, this seconds a recent post on the MKuCR talk page, where I also was told that WP:NPOV is really important policy in this case, while WP:ASTONISH might be relevant, but of secondary importance. Grey Hood   Talk  17:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on "Objectionable Content"
In my opinion, this is a term that has the easiest chance of being abused. And it is idiotic to even try to define it. There is no universally agreed upon definition of "Is item A objectionable?". The vast majority of articles here are objectionable to by someone. Let's delete them all!!!

This is I think the answer: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." (as noted above). And solely that. When people have very very strong beliefs about something, they confuse "objectionable" with "don't like". For instance, I do not find the article on murder objectionable - I find the act of murder objectionable. I don't find the presence of images in a biography of Muhammad objectionable - people find their beliefs not being enforced on others to be objectionable. We've had major stinks on articles on Israel, Palestine, the IRL, Scientology, Atheism, homosexuality, Christianity, Evolution, Creationism and many many more because people find the content as a whole or certain sections highly objectionable. Let's delete them!!! OR go back to the first sentence of this paragraph. We cannot consider personal objections in deciding content. Doing so creates a bias and inserts specific POVs. We should only consider whether content is appropriate for the article (and permitted by the laws of the state of Florida and the United States).

We cannot change history. We cannot change science. We aren't here to change religion. Removing content based on objections by one group against another is akin to pretending history, science and religion are different than they really are. Once this ball gets rolling, when does it stop? Who of you gets to decide what's objectionable? How many people need to think something is objectionable in order for us to act upon it? Is it relevant to the article (or section thereof) and informative/educational (and, etc, etc, etc, other policies and guidelines that apply)? Yes? Then keep it - no disclaimers, no waffling. Otherwise do not keep/insert it. This really should be that simple.

This is an encyclopedia. I do not come here to read even more disclaimers (isn't there a policy against that?). I do not come here to find relevant information missing because x number of people found it objectionable. I do not come here to debate "my religion and beliefs are better than yours, so my objections hold weight that must be honored - remove this content" either - that's an unwinnable battle. Either the content stays and people object, or the content goes, and the encyclopedia slowly gets crippled more and more. Specific case example, the images of Muhammad... if we honor "objections", when do we then have to honor the "objections" we got from the Church of Scientology? You know, the ones we ignored? Or, will any of you decide to induce so much bias and POV pushing in deciding that CoS's objections hold less weight because their religion isn't worth as much in such matters? Where does Christianity fit? Or Judaism? Or The Church of Latter Day Saints? Get my point? Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  21:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional Note: Look at the big picture. Or lack thereof. This term is already being used for single purpose POV pushing without equal application across other such articles on Wikipedia. And that is because those people find A, B and C objectionable and not D, E and F. Because, again, there is no universal agreement on which is which - and in the end, there's next to nothing on Wikipedia that isn't objectionable to someone. So, do we ensure it's included in a fashion that allows people to POV push all across Wikipedia? Or, what criteria do we use to ignore certain objections? Yours? Mine? Don't use my criteria on what I think is objectionable or not - I'm honest enough to admit, like everyone else that I have biases on such things - are the rest of you honest enough to admit that? If so, that makes this a very dangerous term to include anywhere. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  21:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody has proposed doing anything different from what reliable sources do. If reliable sources avoid using pictures of Muhammad then we should do the same. If reliable sources don't criticise Scientology then we shouldn't criticise it. If they do the opposite in either case we should do that too. That's how NPOV works.
 * And as a global project we have to take into account what people consider globally, and not just take into account what is considered acceptable in the state of Florida - just like we do when comparing reliable sources for text content or article titles or whatever.
 * Additionally the number of generally accepted cultural/religious issues which result in censorship is extremely small. The British Museum clearly didn't think there was a slippery slope when they returned the aboriginal heads to the Australians on cultural/religious grounds. Other than images of the prophet muhammad that is the only equivalent case I can think of. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * RobertMfromLI, your "line drawing" argument is fallacious. If objectionability cannot be determined, because it involves a subjective decision on a matter as to which there is no universal agreement, then neither can relevance of an image to an article, the correct style in which to write articles, or, for that matter, the correct wording of this policy. Of course, all such matters can, and normally are resolved in accordance with an rough average of editors' personal beliefs. But we normally don't need to determine objectionability ourselves, because RS have done that for us. I agree that "We cannot change history. We cannot change science. We aren't here to change religion." Neither can we change the POV of reliable sources. NPOV is built upon this, by taking the average of the available POVs, or describing the major ones in proportion to their frequency. As I think you'll admit, the tenor of images selected by an RS is part of their POV. Defining NPOV, for image selection purposes, as far afield from RS, because we think their POVs amount to censorship and pandering to prudes/the religious right or whatever, leaves us with absolutely no guidance whatsoever as to the correct choice of images. While you can say that not considering objectionability removes the subjectivity from the decision, interminable debates can still be had as to relevance, value in describing the subject matter, or any other matter that would be subject to unguided editorial discretion. Indeed, these factors could be used as surrogates for objectionability, since that question can no longer be discussed openly. Being "not censored" provides neither a means to end heated debates nor objective criteria for making editorial decisions, but does wrap opposition to NPOV as written in the flag of free speech. POV pushing in attempts to override basic content policies is hardly so notable an endeavor. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Eraserhead: Muhammad is only one of many articles of the sort. Secondly, the issue over Scientology is not what you think. It's closer to the fact that we even discussed it than had disparaging remarks. Third, did you know there is a reason why Wikipedia only accepts donations - instead of running ads? It's so bias can't be paid for and no appearance of such can exist. Unlike what has been claimed of various encyclopedias. Print encyclopedias have a different audience than Wikipedia. They cater to that audience. I haven't bought a print encyclopedia in ages - I am not part of that audience.
 * Alessandra: You are going way off tangent. Objection is very different than relevance. I'd expect any editor would realize that. Is discussing carbon dating relevant to the article on "Age of the Earth"? YES. Is it objectionable? YES, VERY. Nor did I EVER imply changing POV of sources. I stated the exact opposite - it is those policies that should be applied - not who objects or how many people object. And if you think POV pushing to override basic content policies isn't notable, then you do not spend enough time in Recent Changes. Off the top of my head, I can name two articles that have had over a DOZEN edit wars in the last couple weeks. Perusing my watchlist, I can name HUNDREDS. I agree with NOTCENSORED not being the be all end all. I've stated dozens of times it is other policies that should determine what is included (or not). NOTCENSORED is important only in preventing censorship of relevant, informative content. Nothing more. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  22:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly which other articles are like Muhammad?
 * With regards to carbon dating, and the age of the earth, while a small number of extremists may believe that the world is 6000 years old, only a tiny minority (if any) reliable sources will follow that line. Obviously no scientific sources will believe the earth is 6000 years old either.
 * With the Muhammad cartoon controversy I believe the BBC didn't publish the images on ground of offensiveness, if the BBC were in the minority, great. Then we can include images in the article, if not, I think we should change our position.
 * If you can create a good list of sources that will prevent most of the sensible opponents from commenting at all - and if you can argue that removing the Muhammad images would be an NPOV violation - which if you have a big list of sources using such images you would - then you wouldn't need to continually argue the case and spend tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of words on it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, carbon dating is discussed in almost all RS on the age of the earth, so we include it. As a corollary, the content isn't objectionable, for editorial purposes on the English Wikipedia, since the RS wouldn't have included it if they thought it was, and NPOV requires yielding to their guidance. Now I contrast this situation with the goatse images. It seems that no reliable sources whatsoever included the stretched anus photograph. However, resourceful editors, fervently believing in free speech, decided to go directly to the shock site, copy the image, and upload it here. It should have been obvious that, since RS uniformly refused to reprint the image, or a substantially similar recreation, they regarded it as unpublishable garbage. This should have resulted in a swift deletion of the image, with a warning to the uploader not to do it again. But, supporters of "not censored" argued that the deletion of the garbage would be censorship; that, if we did so, we would be endorsing the censorship practised by the RS. They were right. But WP:WEIGHT effectively requires this sort of "censorship", in that we are beholden to choices by RS as to which information to include. Since we couldn't censor, either in accordance with editors own tastes or reliable sources' practices, the debate had to be settled on surrogate grounds. Deletion for noncompliance with the NFCC had an articulable justification, apparently having nothing to do with "censorship" at all. So, yes, "not censored", as applied, is straightforwardly in opposition to NPOV. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And actually the BLP policy. Preventing gossip from being added to wikipedia articles is censorship. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A few points:
 * We do not "do what the RS's do". The RS's we use are largely secondary sources, and we are a tertiary source. What they do(analyze original research/primary documents) is completely different from what we do(summarize their reports). We do not draw conclusions from a secondary source that the absence of an image is a statement of intent to censor. It is incorrect and WP:OR to analyze the absence of information in secondary sources and make inferences from them which they do not specifically make themselves. What we do is summarize and illustrate concepts that can be verified in secondary sources, we don't try to match their formatting, follow their attempts to market/commercialize themselves, appeal to an audience, or any other way they wish to present themselves. An illustration is neither an idea nor a concept, it's a method for presenting ideas/concepts, so long as does not introduce something not found in an RS it isn't OR.AerobicFox (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Crotalus-basiliscus-basiliskenklapperschlange.jpg if an illustration is neither an idea nor a concept, I would like you to determine the species of this snake. You may not read the file name, the description, or consult an RS with photographs of snakes. Good luck :) Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea/concept would be "some species rattlesnake". The picture is a method of illustrating the concept of some "species of rattlesnake". No matter how you present this rattlesnake: text, video, picture, taxonomy tree, it is still the same concept, but a different method of presenting it. WP:OR deals with original concepts, and not with original methods for illustrating/describing verifiable concepts which we do regularly.AerobicFox (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you ever seen a photograph of a rattlesnake before? This is why mapping text to images can be so difficult, to the point of conceptual separation. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen rattlesnakes in my hometown before(although ours are a different type and look much different). Answer this for me then, would you be opposed to a textual description of a sources image? For instance describing in words the appearance of an artifact. Our current policy allows for us to do so as well as the reverse just as stated in WP:OI which states can create original images to illustrate concepts that have been reported by sources.AerobicFox (talk)
 * Eraser  Alessandra: Agreed on that end part. I've said something similar in the past on these topics. But that wasn't the intent of NOTCENSORED. It's intent, as was indicated in the last paragraph, was to ensure that scientific, political, religious or other groups could not censor Wikipedia due to their beliefs. "Homosexuality: ALL FAGGOTS WILL BURN IN HELL!!!" - guess which religious organization prompted, promoted and posted that? They removed all the relevant content (which they disagreed with) and replaced it with something just like that. There've been more "legitimate" changes that also are covered by not allowing a religious or political organization to make such changes... like in depth rewrites that turn that article into "Bible School" with fancy polite text that still says the same thing - while once again removing chunks of relevant content they (their belief system) disagreed with. And more crude stuff (yes, than the first example) because of religious beliefs, albeit not pinnable on a particular organization. THOSE are the types of actions (especially the second one, where a chunk of the article was turned into a Bible piece condemning homosexuality) that notcensored is for - IMO. Same goes for science types writing "Idiot creatards believe... (total nonsense with their real beliefs removed)" in articles on Creationism and such. Same goes for religious groups lobotomizing scientific articles because it offends their beliefs (such as defacing the "Age of Earth" article by removing whole chunks and dropping in "The Earth is 6,000 years old" and using Bible passages as references. Same goes for CoS wanting information about their religion removed from Wikipedia. Those are censorship.
 * Get my point now? YES (emphatically), notcensored has been misused. Multiple times. BUT, adding "offending content" to it just creates a scenario for even greater misuse. I don't think we're on the opposite side of this coin. I have a feeling we're on the same side. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  00:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If not censored is to fulfil its intended purpose of ensuring that scientific, political, religious or other groups could not censor Wikipedia due to their beliefs, while keeping goatse-type images out, then deference to the practices of most reliable sources in terms of the subject matter conveyed, including the sort of images used, needs to be made explicit. Otherwise, with editors insisting an illustration is neither an idea nor a concept or that RS censor themselves, so we need to set things right, not censored will continue to be misapplied for the defense of the ejaculation video and similar borderline-OR and undue weight content, making a laughingstock out of the project. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And thus, perhaps you see why adding "objectionable" to the mix, instead of fixing the problem, makes it worse by creating the leverage to continue such things? notcensored does not obliviate OR or UNDUE or anything else. And it works both ways. Heck, notcensored isn't even really related to those. That's the thing. It's not a defense for keeping or removing such content - except as a response to "well, my political/religious/personal objections/societal beliefs are against this". Then, it's a valid use. "Your" (general "your" - not you) religious beliefs aren't rationale. Nor "your" political views. Nor mine. Imposing them to remove content is censorship - and when notcensored should come in. That was the problem with two editors in the recent Muhammad Images fiasco. It kept reverting to honoring Islamic religious beliefs they didnt even understand. And that is when notcensored was dragged out. As a valid response to someone trying to use religious beliefs to remove content. As that failed, it became IAR and "oh, they aren't relevant" and "oh, they aren't educational because they aren't real - but lets not apply this uniformly on other articles - just this one". That twisted trail kept leading back to "because it offends...religious beliefs" - which resulted in notcensored validly being dragged out again. For the same reasons (Scientology, LDS and others) that religious/political/etc was added to notcensored in the first place. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  01:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If objectionability, or on-wiki controversy, or whatever isn't recognized as a factor in the policy, then we're stuck playing by the same rules for very different types of content. For instance, articles about organizations often include their logos, taken from their own websites, with no proof of republication in RS. That doesn't arouse heated debates. On the other hand, uploading the goatse stretched anus "logo" lead to protracted arguments, culminating in its deletion with a surrogate justification. If we're being honest, then it should be possible to admit that the goatse image was deleted because it was offensive to a large proportion of editors.
 * Now, when a significant proportion of RS include the same or similar images to the ones we're using, the "it's offensive to editors here" argument should go out the window. This would be the purpose of "not censored": to ensure that material widely published in reliable sources can be included in articles, consistent with NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, irrespective of users wishing to exercise a heckler's veto. The Muhammad images discussion, and similar disputes, should be resolved by reference to how anglophone RS treat the topic.
 * Considering the objectionability of content widely ignored by reliable sources is simply an acknowledgement of Wikipedia's sloppy image sourcing practices. Including unpublished organizational logos normally isn't considered a violation of WP:WEIGHT, since they form only an incidental portion of the article. Whatever else may be said of the goatse stretched anus and similar images, they aren't remotely incidental. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So, what you are saying is that if one cites a British encyclopedia as the source in (using the running example) the use of images in the Muhammad article, even though that encyclopedia may carry a known bias due to the fact that those of the Islamic faith represent the second largest religious population in the UK (and it is a PAID for publication that needs to cater towards its audience), we should do the same whenever someone claims "religious objection!!! Oh, and look what they do!"? As for anuses and such, I don't find the image objectional... distasteful, yes, disgusting, sure. But I think there were plenty of other criteria for removing it. I only care about relevance, educational and informational value, due weight, properly sourced... to put it bluntly, I don't give a rat's ass about anyone's feelings on how objectionable content is - including my own - which is why you will never find a single comment from me stating such objections on any topic or image. Not because there aren't any - but because I don't think my standards for making myself offended are the basis for anything here. We aren't here to cater toward those who are buying a printed encyclopedia. We're here to make one without the restrictions such impose. And unlike a printed book, where one can accidentally flip to the wrong page and be "re-offended", that is not possible here, except by choice. It can only happen once. And even that can be prevented using instructions available on this very site (such as in the Muhammad FAQs page). As for me, couldn't care less about the goatse image (inclusion or lack thereof). Had I entered into that debate, I'd only have cared about the rationale behind its inclusion or removal. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  02:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Muhammad is a very broad subject. Therefore NPOV requires considering the totality of RS available, to the extent reasonable (we can't examine everything, but we can use random sampling.) So, no one encyclopedia, British or otherwise, could provide conclusive guidance for the Muhammad article. We wouldn't even have to find a majority of RS including the images. All that would be needed is a sufficiently large minority of sources using the images that their display in the main article would not violate WP:FRINGE. Per WP:VER, we give use anglophone sources where available. I've no doubt that NPOV favors the inclusion of the Muhammad images despite their extremely controversial status on Wikipedia.
 * While historical images of Muhammad actually have serious educational value, the value of stretched anuses is negative. Not even so much because of offending people as making the project look like a bad joke. Applying normal (very low) image inclusion standards to this sort of thing will only get us more of it. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alessandra is right. Some English-language sources on Muhammad include some figurative images (along with calligraphy, images of mosques and such), others avoid figurative images and only show the latter types of images. We need to reflect the overall balance. So a small number of images is in line with NPOV. A proliferation of them is not. -- J N  466  07:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the "copy other reliable sources" idea is that it would be, in practice, intractable and would solve nothing. As has been pointed out, the presence or absence of an image in a printed source tells us nothing about what we should do in an online encyclopaedia. But, even if we pretend it does, what we then enter into is a series of propositions and counter-propositions about the various sources that do and don't use images of Mohammmed (if we're being honest that removing the goatse image was partly motivated by censorship, we can also be honest that the current discussion is only about one article).

That's already started with the stipulation that we should be looking at anglophone sources. We normally consider sources in any language to be valid RS and, since images have no mother tongue, it seems a little odd to lean that way in this case. So why is this being suggested? Surely not because one side of the argument has calculated that this would work in its favour.

Next, we'll get into all the other reasons why the sources proposed might not be good enough. They're non-neutral. Not representative. Not religious enough. In the wrong medium. Cover too narrow a subject area. No-one will shift sides through any of that, so its pointless. --FormerIP (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We prefer anglophone sources because WP:VER tells us to. As far as the prospect that using sufficient prevalence in RS to not violate WP:FRINGE as an image inclusion standard will create interminable arguments over references, we argue over sources and NPOV all the time, so this should be nothing new :) However, the current discussion is certainly about more than one article. There are quite a few sexology articles where image inclusion disputes have been framed in terms of "not censored". Any substantive change to the policy would shift the playing field. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * To FormerIP: And I and two others already touched on something else probably relevant to this issue. Various of the pictures of Muhammad were not veiled - veils were painted on later when that became the norm. That begs the question, which holds more relevance in a biography - one that depicts perceptions of what he looked like, or one that depicts perceptions of what he didn't look like because the believe arose that one could not depict what he looked like? That was one of my core arguments. In a biography, one puts depictions of what someone was perceived to look like. Altered paintings where veils were added, or paintings where veils were included as part of the original were done with the specific intent of not depicting what he looked like. That's like going to the article on an engine and seeing the picture (2nd from the bottom, orangish backgroun) having the engine blanked out and the transmission still visible. It not-depicts an engine. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  03:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * FormerIP, this proposition would simplify decision-making wrt controversial content. The judgment calls required would be no more problematic than WP:NPOV decisions made all the time here. We do that well. This is about more than Muhammad. It may have spilled over from there and Pregnancy and, for me, Suicide, but it's about controversial content curation in general. Any decision made here will affect the entire project. I prefer to use anglophone sources because I have at least some hope of assessing their academic stature. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * To Alessandra, that is not what VER says. It says: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." (emphasis mine) On a topic of greater interest in other countries, it's quite likely that non-English sources will be of greater quality and relevance. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  03:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or we could decide that English sources cover Muhammad just fine. The question affects the text of the article, not just image usage. It's one of those nasty subjectivities that has to be decided upon the basis of unguided editorial discretion.
 * To give a concrete example about how a manner of presenting content can affect the credibility of the source, consider Giles Brindley's 1983 presentation on phentolamine and papaverine. A room full of urologists, presumably, were not offended by the sight of an erect penis. But they didn't expect to see the presenter drop his pants. That's not the sort of activity that enhances one's academic credibility. Similarly, Wikipedia's choice of images affects how the project is viewed. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrt your concerns about the term "objectionable", the Foundation used "controversial" in part to avoid the problems you point to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Anthony, agreed on a lot of it. Hence that coupled with what the full resolution actually said, my objections to "objectionable" and "offensiveness" as being substitutes. I'm sure we've both been around Wikipedia long enough to see tons of Wikilawyering... wording is important to help minimize that. Sadly. :-/ Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  04:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * With Muhammad images in reliable sources a good start would be to see which sources covered the Danish Muhammad cartoons and included a reproduction - that would certainly give you which news sources thought it was appropriate at a reasonably recent point in time. With other sources you could probably judge whether they included any images of anything else in their book/article and in which case whether they included an image of Muhammad.
 * With regards to sources usage of images, actually I have no real idea - I would hope it would be clear one way or the other, and I would guess that it will be somewhere in the middle. It sounds like a problem that has rumbled on for years, and that any attempt to solve it is a step forward and any escalation is more likely to bring about some sort of compromise (e.g. less images or a disclaimer) that only escalation can really bring. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There can be reasons for removing images. The absence of an image in a source deemed to be somehow similar to our article is not one of those reasons. That argumentation can be presented on an article Talk page and it might sway a few editors, but that sort of reasoning should not be elevated to the level of a policy guideline. Wikipedia articles are unique entities. Yes, they must contain no information that is not verifiable. But images are not verifiable information—certainly not in the sense that verbal assertions are information. It is true that sufficient information has to be available about an image for it to be acceptable for inclusion. We have to know that it is what it purports to be. But I think that images are invested with words when used in a primarily verbal presentation such as in a Wikipedia article. An image stands mute aside from the surrounding words in an article. An image cannot be untrue, unless we are mistaking its identity. WP:RS concerns itself with verifiability. The notion of reassigning WP:RS to standing as gatekeeper of images is without logic. If one wishes to argue that an image should not be in an article one has to show that the image fails to advance the aims of the article. One has to convince one's fellow editors that the article would be better off without the image. In the case of the "goatse" image an argument could have been made that the image was not central to understanding the goatse web site. I don't know if that would have swayed fellow editors, but that argument does not need a change in policy language. And if editors decide that the spread anus belongs in the goatse article then I believe it belongs there. I would argue against it. But I don't accept that there is a standard of "offensive" in imagery and I refuse to understand that the failure of some other reliable source to include an image translates into an inability of this encyclopedia to include that image. Imagery is nonverbal in most cases, unless a strong verbal assertion is included in the imagery itself, and even this is not conclusive. Surrounding text is what matters—that must be reliably sourced. WP:WEIGHT too is not a policy that is applicable to images, unless the surrounding text is in violation of WP:WEIGHT. The article Talk page is the place for resolving disputes about inclusion of images. Each article is unique. No arguments are barred from such discussions. I think an editor can present the argument that a source does not contain the image that other editors wish to add to the article. But other editors will probably point out the differences between the source and our article, and that is the way it should be. No special status should be given to the argument that some other source does not contain an image that happens to be in dispute. That is an attempt to create an unfair, and illogical, means of keeping images out of articles. I don't believe there is any inherently "objectionable content" as concerns images. Language in policy should not be concocted to create a not-level playing field in this regard. Time-consuming as it is, the place for arriving at resolutions to such questions is on the article's Talk page, although there could be a separate noticeboard set up just for addressing, project-wide, the inclusion/exclusion of images. That an image is "offensive" is in my opinion one of the weakest reasons for arguing that an image should be removed. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bus stop: Next time I'm just creating a heading and asking you to do the actual post. I tend to ramble a bit and post my thoughts in 5 disjointed posts - unlike your single post above that covers pretty much everything. ;-) Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  17:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I vehemently disagree that it covers anything. "An image cannot be untrue, unless we are mistaking its identity." True, but irrelevant. In order to be useful in articles, images must be accompanied by captions describing their purported relation to the subject. That is text, and needs to be verifiable. In articles about obscure subjects, we've been sloppy about this, taking the photographer at their word. However, there is no excuse for this approach on high profile articles. To verify that the image caption is true, in the sense of accurately describing the subject matter depicted, an image in a reliable source is needed for comparison, unless the image is a graph or similar compilation of published data. An image is worth a thousand words; one cannot conclusively infer from a published description such as "a man, in his thirties, with light skin, black hair, light brown eyes, a medium to heavy-set build, and a neatly trimmed moustache" an association between an image and the person described. So, if you want to say that photos don't need to be supported by sources, you're right - until they're added to articles with captions purporting to identify them that may or may not be accurate.
 * Now, given that the association between images and their captions is substantive content requiring verification, it is likewise subject to NPOV. If you want to say that we don't care how many MEDR discussing ejaculation include a video of the act, fine - but we do care about how many MEDRS caption videos as such. That much is text, which no amount of sophistry will unbind from our content policies. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding proper captions, I believe Bus stop implied that above. And regardless, it is something all or most of us in this discussion understand as a necessary requirement (a bunch of us went to great lengths to properly caption the images on Muhammad, for instance) - as a matter of fact, based on the experience of all of the editors commenting here, I'd surmise that all of us understand that requirement, even if not specifically spelled out above in Bus stop's post. As for sources, I suspect, as everyone will recall, images must have sources when uploaded - so that too is covered. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  18:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is not sources for the captions when already assuming that the photo is really what it claims to be, but sources for the image/caption association (the caption says this is an image of John Doe, but how can this be verified?) These associations, if reliably sourced, are then subject to NPOV and due weight in their usage. Simply saying "you said something or other about captions, so I'll explain how much I like proper captions" isn't helpful. I doubt this issue is resolved because "images must have sources when uploaded", since, while is normally valid for copyright purposes, it is not an editorially reliable source. It's obvious that our understandings of what's a reliable source are quite different. This isn't in contravention of WP:OI, since original text likewise requires verification in RS. As thoroughly explained above, text is often not sufficient to verify the image/caption association. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The absence of this sort of (NSFW) image in reputable sources on cucumbers is most certainly a reason not to include this or similar images in cucumber. It's not up to us to depart markedly from illustration conventions in reliable sources, and to give preference to rare types of imagery over standard ones, even if they do depict the article subject. -- J  N  466  18:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia wants to be taken as something more than a Frat boy encyclopaedia, and wants to get taken seriously as a reference site (even if just for school projects) then posting things like Goatse has to go.
 * Additionally if you follow reliable sources that is a great way to avoid making large numbers of unnecessary arguments about whether a particular image is suitable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the reason not to use an image like that in the cucumber is because it doesn't do a good job of illustrating any part of the article. If we had an article or section on the use of vegetables as masturbatory aids, then it's possible it might be a good image to illustrate that page (but as we don't have such an article/section (as far as I know), and I don't know what other images are available, it isn't possible to say for sure).
 * If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as a reference site then it is best to use the images that best illustrate the topic in question. I'm not aware that we are viewed as a "Frat boy encyclopaedia" (but please give a reference to a reliable source if I'm wrong), nor that we normally have large numbers of unnecessary arguments about whether an image is suitable - we have over 3.8 million articles, and less than 5 examples have been cited on this page. I'm also not aware that, other than quickly reverted vandalism, we have any significant problem with using clearly inappropriate images to illustrate an article. An image of an erect penis is a suitable illustration for the penis article, it is not suitable for the Pokemon article, which is why we don't use such an image on that page. Equally, outside of vandalism, the Goastse image was never proposed for any article that didn't discus the Goatse image/website; so all this talk of "Goatse images must stop" is entirely a red herring - there is nothing to stop.
 * Regarding matching other reliable sources, this is always going to be inaccurate because you cannot prove a negative. If a reliable source uses an image, we can be sure that they determined it was appropriate for them to use. However if they didn't use an image, we cannot be sure why they didn't - perhaps they didn't have one available; maybe they determined that they could only use n images (either for the specific topic or for the whole work) for xyz reasons and that this image was the n+1th best; alternatively they didn't think it relevant for their target audience - e.g. if your audience is gynaecologists then you don't need to use a generic image to illustrate the concept of pregnancy, if your target audience is primary school-age Muslim girls in Pakistan your image choice is going to be different to if your target audience is a mixed class of A-level biology students in the United Kingdom). Maybe they did think the image was inappropriate for all reliable sources, perhaps they said "we'd love to use an image like this, but we can't afford the rights to it", or "We're not using this image because the publisher doesn't like it". We can never know the reason why an image is not included, and we can't know how many sources would have used an image if they could. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Following what RSes use mostly is fine for most articles. However, for topics which deal with subjects that are sensative to a given demographic will censor themselves. FE, most mainstream magazines or television programs won't show a picture or video of ejaculation. However, educational sources, especially sex education ones, will. If we simply go with the "majority" viewpoint we are going to be promoting a whitewashed version of reality because the majority of RSes in most cases are going to whitewash their information so as not to alienate or more likely cause bad press through controversy.
 * Furthermore, even we ignore that aspect, sources may not have images or video for technical reasons. First, video cannot exist in print media. It is physcially impossible with current technology to have a video appear on a piece of paper (sorry to say, this isn't the world of Harry Potter). For images, they use a lot of resources when transfering over the net therefore certain sites may decide for technical reasons to exclude them. On print that limit doesn't exist, but the costs of images still come with the cost of paper. If you want to give as much info as possible and have a limited amount of paper to do so, often using text is better. Wikipedia isn't made of paper though and except as a secondary consideration, doesn't consider page size. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  21:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a textbook WP:ACTIVIST violation. Per WP:NPOV, we simply do not decide that RS "censor themselves" or "the majority of RSes in most cases are going to whitewash their information", so we have to set things right. To quote the (in)famous sentence in WP:VER, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Wikipedia portrays the world as RS see it, not as you believe it is, or would like it to be. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alessandra. And since when did we say "follow mainstream sources" or "follow paper sources"?  The recommendation is to follow reliable sources, as in all the reliable sources, including online and specialty sources.  The alternative is to follow the personal opinions of whichever editors happen to be working on the page, and I really don't think that's our best method of choosing images.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't write articles which are parallels of other articles. We don't write articles that are congruent to other articles. Articles can be written with or without the inclusion of images. We are writing articles that do not exist elsewhere. We can choose to include an image where another article did not include an image. We make choices. We are not free to assert that which is not verifiable in reliable sources. But we are free to use our own means to convey accurate information. We can choose our own words and we can choose to include images or not to include images. If an editor disagrees that the inclusion of a given image contributes to conveying to a reader accurate information, that argument should be presented, and if a consensus of editors agrees—it should be removed. It would not matter if a source included the particular image or not. We are making editorial decisions. A consensus at Wikipedia determines if we include that image or not. We don't just include images if they are tenuously related to the subject of the article. We make editorial decisions. We may be responsible editors and we may be "Frat boys" as mentioned above. Every edit to an article is a choice. In trying to be responsible editors are we going to urge the inclusion of the cucumber-in-the-vagina image in our article titled Cucumber? The reason for not posting that image to that article is not that reliable sources on cucumbers do not include that image or related images, but rather because we are trying to create an encyclopedia and we have an idea of what sort of articles this project can produce. It is not inconceivable that the cucumber-in-the-vagina photo could be included in our "cucumber" article but we feel that in our judgement that its inclusion would not be warranted, and we can present cogent arguments to that effect on the relevant article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that approach is that we get editors that steadyfastily say "well, that doesn't offend me, so it must stay or you're breaking NOTCENSORED". This is what is creating the problem.  This is why we have to twist the problem on the side to point to the fact that we are not creating new factual information, which includes the novel approach of illustrating articles, and ask the question of what reliable sources actually use when discussing the topic in significant detail.  Thus, if an editor tries to introduce an illustration that takes an approach that no other RS has done in the past, we shouldn't be allowing that either.  I will admit there are probably fringe cases where IAR applies to this, but in general, this is a fair rule that works for most content. --M ASEM  (t) 23:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The only time that "that doesn't offend me, so it must stay or you're breaking NOTCENSORED" is a valid argument is to counter the removal of content because someone declares it "offensive", and even then it's not the best counter. What they should be saying is "Wikipedia is not censored, so being "offensive" is not a reason to remove content. If you think that this doesn't illustrate the topic, or you think there is a better image, then discuss it on the talk page". Just as being offensive to some people is not a valid reason to remove an image, not being offensive to someone is not a reason it must stay. If you want to argue for the removal of an image based on it's none-use in some reliable sources, then do so. However it is not a trump card, and other editors do not have to agree with you. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This mantra that I hear repeated ad nauseam "we don't care if content insults or offends readers" is getting old. Offensive does matter. It harms the project. Bus stop asserts we can leave controversial content choices to the instincts of whatever editors congregate around an article. It doesn't work. Goatse would still be illustrated with that offensive image if it had had the necessary license. Bus stop, no one's going to successfully argue a porno picture onto Cucumber, but there are too many cases where inappropriate content is allowed to stand, held in place by a conga line of frat boys chanting WP:NOT. Jayen's proposal is an elegant solution to a real problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thryduulf's comment about when and why we replace offensive images with less offensive ones should probably be added to WP:Offensive material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. The only time its brought up that someone has a problem is when its an indivisual basis where they object to it personally and refuse to listen to any legitimate arguments why it should say citing specifically that they find it objectionable and thus it should be removed. There are exceptions to that rule and I have seen long-standing images removed or replaced on occasion so its not like Wikipedians are completely daft about public opinion. It's more of a case that if you go to an article about ejaculation, you should have some expectation that you may come across an image that you find disturbing because the topic covers info that the is to a number of people disturbing to talk or think about. Going to cucumber on the other hand, someone doesn't have the expectation because while vegetables are used as sexual objects, its not for most people the first idea that comes to mind in most cases and even if it did come to mind as a thought in your mind, most people would still not expect the article to go into depth about such things. If they went to another article about vegetables used as sexual devices, that might be different because there is a different level of expectation.
 * That said, I know there are a lot of terms out there for sex, violence, etc. that people don't know and may see a wikilink to the term and are not sure based on the context what it is, but be curious enough to check it. That's why we should perhaps treat the lead sections with a bit more caution when having controversial images there so as to not offend someone who did not intentionally go to the link simply because they wanted some clarification. While the image or video would do that quite well, possibly better than text, it one doesn't need to have to have the controversial material always in the lead. However, guidance like that is not for WP:NOTCENSORED, but for WP:LEAD and WP:PROFANE. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  02:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@Anthony: Your position seems to be that we should adopt an approach more inclined to censor precisely because the consensus of editors is opposed to that. You're entitled to your opinion, but can you see how that might look like a weak way to frame your argument? --FormerIP (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, my position is we should treat controversial content the way reliable sources and similar publications do. I honestly don't know what the community as a whole thinks about that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Editorial standards are based on community consensus and not from reliable sources, so you should familiarize yourself with what the community wants. We did not base The Five Pillars of our encyclopedia off of what RS's do. Wikipedians by and large do not believe in censorship, and the argument that because other sources believe in censorship that we must also is a run around of consensus because no part of any of our policies agree with such a position. If you want to run a poll which states "If sources are censoring material then we should to" then go ahead, but it will have an infinitesimal chance of passing.AerobicFox (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Some very popular reliable sources, particularly from the Murdoch stable, feature Page Three girls. A link from that article takes me to The Sexiest 100 Page 3 girls. Breasts and nipples everywhere! I suspect these would be unacceptable in conservative parts of the USA, but are obviously OK in the UK and other countries where they exist. It's impossible to declare a clear, single community standard on this stuff. Do the conservatives really want to ban from Wikipedia material that is commonly published in the daily press? HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The type of works that feature Page Three girls are likely not reliable sources to use for material. --M ASEM  (t) 04:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Murdoch outlets are usually excellent sources for sports news. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And more importantly, are they publishing semi-nude girls alongside articles on topics of interest for WP?  It's one thing if there are questionable images that appear within a larger published work, but we're talking about images used in conjunction with actually article content. --M ASEM  (t) 04:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems as though your opinion is that if a source has an editorial staff known for fact checking publishes explicit photos then they are not reliable. Am I getting this right? This almost seems like No true RS would publish explicit content so I will try to pass a policy saying to follow RS's, and if a source does post explicit content then it isn't a true RS.AerobicFox (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too generous with ascribing "editorial staff known for fact checking" to Murdoch's operations generally. This describes The Economist, Der Speigel, The New Yorker, and so forth. The Sun, not so much, and I don't think applying Murdochian standards to our articles would probably be a good way to go. Other than that, not sure what the point is? Obviously there will always be people like Murdoch, but what has that do with reliable sources or, really, anything? Herostratus (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Murdoch outlets are usually excellent sources for sports news. They are frequently used as such in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What the hell does Murdock have to do with anything? I am responding to this "The type of works that feature Page Three girls are likely not reliable sources to use for material.", a generalized comment stating that works with topless models are likely not reliableAerobicFox (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is slightly off topic, but a work that purports to be serious but publishes nude photos for tantalization only is hard to take seriously in any other aspect; not always unusable, but throws a lot of discreditation to the publication as a whole and would be the type I'd replace with more reliable sources if I could. On topic: again, they aren't publishing page three nude photos inside an article about the latest World Cup match, ergo, the fact that a nude photo is in the larger volume makes absolutely no impact on the discussion on whether what we should illustrate the World Cup match (or other tied topics) with.  In other words, when assessing the types of images that available sources employ for the World Cup match, the page three nudes would not even be part of the body of work to consider since they're not part of the article.  --M ASEM  (t) 14:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "a work that purports to be serious but publishes nude photos for tantalization only is hard to take seriously in any other aspect" in other words, "if it publishes things I don't like it isn't a reliable source" which when combined with your insistence only doing what reliable sources do is a brilliant way to enforce your POV on the encyclopaedia. Reliable sources are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.", regardless of whether you like what they publish or not. Remember that WP:NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" which is why WP:NOTCENSORED exists - the two concepts are inseparable. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a question of the bias and independence of the source, putting its reliability into question, if they're throwing such images simply to tantilate, even if unrelated to all other content in the work, into the larger publication.  This is what is begging the question here on WP: how can people take this work seriously if we're using images of questionable nature when less objectionable but of equivalent educational value exist?  Note that I did not say we never can use such sources that have such images elsewhere in the publication body, just that I would try to find something else first if I can (like, if you are talking sporting events, that's certainly going to be published in a less questionable work.) --M ASEM  (t) 16:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Our priorities are firstly providing info and secondly being taken seriously. If a source has a known reputation for fact checking then it is reliable, your argument that "if they place nude pics to tantalize then despite this they aren't reliable" will do nothing but open the door for "they publish(what I consider) to be inflammatory/incendiary material, so they aren't reliable" or "they publish XXX which I don't like and think is unprofessional, so they aren't reliable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AerobicFox (talk • contribs)
 * I never said I didn't like it. I do think, however, when you are publishing certain things like that, or headlines and news stories specifically for the spectacle and not the intrinsic news value, you bring into question whether you are seriously fact-checking everything you publish (eg twisting perspectives to gain the largest audience) and are not a source that cannot be taken professionally, even if every other news item could fully meet all other requirements for WP.  --M ASEM  (t) 18:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * AerobicFox, you say that we didn't derive the 5 pillars from reliable sources. That is true. However, the second pillar ties us to reputable sources. It asks us to present information in due proportion to its prominence in the best and most reputable sources, rather than allowing us to make things up as we go along. And the community consensus is that this is how it should be. -- J  N  466  17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Community consensus is as you have stated "to present information in due proportion to its prominence in the best and most reputable sources", it is not as you are otherwise basically claiming "to attach WEIGHT to the presentation and style of reliable sources". What you are arguing is essentially to merge WP:MOS with WP:WEIGHT which no matter what subject you are dealing with, citation styles, etc, will never be passed because it's on its face a huge and unrealistic burden.AerobicFox (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@FormerIP. Elaborating on my earlier response. You equate exercising good taste with censorship. They're different. One is motivated by concern not to offend and disaffect our readers, the other is motivated by a belief that others haven't the right to see or read certain material. Most of us are opposed to the latter, censorship. And most of us are opposed to creating unnecessary offense. This is a dispute between editors who see the difference and those who can't. Who'll win the day? I don't know. But I sense the time has come to challenge the mantra "we don't care if we offend our readers." I certainly care. This is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in anarchy or a platform for activists. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What I'm seeing is that we're trying to address three different cases at one time:
 * Case 1 is where a clear minority of editors insist that an image that is offensive to the large majority of editors shouldn't be removed because otherwise we're violating NOTCENSORED. This is where NOTCENSORED can be improved by pointing to sources: if the minority assert that such images are appropriate but no reliable source ever uses that type of image, we shouldn't be using it either.  That's not censoring, that's avoiding original research.  (As well as concensus).  We should add language to NOTCENSORED to make it clear that it doesn't protect the fringe cases like this.
 * Case 2 is where a clear minority of editors insist that an image is offensive to them or some group they asset, and that we should remove it. This is specifically what NOTCENSORED addresses presently - we don't remove content because it is offensive to a small group. No changes are needed here.
 * Case 3 is the one that falls between the extremes: a significant fraction (not a small minority) of editors recognizes something is offensive to them or to a group of readers; or a significant fraction recognizes that such offensive imagery is really okay, showing that such imagery is used in reliable sources. In such cases, there are clearly no simple rules; my argument to improving NOTCENSORED wording is that if reliable sources use such imagery on a regular basis, then WP editors can chose to the do same; at that point, it is debate for consensus to determine which imagery is best to use assuming that all choices are of equivalent educational value.  My only personal cavaet is that we should be smart and possess enough common sense that when there are two or more equally appropriate choices with one that may be more offensive than the other to use the less offensive version.  But that's what I would do; there is no policy that can require this beyond the Foundation's request to avoid shocking the reader.
 * But again, this still all comes down to making sure we are following the footprints of what the bulk of reliable sources have done before to maintain ourselves as a tertiary source. --M ASEM (t) 16:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, Masem there may be technical reasons sources don't use images (and moreso audio and video). Your proposal does not in any way take this valid point into consideration. It assumes there will always be (outside FRINGE), some non-textual representation. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  17:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no dearth of illustrated sources on ejaculation, sexual intercourse, pregnancy, Muhammad, the holocaust, Gaddafi's death, gangrene, suicide, body painting or most other topics that might result in a discussion of how due a particular type of image is. Where there is a genuine dearth of illustrated sources, we could go one level up and conform to standards for topics in the same general content area. (On the other hand, a genuine dearth of sources may also indicate that the topic is not notable). Also note that we are generally able to cite TV programmes, videos on news websites, documentary films etc. -- J N  466  17:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I recognize this is a case but would be very hard pressed to think of how it can actually occur. But let's assume it does, that while there's a large body of RS on a topic, none of them had the technical ability to include visual guides. In such as case, I would then say to look at what the sources that can include pictures on a closely related topic would incorporate.  It would not be OR to create new imagery for topic X based on the types of imagery for topics near X. If it so happens that all closely related topics to X are in the same boat, that no sources had the technical capability to include sources, we then just need to rely on common sense of what to use.  But I'm pretty confident of these being extremely rare cases where that may happen. --M ASEM  (t) 17:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well here is a question then just to throw out a what if; How many people would need to find something objectionable before we take their point of view and apply it? In my own opinion this shouldn't matter but we keep coming back to the if enough people find it offensive argument.  I don't think we can assign a number, as doing so smaller groups (one's around the target number but not over it) will complain of discrimination while larger groups can insist on radical changes through strength in numbers.  For example in most muslim countries it is customary for women to wear full coverings, do we plan to cater to that expectation as well?  For those that can't draw the similarity in the argument remeber this group would be considered large enough to cater to on articles like the Muhammad page. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Other than "more than 1 person" its probably impossible to nail down a number because it depends on the article. That's why I suggested rewiting WP:PROFANE instead (in addition to WP:LEAD). ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  22:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the beauty if this proposal: if we follow what reliable sources do, we don't need to decide who to avoid offending. If most articles on Jesus don't illustrate with Piss Christ, then we don't. If most articles on Muhammad don't have lots of Islamic figurative depictions, we don't. If most reliable sources on Saudi Arabia don't have the naked face of a woman on the cover, we don't put one in the lead of Saudi Arabia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I still don't go for that idea personally. Most sources cater to specific groups, and thus will censor things for them.  I guarentee if I look up an article for saudi arabia I can find precedence for veils and hijabs on women.  Again it comes down to is this group large enough to force the rest of the people in the world to adhere to its own beliefs?  That is why I continue to believe that everyone should be ignored if you make a project beholden to a group for any reason they have a stick to beat you with forever more. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposal is precisely about not becoming beholden to any extremist group, on either side. We simply follow the sources, which is our modus operandi already. We are already beholden to sources, intentionally so. -- J N  466  17:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If a topic is only covered by a certain set of sources, with a readily-known self-censoring on certain types of images, then we still can only follow what those sources say because we have no idea how the rest of the world would treat the topic. But when the topic is broadly covered by more than just that self-censored, even if the topic "belongs" to that group, then we can look at the other sources to see what type of imagery is used, and then consider what the best approach is. --M ASEM  (t) 17:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is inherently unworkable, puts an unreasonable onus on the article editors, and overall comes across as an attempt to get the image-censoring movement a victory by technicality. An encyclopedia is not a copy service, we're not just trawling through other sources and duplicating what we find there.  The project should be free to use or not use images according to our own existing policies and guidelines to determine appropriateness.  This extra condition of "how other sources use images" is a bad proposal. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because it is the path of least resistance doesn't make it right. As it is now most individuals (using the muhammad article as an example) are willing to work with people if they have genuine concerns as long as they aren't about offense.  We could stand to have more images of his calligraphy as long as they add something new to the mix.  However to decide to remove all portraits is considerably about appeasing a group because it is their end want.  On the argument for several images ground has already been broken on probable removal because they aren't helping the article and they certainly shouldn't take up space just because (we have too many images as is.) All of the removal considerations are based on merit and what they provide, not because someone is offended. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy
Is the intention of the section Wikipedia is not a democracy to convey the idea that consensus polls are not desirable for helping to make decisions about content in Wikipedia, and that this idea is supported by the link in that section, " not an experiment in democracy "? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority", period. However, a straw poll might reveal the simple but comparatively rare case where there are no arguments against an issue. Uniplex (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, but it didn't directly address my question regarding "not desirable" and the support from the link. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That "Wikipedia is not a democracy" is strongly supported by the link; the reason why: that polls tend to impede determination of consensus (by directing attention towards personal opinion and away from discussion viewed through the lens etc.) is not directly supported by the link. Uniplex (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the link really making a comment on polls or on whether or not Wikipedia is a democracy? It said, "Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in Internet democracy" and "We *are* a grand social experiment of course. But not _primarily_." Here's what is at the link for reference.


 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. It looks like the link is implying that Wikipedia is a democracy, but that it is not primarily an experiment in democracy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I very strongly oppose this appeal to Jimbo's authority. Setting all other considerations aside, he does not say we are an experiment in democracy. We aren't; we are an experiment in consensus. Polls can demonstrate consensus; they can also demonstrate absense of consensus. When the latter, usual, case exists, they tend to delay the discussion that actually produces consensus. For much, much more, see the guideline WP:VOTE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Re "I very strongly oppose this appeal to Jimbo's authority." - There is currently in the "...not a democracy" section of this policy the above mentioned link to Jimbo's comment. Are you suggesting that the link be removed?
 * If so, are you suggesting its removal because it just became apparent that Jimbo's comment has been misinterpreted in this policy? In any case, the misinterpretation of Jimbo's comment should be corrected, either by removing the link or correcting the misinterpretation.
 * 2) Re "he does not say we are an experiment in democracy" - Actually he does seem to imply that. He enthusiastically quotes David Gerard who said, "Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in Internet democracy. It's a project to write an encyclopedia." Jimbo adds, "We *are* a grand social experiment of course.  But not _primarily_." In these comments Jimbo neither says that Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor does he say that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. What he does say is that Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in democracy.  The policy is misinterpreting Jimbo's comment.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's (your interpretation) pretty much my reading of the Jimbo quote. I agree with him and David Gerard on that point, too. It is a grand social experiment. I think the impact of Wikipedia, thanks to its practical epistemology, is comparable in importance to the invention of moveable type; but this incidental thing, its unique, uber-transparent form of self-governance, may turn out to be its greatest contribution to civilisation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's note is the reason that the phrasing "not primarily an experiment" is in there at all. I would have said, before reading Anthony Cole's note, that this could stand simply as consensus. If I were Jimbo, I would remove it; he has often objected to his comments being treated as revelation. As myself, I might make it a footnote, as the history of the idea; but I don't feel strongly about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You've misquoted policy regarding the phrase. Please reread it. Also, it's a matter of Jimbo's comment being misinterpreted by the policy section, as I mentioned in my last message. Jimbo's message is being misinterpreted to support the ideas of that policy section, which it doesn't when it isn't misinterpreted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the link but kept the phrase so that the text is unchanged. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

From above, Jimbo says “it's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy”; i.e. he does say that The policy says: Where's the problem? Uniplex (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy.
 * “Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy”.
 * Uniplex, You've misquoted the message. Please read it again. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have done, but I still can't see the problem. Copied and pasted from Jimbo's post above: The new organization will give everyone a piece of paper explaining: it's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy. Uniplex (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Uniplex, You’re right. My mistake. Somehow I overlooked that part of the message. I have undone my edit on the project page. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
I think mediation is the right answer here. Supposedly 100,000 words have been split over Muhammad, therefore the current discussion process clearly isn't producing sensible results. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've suggested mediation multiple times on different pages; no one on the other side wants to do it. Mediation doesn't work unless all sides enter into it in good faith.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should at least have a serious attempt at formal mediation. If people refuse to walk away from the debate or to engage with some sort of mediation process then that becomes a conduct issue which can be addressed by Arbcom.
 * I think it is worth waiting until the RFC is closed which gives people a chance to consider their options of this. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus is clear enough on the matter, 3-4 holdouts doesn't get to squat and demand that they be met halfway, when what they demand is so ludicrously out of proportion with the goal of the project; to inform without fear of censorship. Tarc (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I rarely agree with Tarc, but I've got to say this whole process has gotten out of hand.  Please accept there is no consensus for these changes--NOTCENSORED, as written, has the backing of the community and at this point further attempts by the same folks to change it are likely disruptive. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Put this issue to bed, trying to invoke more processes wont get around the clear consensus. Medcom cannot overrule a widely advertised, high participation RFC even if they wanted to. Monty  845  02:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mediation would be a waste of everybody's time. The only issue is that a half-handful of editors refusing to listen to things they don't want to hear (and in at least one case having repeatedly failed to hear on every single occasion for several years) and it would be seriously unlikely for them to start listening now. Thryduulf (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, there is no consensus here, and constantly whining that there is isn't doing anyone one damned bit of good. I swear, you guys really can't argue a point worth beans.  Quit with the mindless grandstanding and talk like reasonable people.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Lugdwigs2, most of us have been. Mediation isn't an option here: no mediator is going to be able to unilaterally change WP:NOT, nor could they agree to do so. What needs to happen is for the people proposing a change to recognize that there is no consensus for the change they have proposed, and its extremely unlikely that any variation of what they are proposing will gain consensus. Continuing to argue for the change when it is obvious that point has been reached is simply tendentious editing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By contrast, Kww, I think what needs to happen here is for the people opposing any change to recognize that they are doing damage to the core principles of the project: to wp:NPOV, to the wp:5P, to foundation principles and resolutions, and to the ability to write an accessible, usable, reader-friendly encyclopedia. Or are you suggesting that some purported consensus amongst a limited number of 'advocates for controversy' can overturn the core purpose of the project?  What's happening here is that you and the other opponents are (in a noble but misguided battle against what you perceive as censorship) making articles actively hostile to significant portions of our readership, without any meaningful justification for doing so.  That is simply wrong.


 * I mean seriously: you even recognize that these images create a hostile atmosphere, and yet your response to that seems to be to suggest that readers who are upset by such things are stupid and/or evil. Please buy a mirror and click this link.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I and many others feel the core principles are being upheld by preserving knowledge in the face of censorship. What is becoming clear here is that this is a fundamental wiki-philosophical divide that you simply do not have the numbers to overcome.  Sooner or later, disputes here to boil down to a "how many support X" vs "how many support !X".  You're on the short end of the stick, L. Tarc (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not once have I used the words "stupid" or "evil", nor have I said that any group of people can't object to things. Everyone is free to voice secular objections on any topic, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, and we should pay attention to them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Kww: I don't remember if you've ever used those particular words, so I'll nod to your first statement. But in fact, your second statement is absolutely false from your own perspective.  The essence of NOTCENSORED (as you defend it) is to preclude discussion.  NOTCENSORED is used by you and others to say - simply put - that certain perspectives will not under any circumstances even be considered.  On Muhammad, where I repeatedly make the 'entirely secular sociological claim' that the typical depiction of Muhammad is an abstract image, you and others tell me I'm making a religious claim and invoke NC.  On Pregnancy, where I make the purely sociological claim that most people do not expect (and prefer not) to see gratuitous nudity, editors tell me that I am making an 'offense' claim and invoke NC.  It is impossible to voice any opinion against any controversial image, because editors like you will assert that any opposition to the image must perforce be about offense.  It's a little policy black hole that sucks the life out of any conversation about controversial images; a vapid bit of self-fulfilling, self-serving, circular reasoning.  The way it is use in cases like this, it's useless, confrontational, and destructive to the project on multiple fronts, which is why it needs to be revised.


 * @Tarc: I understand that you believe are doing important work battling censorship. I'll even do you the grace of suggesting that your heart is in the right place, and on some articles what you do is useful.  However, on the kinds of pages we're considering here you've turned into POV-warriors, battling censorship that doesn't actually exist and going to such lengths to overcome some perceived threat of bias that you start imposing a bias in the opposite direction.  I don't object to what you do in principle; I object to the utter failure of common sense and common courtesy that leads you to such ridiculous extremes of combativeness.  Do you understand me?  -- Ludwigs 2  05:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

3-4 holdouts. 4 serious? If you look at the RFC there are only 60% in favour of doing nothing. Hardly a strong majority - especially given the refusal to compromise at all to give the minority any ground. And the Muhammad discussion appears to have been ongoing for years. While you personally not want to have mediatin here I cannot think of a reason beyond playing site politics. If mediation isn't taken seriously I will take the case to Arbcom. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For God's sake will you stop counting votes! Numbers are irrelevant. The quality of argument is ALL that matters. And threatening posts ("...I will take the case to Arbcom", etc) are not quality posts. HiLo48 (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And exactly what could a mediator do when there's no consensus to change the policy? It wouldn't matter what side the mediator took in the dispute, he wouldn't be able to direct a policy change, and mediators haven't got the power to deal with editors that refuse to back down from a losing argument. Do you really believe Ludwigs2 will ever stop arguing for this obviously lost cause? Arbcom arguably could at least do something about that, but even they can't change a policy without consensus.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs already tried Arbcom a few weeks ago and got unanimously denied, so I'd advise against that route. You and he have made proposals that have failed to gain consensus, there's really nothing else to do at this point other than to drop it as a failed/rejected proposal and find something else to work on. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, Kww, Tarc, HiLo, this is what is so unpleasant about discussing things with you. You simply refuse to listen.  it doesn't matter what we say or what we do, you simply ignore it and repeat what you said earlier.  It's like talking to bots. Every time I make a decent point (as I did four or five paras above) you go back to spouting the same old nonsense as though I hadn't said anything.


 * I'm sorry, but you cannot hold this page hostage via IDHT forever. We are making reasonable arguments, and we will continue to make them until they get a fair hearing, and if you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to hear us, then this issue is simply going to continue indefinitely.  As HiLo says, consensus isn't about numbers, it's about arguments, and you guys don't really have any arguments in your corner.  So stop being stubborn and think things through please.  thanks.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Repeating the same things all the time is actually what distinguishes them from ELIZA. Hans Adler 18:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We hold nothing hostage: you and Hans are fundamentally wrong: that is why your arguments are ineffective. I listen to them, consider them, and reject them. Making a large number of diverse, but fundamentally incorrect, statements does nothing to increase their validity. You continuously argue that the religious perspectives have applicability to our editorial policy, and wish to change this policy to bolster that position. If you come up with language that specifically excludes religious offense, I'll consider it, but until you do, your proposed changes are unacceptable.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kww: 'fundamentally wrong' how??? perhaps you listen to, consider, and reject our arguments entirely inside your own head, but outwardly you show no sign of it: your outward behavior is indistinguishable from IDHT.  Objectively, all I can say for sure is that you have a some kind of personal problem with religion, but you don't explain what that problem is or why you think it's important.  You merely treat it as a (pardon the pun) God-given fact, and get angry and self-righteous when people question it.


 * So, brass tacks: we can explain (and have done so at length) why you're position is fundamentally wrong, and I'll do it again if you like. can you explain why you think we're fundamentally wrong?  Because if you can't, then you are nothing more than another IDONTLIKEIT junkie on a bender.  So explain yourself, or admit that you can't.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are fundamentally wrong because your argument is based on examining concerns that have no relevance to a secular project. Religious concerns cannot be weighed, allocated, and balanced in the same way that other views are, because holders of religious beliefs are not concerned with whether these beliefs have any factual support. Such things are incompatible with building an encyclopedia.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kww: that is poor reasoning on at least three counts:
 * Irrelevance: None of the images under consideration are 'factual' in any meaningful sense of the term. 'factual' images (images which uncontroversially accurate and representative) are a far stronger case; we are talking about images that are of questionable value.
 * Failure to define: you have failed to define what you mean by a 'secular project', and failed to explain in what way Wikipedia is secular. That's not anywhere in policy that I can see.  If we use the most conventional definition of secular then your point is simply wrong.  Obviously we can include religious opinions in secular work, so long as they are properly framed as beliefs peculiar to a particular group - that's explained unambiguously in NPOV.  If you are using an idiosyncratic definition of 'secular' then you need to explain what you mean by it.
 * Unproven assumption: Why do you think that religious beliefs cannot be weighed, allocated, and balanced like other topics? obviously, some of the more outlandish religious beliefs (like creationism) don't carry much weight in certain venues, but they can certainly be weighed and balanced.  In fact, the problem here is not that these kinds of things can't be weighed; the problem is that editors like you and Tarc refuse to allow them to be weighed.  Clearly this is what happened on the Muhammad article: reliable sourcing is heavily weighted against lifelike depictions of the prophet, but editors there consistently use NOTCENSORED to prevent the article from conforming to the proportional representation present in sources.
 * I can only assume that in that last point you are thinking about topics like creationism (where politically driven advocates are trying to attack good science with bad science). I can't argue with that, but there is no issue of science or factuality here, there's just the editorial preferences of a handful of wikipedia editors and the earnestly held beliefs of a sizable segment of our readership.  I think we both know that if it's a choice between following whims we should follow the whims of our readership, not our editors.


 * In short, you haven't really explained anything. You've made an unexplained (and suspect) claim about secularism, and then unjustifiably asserted that we can't weigh and balance religious viewpoints because of some inapplicable concerns over factualism.  Now I'm willing to allow that I might have misinterpreted your position, so can you address these seeming failures of reason?  Or have I actually pegged what's wrong with your argument?  -- Ludwigs 2  21:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Ludwigs, I have been hearing you for over a month now, but I am diametrically opposed to your opinion on the matter.  Disagreement does not mean that one does not hear or understand the argument made, so please stop beating the deadhorse of WP:IDHT, as it is inapplicable here.  You're convinced that you're right.  I get that. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Tarc, I can give reasons for why my position is correct. you can't.  That's the difference between reasonable discussion and IDHT.  So I'll issue you the same challenge as I gave to Kww above: make your case, or give it up.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You would be a lot more convincing if you actually did give reasons and evidence for your position instead of your opinions. Other users here have consistently responded to your positions only to get thoughtless dismissals from you. I would suggest focusing on the topic in your posts instead of always commenting on other users and then claiming they haven't responded to you.AerobicFox (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, you have made countless repetitions of very similar statements over the months and years as to why you believe your position is correct. On every single occasion, a consensus of editors has rejected them, and normally it's a different set of editors each time which should tell you something. Tarc has also, on many occasions, explained the reasons why he holds his position, and the reasons why he rejects your position. The difference is that his reasons are support by policy, practice and a consensus of editors. If there is any evidence of "I didn't hear that" it's coming from you - I've lost count of the number of times and number of ways you've been told that your interpretation of policy has been rejected by the community, and that your proposals to change the policy to match your interpretation have been rejected by the community. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs, I gave reason for my position a month ago, but I will repeat it for your benefit; the importance of providing information to the reader outweighs a concern of "offense". Be it conservative prudery or religious fundamentalism, it simply does not matter.  Since I have explained myself ad nauseam, and you are absolutely unable to affect change to WP:NOT policy by continuing this current thread, so I think I will bow out until/unless a new tangent crops up. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thryduulf: your argument seems to be that I should sacrifice good reasoning for bad, just because a lot of people use bad reasoning. And I defy you to find a diff of Tarc actually explaining his position; Most of the time he's doing what you're doing - telling me that consensus is against me so I should just shut up.  ad populum is not an argument, at least not one that I give a fuck about.


 * Aerobic: I've given my reasons about a half a jillion times already, but for your benefit I'll do it once more:
 * As a project, wikipedia should not offend the beliefs, sensibilities, or mores of our readership without due cause.
 * Doing so makes the project look biased, damages its reputation, and creates an overabundance of talk page hostility.
 * This principle has been upheld for article text in various policies: wp:NPOV and wp:BLP for the most notable.
 * While 'due cause' is certainly subject to discussion, NOTCENSORED creates a class of images which have immunity from all discussion, so that no cause can ever be sufficient to remove them.
 * This creates a loophole where editors can create unencyclopedic articles by pushing unnecessary but controversial images into the article and locking them there with NOTCENSORED.
 * Therefore, NOTCENSORED needs to be revised to preclude its use for controversial images except where there is clear due cause for using a controversial image. This would shift the burden: Editors who want to use the images need to show that the images add enough value to the article to offset the detrimental side-effects of using them.
 * It's sheer common sense, really: Editors on most pages do this kind of nuanced balancing as a matter of course without issue. But on particularly controversial topics there are always a few editors that start using NOTCENSORED in a deliberately aggressive and uncritical manner just to beat down the opposition.  It's that noxious use of NOTCENSORED that's damaging, and that needs to be removed as an option.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Tarc: Your second statement doesn't follow from your first. Yes, as you put it "the importance of providing information to the reader outweighs a concern of offense".  But not all additions are equally informative (or even informative at all), and trivial material shouldn't outweigh anything; certainly not be used as a justification for offending long-established and earnestly-held beliefs and mores.  You see the world in black and white, with you against the hordes of prudes and fundamentalists; that's a ridiculous, unsupportable view of the world.  Many people who are not prudes do not want to see gratuitous nudity, and many people who are not fundamentalists do not want to see their religious beliefs violated for no cause.  Is that the best argument you have to offer?  -- Ludwigs 2  22:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, and it is all that is really needed to thwart your push against "offensive" imagery. Now, that really is my last word.  Take care. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL - then you might as well go away. remember, consensus is about having the better argument -one more consistent with policy and logic - and your argument  is as weak and hole-ridden as swiss cheese on a hot summer day.  it's just plain silly.  I mean, I get that you have strong personal feelings about this, but feelings alone are not sufficient to support your perspective.


 * I swear… -- Ludwigs 2 22:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So, I think that's disposed of Tarc: He's made it clear that his position is not even intended to be rational, so we can safely dismiss it. Kww: do you have a response? Aerobic Fox? Can anyone here make a decently rational argument against my position, or are you all just going to hunker down in unreasoning resistance the way Tarc has? -- Ludwigs 2 23:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The rational reasons have been explained to you time and again. Namely: Wikipedia operates on a principle of NPOV. It is impossible to define "offensive" in a way that is compatible with NPOV. It is not possible to censor in a way that is compatible with NPOV, and no matter how you want to try an spin it removing images that offend one or more people because they offend people is censorship, in fact it's the whole point of censorship. So, given that censorship is impossible to do and remain neutral, the only possible way an encyclopaedia can be NPOV is to be uncensored. Given that we are not censored, we do not censor or filter things, or make image or other choices based on what might or might not offend people. It's as simple as that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well other than a new tangent popping up I had planned to bow out of this, but I guess I should have added a "unless someone says something so patently absurd" qualifier as well. My dear Ludwigs, this isn't Skyrim or WoW; your repetitive arguments have not vanquished me from the field, if that is how you view all this, perhaps it is time to reopen the An/I report.  If you'd rather avoid that, then please calm down and drop out of the warrior stance.  I am quite content with my position that the Wikipedia should remain free of ideological and religious censorship, that nether can or should be used as a basis for removal of any content, visual or otherwise.  I do sympathize with the frustrations of being on the unsuccessful side of a project proposal; not everything I have advocated for here over the years has prevailed, y'know.  But there comes a point in time where being passionate about one's beliefs crosses a line into bitter tendentiousness, and I think this topic has reached that point.  Sometimes people just have to man up and move on. Tarc (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Tarc:either you're making a rational argument or you're not, and if you're not then you opinion is not all that useful. Currently, you are not making a rational argument.  You can continue to offer up that silly reasoning you mentioned above till the end of the world arrives for all I care, and I will continue to point out that it is not a credible or sensible argument: how much fun will that be!  I don't disagree with your desire to keep Wikipedia free of ideological and religious censorship, I simply disagree with the irrational and hyperbolic argument you are making in this particular case.  clue in to what I say, Tarc; don't fly away on your own assumptions.


 * You may go on back to ANI if you like. If there is any reason for me to participate I will tell them exactly what I am telling you: that you are stubbornly refusing to engage in credible rational discussion, and simply clogging up the page with endless repetitions of defunct reasoning and threats of administrative action.  we'll see how that goes.


 * Thryduulf, sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. we don't need to 'define' things in terms of NPOV (I really have no idea what you are trying to suggest with that phrase), we use NPOV to balance different viewpoints. Offense is a viewpoint; it may have more weight or less, depending on the context, but there's no provision in NPOV for saying that some perspectives get ignored because we don't happen to like them.  Further, not every editorial act is an act of censorship.  Like Tarc, you've created this extremely black-and-white worldview in which every discussion about a controversial image is intrinsically some kind of fanatical censorship to be crushed, and I am trying to point out to you that what you are crushing in not censorship but the consensus process itself.  We should be able to discuss controversial images through normal consensus processes, and we cannot do that so long as editors slam that 'not censored' door in the face of even the most reasonable discussion.


 * Wikipedia is not censored, yes. but that does not mean that we are forbidden to make editorial choices about images.  NOTCENSORED does not imply the principle of maximum offensiveness (where we must use offensive images just to prove to people that we're not censored).  again, common sense is the key here: We simply need to evaluate the positive contributions of images against their negative impacts so that we can - again - reach a rational decision about what images to use.    -- Ludwigs 2  00:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a response, yes, but it isn't much different: from all external evidence, you willfully misunderstand what I say, which makes trying different phrasing tedious. So first, a question: do you recognize the difference between providing neutral coverage of a religious belief and taking recognition of that same religious belief when making editorial decisions?&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kww: sorry, I really am trying to work this out, so I'm not meaning to misinterpret. To answer your question, yes: I understand the difference (though I suspect I understand it differently than you).  Which do you want to discuss first, or do you have a different direction to take this? -- Ludwigs 2  00:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So, given that you understand the difference, do you agree that it would be possible to create articles that provided perfectly neutral coverage of religious topics without taking recognition of religious beliefs in in making editorial decisions?&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding "either you're making a rational argument or you're not", I feel that I am, and my argument is largely echoed by many others. Your take on the value/merit of my argument is not an opinion I value in the slightest at this point, to be honest.  A consensus exists, right now, for my general outlook on what "not censored" protects.  You have made proposals.  Those proposals HAVE BEEN REJECTED.  There is absolutely nothing you can do about that at this time. Tarc (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Tarc, feel what you like: when I can dispose of your argument as easily as I did, then you are clearly not making a credible argument, and it doesn't matter how strongly you feel about it or how many people agree with you. Remember, lots and lots and LOTS of people agree passionately with the logic of creationism, but that doesn't make creationism a reasonable viewpoint. You've manufactured a ridiculously exaggerated worldview in which religion=fanaticism and discretion=prudery, and all of your argumentation rely on that exaggerated worldview being true, when it's not even remotely realistic.  You are free to continue to believe in it (just as people are free to continue believing in creationism), but you lose the right to insist that other people believe it because you've strayed so far from the realm of common sense and common experience.  A consensus based on nonsense of this magnitude is not the kind of consensus that the project is looking for.


 * And there is something I can do about it: I can continue to try to explain it so that people understand what I am talking about. it's a long, slow, grinding process, but there's no other way to make these kinds of changes then to keep at it until either I convince enough people I'm right or someone says something clever enough to convince me that I'm wrong.  What you've argued is not even close to clever enough.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course the numbers aren't the only thing in the world, but you guys can hardly seriously claim to have won the argument fully on policy, its not as if the points against you are utterly clearly refuted by any stretch of the imagination, and its not as if you guys have won all the arguments (e.g. there is still no serious coherent argument in favour of the images at pregnancy). Therefore for a first approximation counting the numbers is perfectly sensible. If you guys don't want to engage in formal mediation on the images at Muhammad and Pregnancy suggest a serious dispute resolution step we can take instead I'm perfectly happy to follow it.

If you guys refuse to engage in dispute resolution then that is a conduct issue rather than a content issue which the arbitration committee is perfectly prepared to engage with. Of note the issues which caused the decline by the arbitration committee before were the lack of completion of an RFC and that it was a content issue rather than a conduct issue.

For what its worth I have zero intention in taking this matter to ANI. ANI isn't good for anything, and 100k words is way beyond ANI's scope anyhow. Obviously you guys are perfectly entitled to walk away if you don't want to engage with dispute resolution. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And that is obviously the only way you will get the change you want - forum shop the hell out of these discussions until everyone else gets tired of dealing with it and gives up. So far this nonsense has been at the Muhammad and Pregnancy talk pages, ANI at least twice (probably more), Jimbo's talk page, A WQA report designed to silence an opponent, VPP (several months ago), and here.  Have I missed anything else?  How many times must you fail to achieve the consensus you want before this charade is put to an end? Resolute 03:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, I've only been involved in this discussion here and arguably at the arbitration case request page. Its not forum shopping to attempt to escalate a dispute that has been going on for 4 years and that has about 600k words spilt on it on the Muhammad images talk pages alone.
 * Before that I made one set of comments once on the Muhammad images page over a year ago. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC-related PROPOSAL: Add WP:ASTONISH to the hatnote and call it a day
This is related to the RfC a few sections up. If this proposal is adopted it may moot most of the issues raised in that RfC.

Adding WP:ASTONISH to the hatnote will make it clear that, while Wikipedia is not censored, it is not a place to deliberately put more-shocking photographs when less-shocking photographs will have identical encyclopedic value. If there is an editorial dispute over whether a particular controversial photo adds value over a less controversial substitute, well, that's what the article's talk page is for.

Basically, adding the hatnote makes the guideline clearly say:
 * Content with higher encyclopedic value are preferred over that with lower encyclopedic value [something the guideline already says quite clearly].
 * In the case of a tie, use the less-shocking content

davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Support adding WP:ASTONISH hatnote

 * Support, as proposer. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, this seems pretty much common sense to me. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, as the originator of the RfC you're talking about. We can discuss how far this alleviates the concerns in that RfC, but it is certainly a good idea regardless.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, sure, why not. -- J N  466  05:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? Maybe because of any or many of the reasons given in the multiple Oppose comments made below. This Support post (and the other simplistic ones around it) are almost insulting to those below who have clearly put a lot more thought into this issue. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. Not so sure I'll be calling it a day. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose adding WP:ASTONISH hatnote

 * Oppose Despite many pleas to this principle in other RfCs I've been part of, it rarely helps. WP:ASTONISH refers to "the average reader", but doesn't define one. Many editors who argue for more conservative images tell us that, while they are not personally offended, there are people in society who will be offended by an image. It's a third person type argument, presented as if they are being thoughtful on someone else's behalf. It's all so very vague. Completely open to ongoing debate and discussion. This proposal will NOT resolve problems in this area. I see it as just another attempt to push Wikipedia towards Conservapedia.
 * the underlying argument of this position reconstructs the problem by inappropriately mixing the epistemic with the editorial level on a model basis and the proposed paragraph doesn't offer substantial value, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think WP:ASTONISH has much relevance as currently written. Sure it wouldn't do much harm to hatnote the current version, but I fear it will be a back door to the censorship proposals above. The understanding of the principal of least astonishment, as used here, is far different then the one used at that page, and I would strongly object to some of the understandings being hatnoted. As the target is not a policy or guideline, it is not subject to the same level of scrutiny. As a matter of prudence, Policies and Guidelines should not incorporate by reference material that is subject to lesser scrutiny, which I think it is the only meaningful result hatnoting it could have. Monty  845  05:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose as per all my previous comments.  We go with the picture that best illustrates the topic.  Period. Also I'm going to suggest we stop it with this topic for a long while.  I think consensus is clear enough.  Hobit (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are already links to the relevant guidelines and howtos in that section's hatnote: I've moved some essay links from there to the bottom of the page a while back, although WP:ASTONISH was not among them. There were 6 links in that hatnote on Nov 5 . Please don't add anymore essay links to that section's hatnote per WP:CREEP. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Especially when that essay has been mal-used in some discussions on Wikipedia already (to wit - that sentences in a lede which accurately reflect the content of the body of the article should be watered down so that no one is "astonished" by statements supported by the article). Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CREEP. And frankly, I would argue that its only purpose for addition is to try and legitimize a POV viewpoint in an essay by trying to give it the weight of policy.  Thank you, but no. Resolute 14:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - sorry but there are a hell of a lot of hat notes already, and WP:ASTONISH is only an essay. That said I certainly don't think this should be an opportunity to shut down further discussion. Consensus isn't clear at all, and if someone wishes to apply a clear consensus either way get an uninvolved administrator to close the relevant discussion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:ASTONISH is fine right where it is, as a sub-section of a MoS supplement. I do not see good intentions in the drive to elevate this to inclusion on a policy page. Tarc (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I contributed to WP:ASTONISH and even I don't think it's much cop. --FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:ASTONISH is not even a guideline, it's just an essay, and it doesn't even have to do with censorship, but with introducing readers to info in such a way as they are not too shocked and confused to understand it. We already have Offensive material which states to use as a general guideline to use the less offensive of two equally relevant/informative photos, the addition of this essay neither adds nor reaffirms anything.AerobicFox (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Having reread all the relevant links, it's clear that the intention behind adding this is not "if two images have identical educational value, then the least offensive should be used", but rather "a less offensive image should always be used if one is available". This is not only a very different statement, but one that is contradictory to the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments regarding adding WP:ASTONISH hatnote
Just for a bit of recent history, the hatnotes have only recently been trimmed from six to three. On Nov 8 2011, User:ASCIIn2Bme moved Sexual content and Wikipedia is comprehensive from the WP:UNCENSORED hatnotes to the "See also" section for the whole page (at the bottom of the page), and removed WP:PRESERVE from the hatnotes without putting it anywhere else, in a series of edits starting here.

Two of the inks that were removed were essays and the third (WP:PRESERVE) has nothing to with the matter at hand and should never have been there. The three remaining links are all guidelines. I'm OK with this, I'm just pointing it out. Herostratus (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought it was the sane thing to do. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Objectionable content
We currently say,


 * "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."

We are shooting ourselves in the foot with this sort of wording. To give an example, at Sue Gardner's talk in London a few days ago, a woman editor brought up the Russian Wiktionary entry for "woman", which at one time was illustrated with what she described as a vintage porn image that she thought was quite offensive and "inappropriate". I think most of us would agree that the picture she put in instead is "more appropriate". 

The question is, if there is a dispute about it, on what grounds is someone like her supposed to argue that the previous image was "not appropriate", if we specifically say that offensiveness should have no bearing on the matter? By saying what we are saying, we are automatically slanting the playing field against editors in her situation. The previous image undoubtedly showed a "woman". (Arguably it showed more of her than the replacement image). So people can wiki-lawyer forever and a day that the nude image is just as "appropriate" or better than the clothed one, because the only thing that speaks against it is potential offensiveness, and that, we say, is not an argument anyone should make or listen to. Do we want to be totally insensitive?

There is a more sensible approach in Wikipedia:Offensive material, which basically states that potentially offensive images have to "earn their keep" in a way other images do not. Thoughts? -- J N  466  08:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The difficulty is that material is not inherently offensive or objectionable. Some people do object to certain kinds of material -- and they do so from particular culturally situated points of view.  The problem with using phrases like "objectionable material" or "offensive material" is that they imply that such feelings are universal, and for any given case that implication will be untrue.  I feel offended by the image of human beings nailed to crosses, but I don't expect my feelings to carry weight in editing decisions.  Perhaps we don't want to be "totally insensitive", but drawing lines in this area is going to be very difficult and it might be better to focus on educational value rather than getting bogged down in endless discussions about whose feelings of offense are going to matter and whose aren't.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion thread was prompted by Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed_decision. The trouble is that the only reason militating against having a nude image as the lead image for a "woman" entry in one of our projects is offensiveness to large numbers of readers. And we say in so many words that that argument should carry zero weight within Wikipedia. No other argument can really be made against a well-executed nude image. Discounting offensiveness, a nude image is as "encyclopedically useful" and accurate as a clothed lead image, arguably even more so (showing more of the woman, and less of the clothes). The same is true about the photograph of a woman in the process of defecating (seen from below) that an editor sought to include in defecation a while ago, citing NOTCENSORED. The image was accurate and illustrated exactly what the article was about, yet it was deeply inappropriate, and the only reason was its offensiveness. (It was deleted from Commons, and the user was site-banned, although his argument was actually fully in line with policy as written.) The way to demonstrate educational value is, or ought to be, the use of the same kind of image in reputable sources.
 * If reputable sources use a shocking picture (e.g. rape of Nanking, Holocaust), then so should we. (This applies even if there is only a significant minority of reputable sources using such images – per WP:NPOV, we must present significant minority views, even if offensive.)
 * But if they don't (e.g. Goatse), then neither should we, and EOD.
 * Anything else is inconsistent with the sourcing and verifiability principles (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV etc.) this project and all its content are built on. -- J N  466  09:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a proposal:


 * Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources.

Views? -- J N  466  10:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Undue weight is already abused constantly to mean "This controversy/content/claim/criminal charge isn't what someone/something was originally famous/notable for therefore the article shouldn't have any mention of it". Undue weight as an editing policy was meant to refer to articles as a whole, not to particular bits of an article.  It was never meant to be solely exclusionary.  A proper solution to an undue weight problem is also to expand the more appropriate sections, but in practice, this is rare.  I don't think that undue weight should be invoked in this context, because it just reinforces the inappropriate, exclusionary, use of the guideline to apply to atomic bits of content. Gigs (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote "due weight" advisedly, because the due/undue door swings both ways. WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." If fair presentation of a significant minority (or majority) viewpoint requires inclusion of text or media that may be offensive, then it should be included (I believe that was an issue in the abortion case). The important principle is that we follow sources. Are you okay with the rest of the wording? -- J N  466  15:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which sources would we be using as reliable is one question that comes to mind. Also the founders were fairly clear (at least in my mind) that they didn't want to turn wikipedia into essentially an online version of EB.  I dislike the idea of taking precedent from other areas when we can simple apply common sense.  Tivanir2 (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are well defined in WP:IRS, and represent an extremely wide range of publications with very diverse editorial styles, some widely divergent from the EB house style. Let's remember that all our text is tied to reliable sources by policy. We don't use text that cannot be found in at least some reliable source. If this is our threshold for text, it is common sense to expect that our illustrations should likewise be of a type that at least some reliable sources have used. Now, I am well aware that images are not the same as text. A copyrighted source image cannot be cited and summarised the same way a copyrighted text passage can, but the underlying principle for illustrations is no different from text in terms of WP:OR, WP:DUE, etc. We are trying to reflect reliable sources. Or would you argue that we need to give Wikipedia the freedom to use media that no reliable source would use, regardless of how insensitive such image use might be? And if so, would you also argue that Wikipedia texts should have the freedom to contain views and arguments that no reliable source would present? -- J N  466  23:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be useful to have some guidance as to what issues should be considered (e.g. relevance, value). But I do not agree that deleting the sentence "Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content" is an improvement to this policy.  I think that sentence is useful in telling us that "offensiveness" is not a key issue for editing decisions.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that sentence is needed. The complete paragraph would read:
 * However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. -- J N  466  00:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

While I generally agree with the above, the one place where there needs to be added concern is the lead image. (This issue was brought up somewhere else recently for image use policy so why I'm aware of it). Because of how we present articles, we need to assume the lead image is going to be the image that readers will visually connect to the topic in the future; it is also unavoidable to see that image if you are loading up that Wikipedia page for the first time, so an unexpected image is going to be shocking. (This does not apply to anywhere else in the article, only the lead image). Thus, the lead image should be one we want associated with the topic in the most unshocking, unbiased way. Take the woman example: I would expect in the article a picture of a nude woman to explain the differences between women and men in this fashion, but the lead does not need this when there's plenty of free images of (clearly identifiable) women we can use. The counter to this would be the fact that there's no real way to avoid the "shock" of naked genitalia on articles about those parts of the body.

Thus, for example, the current Holocaust picture is appropriate, compared to File:Rows of bodies of dead inmates fill the yard of Lager Nordhausen, a Gestapo concentration camp.jpg which is used later in the article - still appropriate to use in that article, but not really the best choice of lead image. I know there's discussion as Pregnancy whether a nude pregnant woman can be replaced by a tastefully clothed pregnant woman in the lead image as well (though again, the nude pregnant woman picture would still be completely appropriate in the body of the article). Little things like that and only for the lead image. --M ASEM (t) 17:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A similar situation came up a while back on the talk page of Myiasis: Some folk thought that File:Myiasis-cat.jpg was too disgusting to be the infobox image. (I'm not easily disgusted, so I didn't see the problem, myself.) A different image, File:Miasis human.jpg, was inserted in the infobox, and the former image was retained elsewhere in the article. So far, nearly a year has gone by with no further complaints. Deor (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That pregnancy image well illustrates the problem: it is completely alien to me and my values that the current lead image could be considered offensive, and to much of the world it wouldn't be, even if displayed in a public place. We can't just conform to the least tolerant cultures.  There shouldn't even be a discussion as to whether such straightforward (even clinical) images of the human body are top "offensive" to lead articles about the human body and physiology any more than we should humor complaints about leading articles with the unveiled faces of married women.  postdlf (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, at some point, we have to use common sense; displays of nudity are generally a problem across most of the civilized world. If the article was about nudists or naturalism, of course a nude picture is completely appropriate.  But we're talking pregnancy, and the most common image (through common sense) of that is a woman with a distorted abdomen as she carries her child to full term, regardless of how she is dressed (or lack thereof). In other words, we can still demonstrate pregnancy with an image that we all know by common sense is less a problem as a lead image.  In the body of the article - go right ahead and use as many copious images of nude pregnant women to help the reader to understand, by all means, but again, as the lead image is something you can't avoid when you open a page, some discretion should be used.  And of course there is a point that if the pictures available to use in the lead are somewhat offensive to all to various degrees, a lead image is not required. --M ASEM  (t) 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue with pregnancy article is a little more than just a nude in the lead and to simplify it to just nudity is oversimplifying the issue there. Since the 70's in the U.S. prenant nudes have been associated with Natural childbirth---a specific POV relative to pregnancy.  So seeing a pregnant nude in the lead can have a specific politicial/religious/social ramifications beyond a mere nude.  And pregnancy can be a politically charged subject when dealing with abortion/adoption/medical treatments/etc that a nude carries other connotations in THAT subject.  *I* am opposed to the current lead image there, but my argument is not because it of some prudishness relative to the female body, but rather what a nudes means specifically relative to pregnancy.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's part of the problem. I do not question the statements of fact "nude pregnant woman are associated with natural childbirth" and that "natural childbirth is a charged political/religious subject".   The problem that exists is that not all uses of nude pregnant women in reliable sources used to promote the idea of natural childbirth.  Ergo, regardless of the political ramifications, it is acceptable to a non-fringe group to use such images for depicting pregnancy, even if you and other editors are opposed to it.  We can't dismiss it immediately in that fashion. I still would say that at the end of the day, there is no educational difference between a tastefully clothed and a nude shot of a pregnant woman, both are used readily in reliable sources, so the less-offensive one would be the better choice. --M ASEM  (t) 17:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed... but that is where context come into play. I have no problem with the use of a nude pregnant woman in the article.  In another article, I might not have problems with it being in the lead.  In the pregnancy article, however, it lacks context, thus my concerns.  With it being in the lead, it creates questions as to whether or not natural childbirthers/activist had undue weight in writing the article.  Pregnancy is a vanilla topic, but can have emotionally charged political/social/religious ramifications (abortion, stem cells, adoption, immunizations, etc).  To simply boil the issue down to censorship is, IMO, to over simplify the issue.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I mention this elsewhere, but the lead image aspect is a almost nearly a separate issue, in the sense that it's not the inclusion of a questionable image (which can always be placed in the body), but that whatever is in the lead will be unavoidable (barring the potential filter solution the Foundation has suggested) when loading the page. The lead image must be chosen to respect, within common sense, some sense of standards, as well as other facets like COI like you suggest.  Ergo the use of a nude pregnant woman on the Pregnancy page when a clothed one serves the same educational purpose and visual association can be used instead.  That nude can be used in the body instead, after the reader has come to understand what the article is about so they should be able to expect that.  However, I'm going to say to simplify this present discussion, on NOTCENSORED in general, what happens in the lead is a different beast as long as everyone understands that the lead image is going to be held to different standards that fall outside this discussion. --M ASEM  (t) 23:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The implication that editors can "wiki-lawyer forever" to include offensive images is absurd given that few editors actively try to insert the most offensive image they can find(compared to many who try to censor as much nudity/violence/etc), and because in no part of the policy does it actually "specifically say that offensiveness should have no bearing on the matter". The current policy states that arguments should be focused on relevance to the article, and since our purpose here is on informing and not on pleasing our general focus should always be on what is informative and not on what the reader likes. Now that does not mean that offensiveness "should carry zero weight within Wikipedia", but that is not what the article says in any form. This proposed wording is attempting to even the scale against a supposed current wording that argues that no weight should be given to arguments on offensiveness, but the current wording does not argue that at all. Furthermore we have guidelines that specifically address the issues you have brought up:
 * From the the lead of Offensive material
 * However, words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.
 * There is even a subsection entitled "Not censored" is not an excuse for gratuitous offensiveness which furthermore already discusses your concerns of editors inserting randomly shocking images when inappropriate.
 * I also disagree with "precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources". Reliable sources are limited often times by their resources(cannot print as many images, especially color) and this argument will end up circulating around subjective arguments like "Source X uses photos of tortured Jews so there is precedent", "No, source X's photo shows Jews tortured by method W, Y and Z, and not method A like in the photo you want, and IMO method A is far more offensive", "I disagree, method A is no more offensive and shocking than the other methods(they're practically identical)", "I disagree, and unless you can find a source specifically illustrating method A then there is no precedent", etc, etc. Do we really want to waste editors time with arguments on how specific a source has to be to set "precedent" and editors scouring the internet looking for ultraspecific examples, etc. If we added this then there would be need to be a whole description of just what "precedent" is and how to assess it, and IMO such a section would never gain consensus and would be totally unnecessary anyways.AerobicFox (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that whether another RS has used the image or not should carry any bearing. This would essentially favor not using CC content created by Wikipedians for Wikipedian articles when its felt necessarily per WP:OI. This includes both photographs and illustrations. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  19:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, that'd put quite the dent in Wikipedia's long and rich history of hentai and lolicon user creations, eh? But yea, the "it should be in a reliable source" argument is an unreasonable burden to place upon image usage.  Again, what this comes across as is policy/guideline wording to support the removal of images that someone doesn't like, and the analogy to the Russian wiki situation was weak; the question was not of offensiveness but of relevance and appropriateness to the subject matter.  Does the reader need to see a photograph of a naked woman to understand the an encyclopedia entry on women?  No. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's please not have strawman arguments. No one anywhere has demanded that the same image should have been used in a reliable source. -- J N  466  22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We're already scouring the Internets for precedent each time we want to add a bit of text (we call it sourcing). So we are well in the habit of doing so. 99.999% of the images we use would not demand any such effort. But if there is an image that half or close to half of the community finds grossly insensitive, then it would seem wise, as a tie-breaker, to do a reality check to find out whether use of similar images has any significant prevalence in reliable sources, or indeed whether any reliable source at all has ever used a comparable image. If the answer to that question is "No", then we should remember that our whole effort here is about reflecting the content of reliable sources as accurately and proportionately as possible. We are not here to provide an alternative view to that presented in reliable sources – neither in text, nor in illustrations. -- J N  466  23:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is unrealistic to reason that a reliable source is going to serve as a guideline concerning what in the final analysis is a matter of taste. There is really no difference between the photograph of the image of the woman's face and the photograph of the woman's body, as referred to earlier in this thread. We are applying criteria of taste where we should not. Policy is well-worded as it is:


 * "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."


 * These are editorial decisions. They are, or should be, specific to the article. Nor do I agree with the notion articulated above that the first image encountered in an article needs to be toned down in its ability to shock some people. Education is sometimes "shocking". I don't think that should be our concern.


 * Just as in the verbal component of an article, imagery should in fact be incisive. Good taste should not even be a considered ingredient in article space. Clear communication of the ideas germane to the article's topic is all that should matter. Our primary concern should be imagery that does exactly what the verbal component does. That is to educate and explain and provide resources for further exploration of related topics.


 * How is this photo "less offensive" than this photo? Are we writing articles to educate or to indoctrinate? Bus stop (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By defining a "woman" as a sex object rather than a person, which is offensive to many women and men. -- J N  466  00:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A face does not contain sexual content? The photo of the full figure nude contains no more or less sexual content that the photo of just the face. There are no objective measures of level of sexual content—or at least none applicable to the two images linked to. Our concerns are properly confined to the subject of the article. We should be concerned with what images help to illustrate and expand upon the verbal component of the article. We simply cannot be concerned with "offensiveness" beyond a reasonable point. Granted, when an image is gratuitously offensive that can be grounds for an argument for removal. But we have to be careful about that argument being invoked where inapplicable. That is why I would support language as presently in place. The two photos above are equally appropriate (or inappropriate) for the article that they were supposedly for. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop: common sense please. You and I both know that for the vast, vast part of our readership these two images are nowhere near equal in offensiveness.  You want to make an abstract argument about the inability to objectively determine sexual content; you're just Bill Clintoning us.  99% of the people in the world have no trouble whatsoever seeing this distinction, and that includes people who like the nude (one can approve of the nude and still recognize that it's a sexualized image).  We need better language here because too many people rubber-stamp problematic images with NOTCENSORED.  The problem is not (as you put it) that the argument might be invoked where inapplicable, but rather that there are editors who have determined for themselves that there is nowhere where the argument can be invoked.  it just leads to long disputes over images that aren't really worth the effort.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, do you think the image on the right would be a suitable lead image for the article man in an encyclopaedia? And if sources covering the topic "man" do not use such an image as their lead or title image, do you think it is in line with WP:DUE / WP:NPOV if Wikipedia is the only exception? -- J N  466  01:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish people were capable of taking a broader perspective on this issue. I mean, I think I understand comment's like Bus stop's "Good taste should not even be a considered ingredient in article space" above - it's an effort to keep the encyclopedia free and open - but it's just a fact of human life that the line between being direct and being rude is paper thin. Direct is good, rude is bad; opting for the first makes us respectable, opting for the second makes us not. Good taste matters in almost everyplace in the world, and if the project simply ignores good taste then the project becomes a first-class jerk. We can deal even with even highly offensive topics without becoming offensive ourselves, and that is the attitude we should be fostering across the project.

I like Jayen's revision, but I'd recommend taking the emphasis off of wp:RS (which is just going to open up a can of worms, since images usually don't have clear sourcing like text, and drama-ridden images tend to get wider publication), an aim for something a little less one-sided. something like:


 * Wikipedia aims to be useful and accessible to the broadest population of readers. Controversial or potentially objectionable content should be assessed according to its appropriateness, relevance, and educational value for that particular article, and material should neither avoid nor aggravate the given controversy or offense without good cause.

I think that might cover it better. -- Ludwigs 2 00:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me just add that there is no misogyny here. Both photos seem to be flattering of women. Bus stop (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, common sense please. misogyny is a very strong term.  This is inappropriateness, not misogyny.  Or would you suggest that it's acceptable for someone to pat some acquaintance on the bum because patting someone on the bum isn't rape?  Just because it's not extreme doesn't mean it's ethically correct.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs—maybe you had your libido accidentally in the "off" position when viewing the facial portions of the two photos. There is much more sexual content in the photograph of just the face. The full figure nude seems bored at that moment that the photo was taken. Bus stop (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop: do I really need to ask you to use common sense a third time? Your argument is that a woman with a 'come hither' look on her face is as sexually charged as a full-figure nude.  It's an absurd argument that practically everyone in the real world would recognize as absurd the moment they heard it, and the only reason it slips by here with any credibility at all is that you're saying it in the standard 'internet fishbowl' (i.e. the detached, speaker-centered realm where you can say whatever you want and never have to cope with the disbelieving eye-rolls that run across the faces of everyone reading).  The first picture is trying to be sexually provocative; the second one is inherently sexually charged.  You might want to check what position your libido is in.  .  -- Ludwigs 2  01:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Break
The present wording includes the sentence That wording encourages editors to dismiss any argument involving offensiveness as irrelevant. By doing so, it sets WP:NOT against guidelines such as all of which offer editors guidance based on whether content is potentially offensive or not. If we can't discuss whether an image is offensive or not, we can't discuss how these guidelines apply. That sentence needs to go, or be rephrased. -- J N  466  01:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article.
 * WP:Offensive material,
 * Manual_of_Style/Images,
 * the new Manual_of_Style/Images,
 * Restricted_materials, and the
 * WMF board resolution on controversial content,


 * JN466—there is a fundamental problem with speaking of images being offensive or inappropriate. Consensus determines which images are to stay and which images are to go. Policy should not be in place to add a greater degree of indeterminacy to the already complex and subjective process of reaching consensus. "Offensiveness" will never be defined nor should it be defined. This project is open to articles on all topics. Criteria for offensiveness inevitably varies by article. What would be the point to misleading editors into thinking that they can simply invoke prudish proclivities to get images removed? The threshold for removing images should be much more stringent than that. Editors should instead be required to show inapplicability of a given image to a given article. Good taste should not even be on the table as a topic of discussion. To keep the discussion on topic, editors should be discussing how a given image advances or detracts from the purposes of a given article. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is why we need to look at the wording of this section, so that editors can't argue like you. :) Inapplicability of a potentially offensive image to a given article is demonstrated by a lack of sources using similar images in the same context. Likewise, the relevance of a potentially offensive image is demonstrated by reliable sources using similar images in the same context. Most of the time we know that our pictures are fine, because we consciously or unconsciously remember seeing similar illustrations in reliable sources; the image's presence feels natural and expected. Here we are talking about images that are unexpected. -- J  N  466  02:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * JN466—the Internet is not organized by images. Except for a few searching tools like TinEye, there is little ability to associate words with images. What we are actually doing is using our own mental resources to bring images into association with words. There are exceptions. But in the example of an article title Woman, which I believe was the article associated with the two images of females discussed above, there can't be a quintessential image associated with that topic, and when we are considering an image of Issac Asimov we are probably not going to find a picture of him in the shower. Bus stop (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, I am really perplexed by this logic (which I've seen several editors use, not just BS), and I wish someone would explain it to me in a way I can understand. As far as I can tell, it's like arguing that not only is it allowable to fart in restaurants, one should make a conscious effort to fart in restaurants simply because one can't give in to social pressure of people who don't like the smell.  It's a 'zero-tolerance' paradigm for the preferences of others for no obvious reason that I can wrap my head around.  Is that a wrong assessment?  -- Ludwigs 2  02:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs—I don't think we should write into policy guidelines that can't be followed. How can such a Talk page discussion proceed? Editors could write volumes on what they feel is offensive. This is a matter of taste. Subjectivity doesn't need to be written into policy.


 * A far narrower area for discussion would be the goals and aims of the article. That keeps the discussion on the topic of the article rather than peripheral sensitivities. I am not so much arguing against "good taste" as I am arguing for keeping the discussion relevant. I think discussions of "taste" are a distraction and an endless quagmire. Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop: you confuse the emotions of an individual with the standard practices of a group or culture. offending the feelings of an individual is unfortunate, but not a major concern; offending the standards of a group, nation, culture, race, gender, (etc) is a major concern.  When you include an image which broadly violates the mores of almost every community and which can easily be interpreted as demeaning towards an entire gender, casting it as the offended feelings of individual editors is a gross misrepresentation.  Do you understand that?  Because if you do not understand that, then everything else you say has to be weighed within the context of that limitation.


 * You fail to understand the psychology of the situation. When we do things that offend people's standards we need to have a reasonable explanation for why we have to.  If we do not have a reasonable explanation for why we are doing it, then we look like dickheads.  that makes people angry, makes the project look stupid, and generally causes trouble all around as people try to explain to us what dickheads we are being.  Telling them that good taste and offense don't matter, or we should ignore that stuff and focus on content, doesn't do anything except reaffirm that we actually are dickheads.  It just exacerbates the problem.  The only way out of this tangle is to stop doing things that offend cultural mores except where we have a clear and obvious reason to do so.


 * The only reason these discussions end up as quagmires is because editors like you get it into your heads that that thing (whatever it is) just has to be done. You don't stop to think whether it actually adds that much to the article, you feel a complete entitlement to place your personal desires ahead of the conventional norms of large sections of the real world - you lose all perspective on the encyclopedia and all orientation to common sense. How are the rest of us supposed to discuss things with someone who believes that only his/her feelings matter?  Because you know as well as I do that no one argues strenuously for a borderline controversial image unless they have 'feelings' about it.


 * I'm all for keeping discussions relevant as well, but good taste is always relevant, and trying to deny it is guaranteed to to send a talk page into a tailspin. so let's not do that. -- Ludwigs 2  06:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is so preposterous that it is difficult to take it seriously. But I'll try.  When you say "good taste", you mean your taste, right?  I say that because it is so entirely obvious that it is impossible to talk generally and consistently about the "standards of a group, nation, culture, race, gender".  There is, of course, no set of standards that all "groups, nations, cultures, races and genders" embrace; even the slightest effort at reflection results in the insight that there is diversity and conflict in this realm, even for any one of those dimensions of membership/identity.  So, in practice when someone says "good taste" they usually mean "my taste", because there isn't anything else for it to mean.  No doubt you will reject all of this -- but do you really expect to be taken seriously in that regard?  Do you really think you get to speak on behalf of races, genders, cultures, etc.?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs—"offense" can be an excuse or a pretense for skewing articles in ways not in the interest of the general English-speaking readership. Editors don't need to be armed with language enshrined in policy articulating that we should not "offend". Arguments for and against the inclusion of images should be confined to just that which is relevant to fulfilling the aims of that particular article. If some image, or text, is gratuitously "offensive", it should be possible to also argue that its use falls outside of the primary aims of that particular article. "Offensiveness" is to varying degrees subjective. We should be concerned with not offending our fellow editors on Talk pages but we should not necessarily devote so much energy as you and others are arguing for to not offending the general readership with relevant information whether in the form of images or text. Every "offensive" image or text already exists on the Internet. Wikipedia should be an oasis of educational content and we should not be subservient to those who claim to be "offended". Bus stop (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @Nomoskedasticity: What exactly is preposterous here? are you saying that there isn't a taboo against nudity almost everywhere?  are you saying that this taboo isn't recognized by practically everyone?  There is a clothes-optional resort I go to two or three times a year - it's a marvelous place, but no one there deludes themselves into thinking that the behavior is conventional.  Why are you pushing that delusion here?  This isn't about my tastes vs your taste (and if it were the discussion would be very different); this is about your personal preferences vs. the mores of every major world culture.  You seem to want to deny that culture and society exist and reduce everything to minor squabbles between wikipedia editors, and that is just poor reasoning.
 * @Bus Stop: I would actually want to agree with you, except that in practice NOTCENSORED is used to make it impossible to "argue that its use falls outside of the primary aims of that particular article." It's kneejerk: If I say "I don't think this image is the best one for this article and I'd like to replace it with that image" I will instantly get the response "you don't think that image is good because you are offended by it, therefore NOTCENSORED renders your argument invalid." It doesn't matter what I say, I'm always told that I'm trying to remove it because of offense and opposed.  This is why the wording of NOTCENSORED needs to be changed, to stop that kind of mindless policy application.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, allow me to explain what I am proposing. From time to time we have content – usually images – in our articles that a significant number of contributors consider insensitive to reader's expectations. These matters usually go to an RfC, or several RfCs, and frequently flip-flop multiple times, with the content removed, then added again, and so forth. The result is interminable disruption. For an example, with an outline of all the myriad discussions had on the matter, see the box at the top of Talk:Goatse.cx. Now calculate the editor hours that went into this – the uploads, deletions, votes for deletion, deletion reviews, mediation, and so forth. We have to find a more efficient way of solving these disputes. What I am proposing is two things:
 * that concerns about insensitivity in illustration are prima facie taken seriously (this is something the present wording discourages),
 * that we solve those disagreements the same way we solve all other types of disagreements on content: by recourse to sources.
 * Reliable sources should be the final arbiter in these cases. For example, I'm not aware of any reliable source that has actually featured the goatse image on its pages while writing about it. If that is so, why should we? Sources give a link to the site for those who wish to see it; so can we. (And we can often provide relevant Commons links as well, where additional and perhaps more explicit media are available.) To give another example, leading to the opposite outcome, Rape of Nanking features a horrific image of a severed head. Editors may argue that it is too horrific to show. However, that image was published by Life Magazine, establishing good precedent in a highly reputable source. Ergo, the image stays. Or an editor may object to a drawing illustrating a sexual position. However, we can show that similar images are used in educational works on sexology, so the image stays. Do you see what I am getting at? Recourse to sources prevents us from straying outside the envelope of what reputable publishers consider useful to present, while safeguarding potentially offensive images that have demonstrable educational justification. Following this approach ensures that our editorial judgment is informed by the judgment of reliable sources, for media as it is for text, where we have long taken for granted that we cannot include ideas and information that are without precedent in reliable sources. It's a cornerstone of our project.
 * As with disputes about article text, adopting this proposal will not end all arguments – there will always be edge cases where only very few obscure or questionable sources feature the kind of content someone wishes to include – but it will help our discussions be better informed by reference to mainstream standards, and may reduce the amount of time we spend on them. -- J N  466  13:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen, we might have found some common ground. I can see some value in drawing on reliable sources to work out what images to include.  However, I'm not sure why we would address that issue here.  Perhaps at WP:IUP?  The issue motivating your introduction of a discussion here, on WT:NOT was (as I understood it) "offensiveness".  I then have to mention what seems to be a contradiction between two recent posts you have made:  and .  Are you proposing to delete that sentence or not?  It seems to me that this is the issue we would discuss here, while the "use reliable sources for images" discussion would belong somewhere else.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, Nomo, it's the misuse of NOTCENSORED that causes these problems. I was the one who spearheaded that move to get rid of the Goatse image, and I literally spent a month trying to get editors to move past simple repetitions of the phrase "Wikipedia is not censored".  And in fact, I never succeeded in that goal: all I managed to do was be sufficiently persistent (RfC's, mediation, and AfD on the image, endless circular talk page discussion) that the squabble attracted sufficient numbers of thoughtful attention to make removing the image feasible.  the supporters were parroting NOTCENSORED to the end, and for weeks beyond.  and the Goatse image was not a subtle issue: it was an image that never should have been on the article in the first place, but once it was there it required a herculean effort to remove because of editors using NOTCENSORED like pepperspray.  Much the same thing has happened on Muhammad, and on Pregnancy, and on… do you see the problem? -- Ludwigs 2  17:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs, you either misremember or misrepresent the goatse debate. I was a part of that as well at the time, and the reason it was finally (and IMO wrongly, but I accept that a consensus of editors saw differently.  Novel concept, I know.) deleted was because of WP:NFCC concerns.  See Files_for_deletion/2010_March_29 for a refresher, the argument delete on the grounds of offensiveness was explicitly rejected in the closing argument. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. He simplified the situation. Of course a full description of the dispute would have included the information that even though it was and is bloody obvious that such an image has no business in any encyclopedia that addresses a wide audience, the matter could only be decided once an for all through the copyright detour. This just shows the extent of the problem. Hans Adler 17:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tarc, I remember how the issue was resolved. I also know that it would never have gotten to that point except that I pushed, and pushed hard.  I don't really care if the right thing got done for a spurious reason (God knows the closing admin needed some credible excuse, given the trenchant opposition); what I'm trying to point out is the ridiculousness of the opposing arguments.  Simply repeating NOTCENSORED over and over again is a discussion tactic worthy of six year olds, and it's not how we should decide things on project.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it curious that when confronted with a misstatement of yours, you are unable to own up to it. It bears repeating; "not censored" in the goatse case was accepted as a strong argument argument that the image deletionists were unable to counter-argue.  The only reason the image was deleted was because of WP:NFCC policy, which is arguably one of the most important in the project as it deals with fair use and copyright concerns.  That you think the prevailing argument is ridiculous is a point you have belabored to death by now.  We get it.  We also no longer care.  Simply "being offensive", an arguable point in itself, will never be an acceptable reason to remove an image from an article. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "I find it curious that when confronted with a misstatement of yours, you are unable to own up to it. It bears repeating; 'not censored' in the goatse case was accepted as a strong argument argument that the image deletionists were unable to counter-argue." -- Exactly. That's precisely the problem that we are trying to address here. That we have reached a point where it was impossible to remove a photo that shows a naked man from behind, with his anus stretched and wide open to an extent that most people would believe anatomically impossible, for the right reason, so that in the end it was easier to go a different route. Hans Adler 18:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how the goatse discussion closed out, I think there's a very subtle difference between that and the cases for Pregnancy, Muhammad, and others. The goatse article is not specifically about the photo, but the use of a shocking photo to surprise/revolt viewers, eg, the action, not the actual image. It is not necessary to see the image to understand how the image was used.  Compare this to Pregnancy, where there is educational, non-shock value to show the effects of pregnancy on a human female, or in the case of Muhammad, how the religious icon is visualized within that field (even if to a large fraction of them, that creates a problem). Moreso, the lack of such images on the last two pages harm the understanding of both terms, compared to lacking the actual goatse image on the article about it. --M ASEM  (t) 19:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again I would like to point out the fact that if an image can be brought up for a reason to be removed other than it being offensive people have been shown as willing to compromise. Taking offense as a guiding star means we might as well start now sanitizing the wikipedia, because whole groups of people find large numbers of things offensive.  When using other types of policy to remove an image most people will debate it but people don't throw out the NOTCENSORED flag until someone decides the article needs to change because it offends.  I am fully on board with we shouldn't be offensive just because we can but there needs to a logical thought out reason to get rid of something, not just because someone somewhere decides it is immoral unethical or likewise.  I don't care how large or small a group is that is offended by it, since the rights of a small group should be held as no less viable than the rights of a larger group. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also as a side note the image tossed out as the lead image for man is not even a factor. It isn't showing anything offensive, so having it as a lead image wouldn't really matter.  It's not like he is in the process of masturbation or has his weiner hanging out. Probably wouldn't be my first choice (probably would have chosen one of those funky collections that shows a whole bunch of people) but it shows a fairly physical fit member of the male gender. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Masem: again, your argumentation is part of the problem. let's consider the pregnancy image in dispassionate detail for just a moment, so you see what I mean:
 * The image is a more-or-less tasteful art nude. We can debate its 'exact educational value' endlessly (as though that phrase has any real meaning), but I think it's clear to everyone that the lead image of pregnancy does not need to be a nude (not the way that the lead image of the penis article needs to be a penis).  It could be removed without harming the article in any appreciable way.
 * Using an art nude image causes our readers some difficulties. Some people are offended by it (for cultural or personal reasons), some organizations (like public schools) might block it, many people would find it an embarrassing image to have that image visible on their computer in a public place.  We can argue endlessly about whether people should feel that way, but the plain fact is that huge numbers of people do have one or more of those issues, and that interferes with their ability to use the encyclopedia
 * What you end up arguing is that a few wikipedia editors can cause difficulties for significant numbers of our readers simply because they assert some highly disputable 'educational value' and then squelch all debate by referring to NOTCENSORED. Removing the nude image from the lead might be sad, but it would not harm the article in any concrete way and would make the article more accessible to readers; it would be a clear net plus for the project as a whole.  But it's a minus for individual editors who like the image, and those editors have NOTCENSORED to enforce their personal preferences over and above the interests of the project and the readership.  How is that sensible?  This is why we need to do some wording change in the policy, so that we can actually discuss the needs of the readership without running into an impenetrable wall of non-discussion.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sooner or later one just has to accept that their opinion isn't carrying the day, that another course has been chosen. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true, Tarc, and we are all waiting for you to get to that point.   -- Ludwigs 2  19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As my opinion has been that of the overwhelming majority that believed "not censored" is an apt defense against intolerance, your "no, you are" comment kinda falls flat. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really not a problem for me if you need to believe that. All I'm suggesting is that your "I'm right and everyone agrees with me" approach is a little juvenile.  There's clearly an issue to discuss here; you can claim there isn't until the cows come home but I think it's clear to everyone that that perspective is detached from reality.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will defend the idea that some sense of decorum should go into the lead image - pregnancy can be showed by a tastefully clothed woman in late term as easily as it can be if the woman was nude - but the nude image is still appropriate in an educational manner to demonstrate the larger effects on the female body, and thus appropriate to include in the article body, regardless of the sensibilities of the readers. Yes, it will always always always be a balance between what is an educational value vs shock value.  But really, the distinction is truly one of common sense, and a line that cannot be defined any better beyond both what the Foundation has set forth and what NOTCENSORED has provided. We're clearly at the grey area for most of these, but they are few and minimal. --M ASEM  (t) 19:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument that "offensiveness" cannot ever be grounds for the removal of an image, because this is an inherently culture-bound judgement, isn't well founded. Essentially every subjective editorial decision will be made, in part, on the basis of the values and beliefs of the user(s) responsible for it. Consider WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." What's conservative? (Due) regard for the subjects privacy? Sensationalist? Titillating? There's little choice but to look inward. So, when it's proposed that we shouldn't use "offensive" material "unnecessarily", these words have meaning: that which a supermajority of editors are willing to give them. Material which falls below the generally accepted community standards of Wikipedia editors, such as the goatse image, is inevitably bad news. The pregnancy/other medical articles/Muhammad images almost certainly aren't a problem. But Masem's distinction between these cases can't be effectuated without giving interpretive meaning to subjectivities such as "educational, non-shock" and "appropriate in an educational manner". Wikipedia is build on decisions requiring editorial discretion, which is never culturally neutral. That doesn't mean we can sit on our hands. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * x2 I don't think its really clear that its time to just "give up". If Wikipedia is going to act like a grown up project it has to accept that some level of image censorship is going to be required. Offending large numbers of users is highly counter-productive to our purpose to be a free and accessible encyclopaedia.
 * The reality of the world we live in is that the country that is #1 in terms of audience is still over excited about seeing a nipple for about a second in 2004. Regardless of whether or not you think the Americans are overly prudish the reality of the situation is that they are offended by such content.
 * Fundamentally if you show NSFW content where people don't expect it they are likely to be at best embarrassed at work - and if there is a complaint to a school it would be very difficult for the school not to just block the whole site - that doesn't do the 99.9% of the project which isn't offensive any justice. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And with regards to harm, even in cases like pregnancy where there is some level of expectation the harm of only having images of Muhammad on Depictions of Muhammad (possibly with a hatnote), and having a women wearing tightish clothing or a drawing would be extremely trivial.
 * Having endless discussion about such topics creates large amounts of harm alone. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think "whether Americans are offended" is even workable. Which Americans? The ones watching the Superbowl with their ten year olds? The ones viewing "R" rated movies that received their designations because of nudity or sex? Both represent very large portions of the country. The only standard that susceptible to straightforward application is whether Wikipedia editors generally consider material to be offensive and unnecessary. Also, "they will block us" isn't necessarily a compelling argument, because it opens the door for hundreds of external censors to wreck havoc. The People's Republic of China has often blocked Wikipedia for challenging their dictatorship. I consider that an honor. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Chinese government allegedly block all sorts of websites, including things like the BBC. School's don't generally block websites like the BBC, because the BBC has an appropriate content policy.
 * It would be good if the community could always show enough empathy to block images that were clearly inappropriate, unfortunately that isn't always the case, as can be seen from any opposition to the removal of Goatse.
 * With regards to allowing "hundreds of external censors to wreck havoc" - that's basically what the BLP policy does to all articles on living people, which make up a vastly higher percentage of the projects articles than even the most wide-ranging and draconian change to the images policy along this line. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I view it better not to try to censor something than to deal with anyone that decides things need to go because they don't have coping skills. As for things being labeled NSFW most workplaces and schools can block individual locations of websites such as wikipedia.  Just because they hire lazy people that like to do as little as possible shouldn't affect what we contribute.  In the case of most of these I would suggest if people are offended by something that they should say I dislike image x could we consider image Y instead.  That would most likely gain a lot more support then saying I am offended remove it now! Tivanir2 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to laziness and people lacking coping skills, welcome to the world. Its not feasible that this will change.
 * With offensive content all that is being asked is that a cost-benefit analysis is made. Obviously only content that is considered offensive by a large group should be considered for censorship.
 * With regards to "In the case of most of these I would suggest if people are offended by something that they should say I dislike image x could we consider image Y instead." - certainly in the pregnancy case that was done. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tivanir. I think part of the confusion here is that you've confused 'education' with 'challenging the status quo'.  I see a lot of this in RL: people (students in particular) who think it's important to get the public to open their eyes and see the world in a new way.  and in the real world that's a good thing, generally speaking.  But wikipedia isn't here to 'educate' people in that sense; we're jsut here to inform people about various topics.  we should not let efforts to make people more open-minded get in the way of our efforts to inform them.  Doing so is indoctrination, not education.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't care how open or closed minded people are hence why I could care less about offense. While that could be taken as the most open minded approach I also am quite aware if I go to the penis article I should expect to see a penis.  In the case of the pregnancy issue I can sit here all day and say "Does the image need to be a nude to get the point across?"  The answer I arrive to is no if an image can be found that better suits the article and displays the articles intent clearly.  However the reaction of "My god! Nipples and breasts, how inappropriate!" is the key defining point to try to get another image that is less offensive but doesn't portray the subject as well then I think it has no basis.  Example: an image of the belly would probably be a good alternative since changes that occur during pregnancy, unless you have multiple images of the same person throughout, won't be visible to the reader.  Tivanir2 (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting a specific outcome for the pregnancy case. What we need is to empower editors to exercise their judgement. "Wikipedia is not censored" should no longer be a means to shut down the debate. If editors believe that NSFW images, as they define them, are categorically offensive and unnecessary, so be it (very unlikely). More probable is individual consideration on a case by case basis. Having the image inline, or not having it at all aren't the only options. There is the technical ability to link images with a preceding colon, as in File:Sandro Botticelli - La nascita di Venere - Google Art Project.jpg, an example provided for demonstration of the syntax only, and not to suggest usage on images of this type. The point is that "Wikipedia is not censored" is an abdication of editorial discretion, and should be eliminated. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tivanir: I have to take exception to a point of your logic - this really irritates me, so please pay attention to it. putting a controversial on an article and then insisting that other editors have to find and image "that better suits the article" before it can be removed is ridiculous.  The onus is to show that the controversial image is better, not on other editors to show that a non-controversial image is better.  The point is - and pleaser pay close attention to this, because it's important - when all other things are roughly equal, non-controversial images are better than controversial images by default.  This isn't a fraternity where we get to do the dumb thing first and force people to force us to be reasonable.  Or at least, it shouldn't be.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Impressive that you assume I don't listen to people. There is no onus on either part to prove an image is better and just because something is not controversial does not immediately make it a better picture it makes it a picture that is less likely to cause offense.  There is a huge difference between multiple pictures and what you can gleam from them regardless of whether or not they are sources of concerns.  The onus when trying to change something is always "does this picture show what we want better" and has never been "This picture causes offense and we lose a bit but this one is non controversial."  Again the argument comes down to people want to use think of the children mentalities.  I don't buy that, and if we start changing policies to address specific group interests I am damn well certain we will see a HUGE influx in demands to remove things based upon them being offensive to some group or another.  I hear you fine but I also see that you have no leg to stand on since if you bothered to also come up with arguments supported by other policies people wouldn't just quote NOTCENSORED because then they would actually have something to justify against. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You've hit the nail on the head: fratboyism. That may get us good articles on celebrities and television shows. For math and science articles, the Encyclopaedia Dramatica approach simply scares the most highly qualified editors off. The goatse images would unacceptable in almost any academic community. Perhaps we should have a nude image in the pregnancy article. Or not. But this is absolutely crucial: having no community standards at all is inimical to the educational goals of the project. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh bullshit, just because the prudery of several editors has been denied doesn't mean there's a lack of standards; the standards are just lower than what you would like them to be. Offense is simply not a concern; if an image is appropriate to the subject matter, and it passes WP:NFCC, then it should be usable. Tarc (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, offensiveness should not be a consideration. Images should be chosen based solely on two criteria: 1. How well they illustrate the subject and 2. Whether we can legally use it. A goatse image would never be the best image to illustrate a mathematics article, but it would be appropriate to illustrate an article about the goatse.cx website. If the image that best illustrates an article on pregnancy is a naked woman, then we should have a naked woman illustrating that article, if the best image is of a clothed woman then we should illustrate it with a clothed woman. Wikipedia is a global, NPOV project. What is and is not offensive is inherently a personal point of view that varies, sometimes significantly, between individuals sitting next to each other let alone between people of different cultures. Contemporary mainstream conservative Western social values are neither consistent nor objectively or reliably definable, let alone a default that are suitable for everywhere around the world. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree to an extent. If the concept of pregnancy can be demonstrated with a fully or partially clothed woman for the partial aspect the image is being used for then one doesn't need to go to an extreme because they can. That is an aspect that can only be defined on the article's talk page, but at the end of the day we don't need nudes to depict every part of human anatomy or its biological functions. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  23:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We may not always NEED nudes, but it is also wrong to opposes a picture simply BECAUSE it is nude. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Any attempt to remove an image has to involve an argument other than "it is offensive." The argument that an image is "offensive" is a meaningless argument. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, Bus Stop (first repetition) you're made a subjective criterion that's impossible to meet. Any time I object to such an image for any reason whatsoever, someone will insist that I am objecting to it because it's offensive and forbid its removal. How can any offensive image ever be removed that way?  again, all other things being equal, non-controversial images are better than controversial images by default.  This is a standard the project needs to adopt.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How about an embedded vomit video on Vomiting then? Illustrates the subject perfectly. And offensiveness does not matter. That's another keep then, unless we can find an NFCC problem. Brilliant. -- J N  466  23:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So if I upload an CC image of an explicit image of sexual intercourse to pregnancy citing it as a depicting of how usually occurs between humans then its perfectly fine because its educational? By the logic Bus stop and Hilo have given, it's not shocking because the rationale given does relate to pregnancy if there text supporting it. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  23:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to paraphrase and extrapolate my views. You're unlikely to get it right. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, would you object to having a video or photograph of two people fucking on the Pregnancy page? I would, solely because that's not the approach of reliable sources covering the topic of pregnancy, and because it would violate the principle of least astonishment. But if we say that what reliable sources do doesn't matter to us, because we know better how to illustrate an article than them, and that we should not focus on offensiveness, as we are currently saying, then there's really no policy reason not to have that video there, because it illustrates how pregnancies usually come about, and that's mentioned in the text. And having such a video there would cause Wikipedia's treatment of the topic of pregnancy to diverge sharply from that in reliable sources. To me that's a bad thing. And it also means that we could have the best text in the world, and no one would read it, because the video would absorb all the attention. Another bad thing. -- J N  466  00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that the lady in the current image is pregnant. You could not guarantee that any particular fuck video was connected with a pregnancy. You have extrapolated too far. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Images specifically says that images only have to look like what they are meant to illustrate, and don't have to be provably authentic. So a video of intercourse is fine, as you can't tell the difference anyway. -- J N  466  00:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Go for it. So long as it's not blatantly porn it won't offend me, but I don't really think you're serious, are you? Too many of the conservatives her would have conniptions and kittens in tandem. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This nicely defines the problem. HiLo isn't offended by an embedded video of a couple fucking in Pregnancy. Bus stop asks "How is this photo "less offensive" than this photo? This blindness to offensiveness is your problem. You are arguing that our readership should be exposed to offensive content because you don't feel it and don't care that they do. This is a shortcoming in your social perception and understanding, not a virtue, and not a stance that should be assumed by a mature encyclopedia.


 * Some, above, are arguing that offensiveness is too subjective for anything useful to come from us taking it into account. Across the world and across history nudity is seen as offending social norms. Open displays of nudity are always transgressive. Public depictions of grotesque violence and frank sex acts are universally viewed as offensive and shocking. Depictions of Muhammad are seen by most Muslims as offensive and shocking. Offensiveness is something most editors, and all readers, are capable of taking into account.


 * How should offensiveness affect our editorial decision-making? As many have said above, offensiveness alone is not sufficient to justify exclusion. The degree of offensiveness needs to be weighed against the didactic value of the content. These decisions will involve discussion and consensus, including consideration of what other reliable sources do; that's our job and what we do pretty well here. I agree with others above, a blanket diktat that "we do not consider offensiveness" works against the quality of the project and infantilises the editor community.


 * Some have argued that we don't need to take account of offensiveness to exclude gratuitous offensive content because relevance alone is sufficient grounds for removal of gratuitous images. This is wrong. The encyclopedia is littered with images that convey little or nothing of educational value, but which are vehemently defended. Try removing the lead image of ADHD on the grounds of its limited educational value. You have no chance. If you add "controversial" to the reasons for removal of an image, the chance of removal reduces to less than none. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW I agree with all those here saying we should be taking offensiveness into consideration. Obviously, we must and do already, to a certain extent. Even if you object to a graphic sex video in Pregnancy, why isn't there a graphic sex video in every one of our articles about sex? Right now we mainly have illustrations. Someone, tell me why such a video could be removed from an article about sex apart from an argument based on the offensiveness of the video (which theoretically isn't currently allowed [!?!?].) Clearly, we care about offensiveness at least a little bit. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Break 2
Nomoskedasticity, the apparent contradiction between two recent posts I made: and  isn't one. I am proposing to


 * 1) Delete the sentence "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article"
 * 2) Replace it with "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources."
 * 3) Keep the sentence "Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content."

The complete paragraph would read:
 * However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources. Beyond that, "being objectionable" [in itself] is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

You may be right that using reliable sources as one consideration in image use discussions may be better addressed elsewhere. In that case, the only sentence at issue is
 * "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article"

That sentence is doublespeak. It tells editors not to focus on offensiveness, but offensiveness may be the one and only reason why an image is inappropriate. Maybe we could just delete it. Cheers. -- J N  466  23:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayen: I actually don't like that last line at all, since it is too easy to misinterpret as a carte blanche for adding controversial material. How about revising it to read: "Non-objectionable content should be preferred, but where there is sufficient cause to use objectionable material offense is generally not sufficient grounds on which to oppose it."? -- Ludwigs 2  23:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * JN466 —why should there be "...in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources"? Bus stop (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because that's the principle this project is built on – ???? Can you please answer the question whether you would like to see a homemade video of someone vomiting, defecating, or torturing a cat on the pages vomiting, defecation, and crush film? -- J N  466  00:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * JN466—there are no ironclad rules such as you are trying to write into policy. When an editor wishes to have an image removed from an article, that editor has to present a convincing argument for why that image fails to advance the purposes of the article. The editor must persuade other editors to join in a consensus-forming block that will ensure that the image gets removed. Never should the appeal to "offensiveness" be a part of that argument because—Wikipedia is not censored. Bus stop (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to give a straightforward answer to this simple yes/no question leaves us wondering whether you would support the described kind of video but feel that it's not opportune to admit the fact, or whether you would not and are aware that this shoots a huge hole into your argument. Hans Adler 00:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Adler, enough with the pedantic boorishness, Bus Stop is exactly right. In these cases, we ask the question "do we need to see X to understand Y?"  So if someone really does try to add an image of a person vomiting to vomit, or if someone tries to remove an image from Muhammad, we hold a discussion regarding what the article gains by inclusion, or what it would lose by removal, respectively.  "Vomit looks cool, and the pic is free" would not be a good reason to include, and "some Muslims are offended", would be insufficient reasons to include or remove. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not address me by my naked last name. In all places where I have lived so far that is incredibly rude, especially in an adversarial context. For further information see User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats, which applies similarly to me except that on Wikipedia everybody may call me Hans and I actually prefer "Mr Adler" to "Dr Adler". And just in case it's not clear, "Herr Adler" is also not an acceptable option in a civil English conversation. Hans Adler 17:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to remove a video of someone vomiting from the article vomiting in the first place, if another editor goes to the trouble of making and embedding one? Could it be because it is offensive to you? And I disagree that it is uneducational. Such a video allows you to observe the involuntary action of various groups of muscles involved in vomiting in a way that is simply not possible if you yourself are the person vomiting. Especially so if the subject in the video is naked. That would be even more educational. -- J N  466  00:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One can always tell when your argument has gone off the deep end, jayen; you really don't pull off sarcasm very well. Tarc (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm? Maybe it didn't work very well as sarcasm precisely because it was never intended as such. On the rare occasions that I vomit, I never see what it looks like, as I am never in the mood to use a mirror. On the rare occasions that someone else vomits in my presence, I run for a bucket or otherwise try to be of assistance, and also don't concentrate on how, precisely, it works. I am convinced that a video of a vomiting person would be extremely instructive. And yes, if the person were naked, a number of additional observations could be made.
 * What we are trying to find out (well, obviously I can only speak for myself) is whether you and Bus stop go so far that you would support such a video in the vomiting article, or whether you are just being hypocritical. Because it does appear that a lot of anti-censorship extremists are hypocrites who would reject the hypothetical vomiting video because they don't agree with it and want to censor it, but whenever other people have the same feelings about something they are comfortable with, they insist that this must not be taken into account at all. While trying to stay in their own comfort zone all the time, these hypocrites insist on violating others'. Hans Adler 22:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not Bus Stop, but I do not object to the hypothetical use of a vomiting video on the relevant article. However, I have never edited the article, I don't even recall ever having read it, and so I am not in a position to say whether it would benefit the article or not. Furthermore, I have not seen a video of vomiting that would be suitable for an encyclopaedia article about vomiting (that doesn't mean there isn't one, just that I've not seen one) so I cannot comment at all on specifics. I have though seen a video of vomiting that would be completely inappropriate for the main encyclopaedia article about vomiting - it was a (presumably copyrighted) hard porn video showing vomiting, urination and other excretory activities including ingestion of what had been excreted (it was not labelled as this!). If it were Free content then it might be suitable for illustrating an article about those particular sexual practices or pornography of that nature (afaik we don't have articles on those subjects) but even then it's quite probable that more encyclopaedic videos exist. My point is that I can't say "yes, put a video of vomiting on the vomit article" because it's not as simple as that. In short if media is proposed to be added to an article I'm involved with, then I will support it if I think it encyclopaedically relevant to the topic and there is no other media available to use that does a better job. Possibly related to this, see Talk:Child pornography/Archive 3, Talk:Child pornography/Archive 5 and Talk:Child pornography/Archive 5. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this fine example of diversion as a rhetorical technique. I probed specifically into the vomiting topic because it appeared that that's the kind of thing that Bus Stop and Tarc would want to censor. If I had been interested in your response (to test whether you are hypocritical), I would have looked for something that takes you out of your comfort zone. For someone who has seen the kind of pornography that you describe, presumably it takes a bit more than mere vomiting, or maybe we would just have to go into a different direction altogether.
 * My point is that practically everybody has some things that they would want to censor, whether they are aware of the fact or not. Whether the offensiveness of certain content to some people is sufficient reason to exclude this content must be decided case by case as a perfectly normal editorial decision. We make such editorial decisions all the time, and normally without any disruption whatsoever. Problems usually start only when the anti-censorship mob arrives and claims that the offensiveness must not factor into our editorial decisions, exaggerates the benefit of the controversial content to an absurd degree, similarly downplays the disadvantages, and systematically ignores/denies all arguments offered against the material that are based on aspects not directly related to its controversial nature. Of course, the anti-censorship mob always consists only of editors who are comfortable with the material in question. It's far bigger for the beatiful photo of a nude woman at the top of the pregnancy article than it could ever be for the hypothetical vomiting video, and on the one occasion that someone added a photo of an excreting woman, taken from below, to an article and tried to defend it with reference to this policy, that guy was blocked almost immediately and nobody came to the editor's defence.
 * The underlying principle is this: "Censoring material offensive to some? Totally out of the question as a matter of principle, because it's simply too subjective. Except of course in cases of material that would take me out of my comfort zone, in which case it's not censorship." In other words, we are simply dealing with the standard behaviour of hypocritical spoilt brats. A good indication that I am right is how often in discussions with the mob, the mobsters accuse their opponents of being themselves offended and denying it. Apparently they cannot even put themselves in the shoes of editors who pursue anything but their own personal tastes. Hans Adler 12:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've responded to that accusation of hypocrisy elsewhere in this section - see diff or do a page text search for "I don't want anybody". Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I am not just going to take your word for it. I don't think there are any hypocrites in the world who know that they are hypocritical. I have described the test above, and rather than wait for the two editors to whom this was addressed to respond, you have come to their rescue. That's not a good sign at all. Hans Adler 19:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the phrase "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources." is anywhere close to laying down an "iron-clad rule". It simply says that these are the considerations discussion should be informed by. If you think it can be said better, please feel free to propose a rewording. -- J N  466  00:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The elephant in the room is that few, if any editors upload, insert, or argue for content that they find absolutely disgusting. So, Tarc's comment "just because the prudery of several editors has been denied doesn't mean there's a lack of standards" sums up the problem with this discussion. Who's being a prude, and who's being lewd is inevitably dependant upon cultural context. Editors making the argument "I don't find this content to be offensive" should certainly prevail if enough users agree. But wrapping this argument in the flag of "not censored" is misleading, since WP:VER, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR explicitly censor article content, and in ways that are applied somewhat differently by each editor, according to their culture-bound tastes. You cannot write whatever you like, so long as it's legal in Florida. The Encyclopaeda Dramatica standard on offensiveness is technically a standard, but it isn't a helpful one. What "not censored" is really saying is that we sometimes censor content according to all of our policies and guidelines, except this one. So there is no good way to keep out the goatse image, a large-format video of the act added to necrophilia, etc. I urge editors to consider the fact that there is probably something that will make you sick to your stomach. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, I honestly don't get what people like Tarc, Busstop, HiLo, and etc are actually arguing for. It's clear they are against anything that appears to them to be censorship, but their understanding of censorship seems to be vague and subjective.  the rubric seems to be that anything someone objects to must be kept; a perverse logic that is needlessly confrontational.  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding: is the point of all this that you fell the need to enforce controversy, because controversy that's not enforced is censorship?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it's about not wanting rules, but retaining the freedom to decide as one sees fit oneself. Everything else is rationalisation, and the argumentation is full of holes. It's about saying, I want to be able to delete what is offensive to me, but I don't want to have any rules that prevent me from having what I want just because someone else doesn't like it. It's selfish. -- J N  466  01:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I don't want anybody to be able to delete what is offensive to them and prevent what is offensive to others from being deleted. I want a policy that, exactly as it currently does, means the decision about whether to include or not include any image on an article is made purely on the basis of a consensus of editors at the given article about whether that particular should be on the article based on how well it illustrates the topic. The proposal is to change this so that an arbitrary group of editor's undefinable standard of what is an is not "offensive" gets applied across the encyclopaedia because they don't think anyone should be allowed to discuss the inclusion of images they don't like in case they don't get their way. NPOV is "absolute and non-negoitable" but "offensiveness" is inseparable from POV. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What is proposed here is to make the decision based on standards in reputable secondary sources. I don't see how this is equivalent to empowering anyone's personal standard of what is or is not offensive. If you are talking about an arbitrary group of editors making a decision based on their undefinable personal standard, that actually describes very well what you are expressly arguing in favour of – a self-selected group of editors on an article talk page gets to decide, based solely on their personal criteria, predilections and comfort zones, without any attempt to neutrally reflect coverage in secondary sources. Isn't that right? Cheers, -- J N  466  12:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2, I think we should follow the sources, to the best of our ability. If they feature content that may upset someone, then so should we. If they avoid it, then so should we. I think if you read the two sentences in context, Discussion of potentially objectionable content should focus on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article, based on encyclopedic relevance, educational value, due weight, and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources. Beyond that, "being objectionable" [in itself] is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content., then it's clear that it's not a case of "anything goes". A controversial image must be due -- due not because some editor likes it, but because it reflects how this topic is presented in sources. -- J N  466  01:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An interesting point. We allow original images for the same reason as original text: RS are often under significant copyright restrictions. Just as editor-written text is required to faithfully represent the meaning of the source(s) cited, images might be subject to verification requirements. I've seen no RS cited for the video in ejaculation, as the primary means of verification is presumably personal observation of the act. Is this something we would want to promote for teenage girls who edit Wikipedia? That carries original research to ridiculous, and perhaps dangerous lengths. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sourcing becomes far more problematic for images than for text, particularly if you throw in that 'same or comparable clause. for instance, under this wording we might technically end up with Miss November as the lead image of our woman article: try arguing to yourself that Playboy and Penthouse don't qualify as a reliable sources for images of women, and see how far you get. Not that I want to quibble too much - this is a decided improvement.


 * Really, for me the thrust of this dispute is that we have to get NOTCENSORED back to what it originally was meant to be: a clause protecting the encyclopedia from losing pertinent information due to clear censorship, rather than a clause protecting controversial trivia because some editors have a rebellious attitude towards conventional social mores. However that might happen is good with me...  -- Ludwigs 2  02:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For copyright reasons, "verification" of images would require substantial similarity of subject matter, not being identical pixel for pixel. So we could have a free image of a woman looking somewhat like Miss November, posed similarly :) That is, if Wikipedia were a vehicle for titillation, celebration of the human body, or political activism. The foundation resolution suggests that it is none of these. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Break 2a
Can I propose a change from "potentially offensive" to "controversial". This proposal is based on the rationale outlined in the study report that informed the Foundation resolution: ...we believe the instances when modifications to intellectual openness should be considered must be severely limited to protect the overwhelming amount of content on the projects that must remain unmodified, especially that content, as mentioned above, that is demanding, difficult and contentious by its very nature. Because language matters, it is for this reason that we prefer the term “controversial content” to “potentially-objectionable content.” Objectionable content is, obviously, content to which any individual user takes issue, for whatever reason. Far from lacking an objective test, the designation of objectionable to content is always immediately apparent. If I nominate it as such, it takes on that designation. Who can argue the assertion that I take offense at pictures of balloons (if I am phobic about them), or descriptions of the mating habits of mammals. No one. Allowing “objectionable”, or, even worse “potentially-objectionable” as a trigger to determine potential modifications to Wikimedia content is, in our mind, much too broad a definition whose adoption would be dangerous for the intellectual health of the projects.

“Controversial,” on the other, to us, implies a social process, an acknowledgment that certain types of content (say, images of explicit sexuality) generally create a reaction among broad groups of individuals, each acting independently, and without ulterior motive, that gives us more confidence that we might consider these reactions legitimate and worthy of consideration. There are objective tests for the concept “controversial,” we believe, whose use can ensure the legitimacy of consideration by an open Wikimedia culture of potential modifications to that openness.

I'd also like to propose that the spirit, if not the exact words, of the opening paragraph of the Foundation resolution be included here:"Some kinds of content, particularly that of a sexual, violent or religious nature, may be offensive to some viewers; and some viewers may feel such content is disrespectful or inappropriate for themselves, their families or their students, while others may find it acceptable. 'Controversial content' includes all of these categories."--Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say that should also include "Wikimedia projects are not censored." which you left out of that quote. Hobit (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hobit, I left a lot out of that quote, and included what was relevant to my comment. The comment was addressing the use of the term "potentially objectionable". --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So I've only got one thing to add to this. Please, please, don't assume that consensus in the TLDR discussion is enough to make any change.  This should be a clear RfC where one doesn't have to parse walls of text to contribute to the discussion.  I stopped reading about half way through this and I care quite a bit. (I'd prefer to keep the language as it stands I think, though I'd be interested in whatever proposal comes out of this.) Hobit (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, we're talking about a clarification of policy that a significant minority of editors oppose, so when the wording of the proposed change is settled, a very wide community discussion would be appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The purpose of a wall of text is to have the RFC declared "no consensus", so that we can start over, repeatedly, until editors supporting the opposite position tire of the process :) No, really, there are important points in the discussion that proponents of "not censored" haven't satisfactorily responded to. First, "not censored" is intellectually dishonest, since WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and so on explicitly require censorship of content for conformity to the policies. "not censored" is also inconsistent with the foundation resolution, far too often serves as a vehicle for editors to wrap themselves in the flag of free speech while simply promoting their own standards, and promotes original research images whose subject matter would be very difficult to verify with any reliable source (commercial pornography doesn't count.) Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The only intellectual dishonesty here is on your end, I'm afraid. An encyclopedia provides knowledge, some of which may include images that certain conservative-leaning groups and people don't want others to see.  "Not censored" is the foil to prudery, religious dogma, and whatever other fanciful rationales you concoct this day.  What it comes down to at the end is, you do not have a god-given right to be unoffended. Tarc (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tarc, you have a right to offend. I'm sure we would all defend that. No one has a "right" to be unoffended. No one is arguing they do. Is it sensible or good for the project and its goals to gratuitously offend? When controversial content adds no more didactic value than equally educational uncontroversial content, should we choose the uncontroversial content, and avoid disaffecting large numbers of readers? Many believe that is the appropriate choice, that such a policy would benefit the encyclopedia without harming it.  When you mention "images that certain conservative-leaning groups and people don't want others to see" you are addressing censorship, something most (all?) presently engaged in this discussion are opposed to. But "offensive" means "unpleasant or insulting, and likely to make people upset or embarrassed." That is, there is such a thing as offense, and it is felt by billions of people on a personal, individual level, when they view certain types of material. It is this real (though subjective) feeling that I believe we should where possible, without reducing the educational value of the encyclopedia, respect. The act of removing a pair of naked breasts from the top of Pregnancy (a trivial example, I believe) may be motivated by the desire to prevent others from looking at naked breasts, which is censorship, or it may be motivated by genuine concern for the actual, real, embarrassment, unpleasantness or insult that billions of real individuals really feel when they view material they find offensive (though that would be minor in this instance). The act may be identical but the motive determines whether it is an act of censorship or a harmless act of respect. I believe that there are images many of our readers will find personally offensive, and that your desire to see such images is, where they add little or nothing to an article's educational value, subordinate to the undeniable personal offense it will cause others. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Amended 09:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tarc, have you ever read some English-language print or commercial online encyclopedias? If you have, then you know that Wikipedia is unique among major encyclopedias in terms of willingness to include nudity, sex, and violence. So your "An encyclopedia provides knowledge, some of which may include" argument falls flat on its face. While you attribute opposition to the not censored policy to "conservative-leaning groups" and "prudery, religious dogma", one could just as easily credit the BLP "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" requirement to bleeding-heart liberals. Neither sort of puerile name calling is helpful.
 * I'm not saying that I find the nude pregnancy image, or the ejaculation video to be unnecessary and offensive. What I am claiming is that we should be able to have reasoned discussions about how image use in these and similar articles comports with the sound exercise of editorial discretion, and make decisions on the basis of consensus. It is no more appropriate to describe opponents of image inclusion as prudish, right-wing religious zealots than it is to characterise proponents as militantly exhibitionist liberals. "not censored" puts us in the odd position of making subjective decisions about how article content is compliant or non-compliant with every policy or guideline except this one. Disempowering editors to exercise good judgement on this specific issue only will simply lead to more attempts to include the goatse stretched anus pictures, and worse, much to the discredit of the project. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of NOTCENSORED is actually to empower editors - it frees them from having to balance NPOV with an infinite set of mutually incompatible and inconsistent standards of "decency" and arguments of the "won't someone please think of the children" sort. Why is it acceptable to make the encyclopaedia subject to your standards of what is or is not offensive while completely ignoring other people's? There are conservative Muslim groups who will think that File:Bekker Amore (Profile).jpg would be a clearly inappropriate image to illustrate the "woman" article. Why are their views about what is "offensive" less right than yours? Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it acceptable to make the encyclopedia subject to your standards of what WP:BLP means when it says that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives", while being unable to consider the views of every other person on the planet? A refusal to draw subjective lines on the basis of one's own judgement implies a total inability to edit constructively. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, Thryduulf. And it's been made before but I haven't addressed it. I'll have to think about this. How do we decide who is the deserving offended? Numbers? Perhaps it's what Jayen's been stressing all along, we take our lead from the way other encyclopedias and similar sources treat each issue. I'll get back to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The same way we make every other subjective decision: editorial judgement. None of our content policies provide precise, mathematically certain guidance as to how articles should be written. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Standards in reputable published sources are the be-all and end-all of our text. We simply don't want to have any ideas, facts, opinions that are unrepresented in reliable sources enter our encyclopaedia. To that extent, we are self-censored, severely self-censored, and no one seems to have a problem with that. But when it comes to illustrations, you want to empower editors to apply their standards, even if they differ from standards in reliable sources. Why should we do that for illustrations, if we don't do it for text? This proposal is about doing away with the notion that anybody, of censorious or anti-censorious bent, gets to implement their standards where those differ markedly from standards in reliable sources. That is consistent with our fundamental content policies. -- J N  466  13:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf: Again (sorry, but I repeat this point often) you are misrepresenting the problem and reaching an utterly irrelevant conclusion:
 * You confuse extremist opinions with conventional mores.
 * You place NPOV in opposition to the act of balancing opinions, where NPOV should be the act of balancing opinions.
 * You refuse to allow any moderate position and try to force a conflict between extremes.
 * You effectively tell us we should empower editors to ignore readers' beliefs and preferences and give up on trying to be respectful of our readership because it's too hard, or maybe just too much trouble.
 * Are you really suggesting that editors cannot make distinctions between Bekker Amore (Profile).jpg and the Goatse image? Are you implying that Bekker Amore (Profile).jpg will produce as much consternation for Muslims as images of the prophet?  You personally may be unable to make these distinctions, but most wikipedia editors are perfectly able to do so, and would do so if we didn't have to cope with editors who swing NOTCENSORED like a broadax.  You're trying to defend a policy that is intended to inhibit extremist positions as though it was intended to suppress everyday differences of opinion.  That's just blindly authoritarian.  Yes, someone saying that Bekker Amore is offensive is probably expressing a personal opinion or an extreme religious viewpoint; However, someone saying that they prefer to avoid gratuitous nudity where possible is expressing a world-wide cultural norm.  If you cannot see that distinction then you are a member of a tiny, tiny minority.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

JN466—Sorry I couldn't respond to your posts sooner but let me try to do so now. First thing is you can't derive "standards" for the inclusion or exclusion on images based on a perusal of sources—be they reliable sources or not. There is no logic to the reasoning behind that. We do not need to demonstrate "precedent" for the association of images with subject matter. That is instruction creep and the adoption of such a policy would be detrimental because of the incompleteness of the relationship between images and words. You can't create what in the final analysis is arbitrary policy, to be invoked in the midst of an argument over whether an image should be kept in an article or removed from an article. Once such wording gets into policy it would get endlessly abused. And I am sorry to say but such wording happens to be virtually meaningless in the first place. Words are not images. These are distinct entities. We as editors can validly extract images from sources not even on the same subject as the article we are working on, and we can do so responsibly. People invest images with significance as they see fit. These are editorial decisions. Policy should be kept simple. Editors can discuss the needs of the article. What you are suggesting is actually another form of value judgement. We don't need value judgements at all, no matter from what quarters those value judgements may derive. We don't, or we should not, reach decisions based on whether we like an image or not. In the final analysis it doesn't matter if you or I or someone else finds an image "offensive" or not. "Offensive" is virtually meaningless in the context of Wikipedia. We are not so provincial. I don't think we even know our own limits. I am amazed that you can suggest that you know what our limitations are—concerning propriety. From where are you deriving that reliable sources should guide us in matters of taste? Reliable sources guide us in matters of factuality. As concerns whether the inclusion of an image is a good idea, that is entirely up to editors. Editors need to discuss the needs of the article. That entails the aims of the article. We need to be cognizant of what is missing from the article. We have to listen to other editors who have ideas for directions the article can grow in. Images are a part of editors writing articles. As Jimbo Wales said, we are not "transcription monkeys". Though we are bound and limited by the availability of reliable sources, we are not necessarily constrained in the form that the finished product (the article) can take. I'm sorry but you are taking a timid approach to article-writing when you suggest that we must find "precedent" in sources for the association of images with text. Consensus should be the final arbiter of whether an image is in an article or not. No rules are needed and it is in fact not possible to have rules concerning what is proper in imagery. That there are editors arguing for the inclusion of an image (that you may consider offensive) is not to be dismissed lightly. The argument for the inclusion of so-called "offensive" imagery is a valid argument too. Personally I may take the side of an argument favoring the removal of an image. But my argument for the removal of that image would only be based on the direction that I felt the article should go in. All of my argumentation would only be based on what was good for the article. I would never argue that some source did not include such an image so why should we. Am I not capable of thinking for myself in matters of taste? You are suggesting limiting our choices to the "precedent" set at other sources as concerns the inclusion of images of a "type". I'd rather leave that choice up to our own editors even if we sometimes get it "wrong". Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In prose, we don't simply extract from reliable sources, we generally use the guidance of the sources to avoid placing any undue weight on any particular aspect: eg if there exists 100 sources but only one covers a small detail, we don't devote a large fraction of an article to that one detail. Similarly, the guidance of using the same type (in terms of offensiveness) of images that the sources will generally use as the representative images to use on WP is completely in line with that approach.  If there are 100 academic works on a topic, and only one choses to illustrate the topic using a nude photo while the rest can do the same with a clothed figure, we should be using the clothed figure no matter how important that single source is.  That of course assumes there's a good sample of illustrated sources to work from.  If such illustrations fail to exist then yes, we have to invent our own approach. --M ASEM  (t) 16:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, I see this as roughly equivalent to our articles' textual content. Of course we are all able to think for ourselves. By the same token, we would be able to compose texts for our articles just as we see fit, without recourse to sources at all. There are any number of topics where I feel I could write a decent article without using sources and citations, just using my own thoughts, knowledge and opinion. And that would be WP:OR. We haven't written articles like that for a very long time, and no one wants to go back to that. I agree with Masem here, though I would add to what Masem said that absence of illustrations in an otherwise illustrated publication (e.g. consistent absence of the goatse image in publications discussing it, or absence of photographs of people vomiting, defecating etc. in texts discussing these bodily functions) may in itself be indicative of consistent editorial judgment in reliable sources that we should consider in our discussions here. Wherever we have images of a type that we have determined reliable sources do not use, these will be available via a Commons link. -- J N  466  16:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And to further build on this: just as we would do in text or style matters, if the sources are roughly split (no strong majority) in the choice of a less offensive or more offensive image (or no image vs an offensive image), that's where we as WP editors can come in and make our own choice of consensus. Ultimately, if this truly was the case, that sources were surely split on what approach to use (out of 100 sources, 50 used a clean image, 50 used a nude image), and no direct consensus can be made by Wikipedians, I would say the default should be to use the least offensive offensive image or no image only as a means of ending a prolonged discussion.    --M ASEM  (t) 17:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But how do you define which image is more or less offensive? Offensive to who? How do you define it objectively for all images? What about when both options are offensive to different sides (for different reasons)? For example in an illustration showing a Muslim woman some people will find it offensive if she is wearing a niqab whereas others will find it equally offensive if she isn't. As another example the implication that a nude image is "dirty" (by saying a non-nude image is "clean") is something that I find offensive. If there is a serious dispute about an image that editors cannot agree about, then get third opinions, RfCs, etc. until some agreement can be come to. Because each image needs to be judged on it's own merits in the context of the specific section of the specific article there is no point attempting to set standards - at Vietnam War is an image that is not offensive in context, but would be distinctly inappropriate in most other places on the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * MASEM—you say "the default should be to use the least offensive offensive image". No, the default should be to use the article's Talk page. From where are you deriving that any of the images under consideration are "offensive"? Your own sensibilities and those of like-minded editors should not determine what are, strictly speaking, matters of taste. How you are further going to hair-split between more and less "offensive" I find even more puzzling. On the article Talk page, reasons can be given that concern the article for which inclusion of the image is proposed and supported by some editors. It does not matter what text any source combines with any image. The editorship is not bound to any particular combinatorial relationship as may be found in precedent at any other source between text and image. We are free to strike out in our own direction in this regard. These are matters of article-creation. No matter what sources exist, we are not bound to mimic the form found in those sources. We can choose to be more bold if editorial will supports that. This is not a project bound to any small sector of people who may have parochial values in what constitutes propriety in imagery. It is perfectly feasible to have here what may not exist elsewhere. Indeed many of our articles are unique. This is a valuable feature of the project that shouldn't be hobbled by the proposed requirement for "precedent" in images in association with certain bodies of texts in sources. That is not what WP:RS was ever about. Instruction creep is not just something that can be ignored. As soon as wording is put in policy, there will be editors invoking it. There is not even a workable way of demonstrating what images go with text. But that will not stop editors from endlessly arguing that somebody else's bad taste is not supported by reliable sources. Such language in policy is counterproductive. As concerns the addition of images, we should be discussing on article Talk pages what benefits our particular article. We are perfectly capable of conducting that discussion responsibly. Wikipedia may in the final analysis be more bold than its sources. If so, so be it. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To both above: it's called "common sense". There will always be fringe cases where one would be extremely surprised that something is offensive to a group, but for most of the cases that have been pointed out in the above sections (nudity/sexual matters, religion, and war/violence) it is reasonably expected that an editor can recognize that an image will be offensive to someone even if it is not offensive to them.   And even then, if it is later found to be offensive, consensus can commence to determine the relative degrees of offensiveness of specific choices.  The problem I'm seeing is when editors bunker down because they personally don't find an image offensive and refuse to recognize that others might, that we're getting into problems. But the use of images has to be considered in context of all editors and readers, and so we must use common sense to know when we are willingly placing a potentially offensive image in place and understand the alternatives when doing so. --M ASEM  (t) 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I see more of a problem from editors bunking down and insisting that an image must be removed because they find it "offensive", or they think some other group will (who in many cases actually don't). "I know it when I see it" is probably the worst thing to build a policy around, precisely because while there are a few areas where many (but not all) people who contribute here (read: many people from the unrepresentative dominant cultural backgrounds that make up Wikipedia editors) will agree on, they are but a speck in the ocean of cases where there is no common position. For example, Look at these images:
 * File:Artistic - Open Shirt in Darkened Room 03.jpg
 * File:Bucharest, Young Gypsy girl, 1842.jpg
 * File:Athens Pride 2010 - 21.JPG
 * File:World War One Memorial, Barre, VT, USA.jpg
 * File:BodypaintingmalefemaleMay2008.jpg
 * File:Baby being weighed.jpg
 * File:Ovid Book III Header.jpg
 * File:Breast self-exam FDA4.gif.
 * Which of them show nudity? Which, if any, of them are offensive? Why? Which is the most offensive? Why? Which of them are OK to be used in an article? Why? Ask someone you live with, do they agree with you about all of them? If not who is right? Why? Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What do any of those images have to do with keep goatse and similar material out? You could just as easily come up with a writing sample that's a borderline violation of WP:BLP, then suggest that the whole policy is meaningless because barely compliant materials are separated from barely unacceptable content only by a dim and uncertain line, placed in a slightly different location by each editor. That would have just as little to do with using BLP to keep bright-line violations out of Wikipedia as a reformation of "not censored" would have to do with removing goatse-type material. This is not hypothetical - the goatse image was defended to the bitter end by editors trying to make a point about "not censored", with the unintentional effect of reductio ad absurdum. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that while you think the policy would only apply to goatse-type images, it wouldn't. There is nothing in it, at all, that says that Wikipedia is not censored for most things but is censored with regards images like goatse. If there was such a provision we'd have to choose where to draw the line - where would you draw it? The comparison to BLP is worth examining because it actually rather proves my point - a person is either alive or not (if we don't know then we presume they are) so the scope of the articles is very clear. Where there is material that may or may not be includable there is a discussion about it on the talk page about whether it should be there, and if so what weight to give it. This is exactly what happens now with regards images, but those proposing this policy want to change that so that anything "offensive" is automatically rejected regardless of context or consensus - without defining the scope of what is an is not offensive beyond "I know it when I see it" - that nobody has attempted to answer the questions with regards the above 8 images is rather telling. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Break 3: Suggested addition to NOTCENSORED
Given the above discussion I would like to suggest lines to be added to NOTCENSORED:
 * In articles on topics with potentially offensive imagery, Wikipedia editors should conform to approaches taken by reliable sources on the topic, including the option of using no illustrations for a topic; if few to no sources use offensive imagery while providing comprehensive coverage of a topic, editors should avoid introducing such to the Wikipedia article. In cases where there is a dispute between the approach taken by sources, and no consensus can be made between editors, it is often better to use the less offensive approach to resolve the conflict.

In other words: if a topic normally covered by reliable works never/rarely uses a nude photo or a grotesque image, it is not WP's to introduce that per this and WP:OR. This is not censoring (we're not saying the image isn't allowed) but choosing what sources work with is a much easier standard to evaluate and does not make WP look like a shock site. --M ASEM (t) 18:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This would be sufficient. -- J N  466  18:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This is an excellent idea, but... let's consider how this would play out in practice, not for the pregnancy case, but for a more obvious one. MEDRS such as  , indeed, probably almost all of these 73,900 Google Scholar results , discuss ejaculation without including a photograph of the act. It would involve some effort to come up with just one video in an MEDRS to verify the media in ejaculation. However, if I were to actually remove the video, it would ignite a firestorm of complaints, predicated on "not censored" superseding WP:UNDUE, the foundation resolution, and just about everything else. It might be possible to bring "not censored" in line with more fundamental content policies, but it will take a fight. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's why what I suggest needs to be said. It needs to be understood that, say, if ejaculation can be discussed in 10,000s of articles without actually showing what it is, and only one or two reliable sources do, it makes sense to work within the status quo. That is not censoring, that is simply conforming to the standard way that the topic is presented in the sheer majority of sources.  In other words, we're changing what NOTCENSORED implies, so those that would argue that after the change will need to reassess their complains after the change.  (And thus this suggests that if this has any sort of reasonable support here, to get a wide RFC out for addition to make sure there's wide consensus). --M ASEM  (t) 18:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose I view it as an attempt to tie editor's hands and to submit ourselves to any group out there that is offended by something. Some of the points are good but simply because it is a controversial image should never be the driving factor on removal or disclussion.  Automatically opting for the less offensive image simply because you can't get consesus is censoring, which I am uneasy with.  In some images it can be shown that a controversial image is far more useful but without consesus this would tie your hands to use a lesser image. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We can reconsider what the default position should be if sources are split 50/50, but that's not likely in practice. Illustrations Wikipedia's sexology articles are so far afield from the general practice of reliable sources that there should be no disputes between approaches taken by the sources at all. There will be disputes, but only as to whether we actually care about RS for illustrations. Really, this is no more hand tying than verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research, and biographies of living persons, though all of these directly restrict article content. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The only time that what I've written would require seeking the default is if sources can't agree, and consensus can't agree. And that would fall in line with how the Foundation has asked us to consider choosing the lesser of two evils if neither one is clearly the best choice; and, as Alessandra's noted, how many of our other policies default to a predefined solution if consensus cannot come to a solution themselves.  That is far from censoring. --M ASEM  (t) 18:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion we should use RS as a loose guideline but most publications either have limitations for things such as images (too much space, too expensive, etc.) However this should in no way be an end all be all for our images policies, and the current system works fine when individuals can actually bring policy to table under something other than "this offends."  Compromise is even being reached on pages that spawned these concerns, as long as the approach is taken as trying to improve the article not because of offense.


 * Also on the second note, as an editor I am requested not to use gratuitously offensive materials. If they truely wanted us to censor our workings they would have said that instead of trying to create an image filter so people will be able to self censor out things they consider offensive. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, and I don't know how to succinctly put it, the survey of sources should take into account if the RS in general uses sources in the first place or similar restrictions; more weight on the survey should be placed on sources where there are no restrictions on the inclusion of any image. For example, most journals do not limit the number of images, while a news-style magazine may cut down numbers to fit within a certain page count; we would place more value on how the journals present the images related with a topic than the news magazine in this case. --M ASEM  (t) 19:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose taking this to a poll since it firstly has no realistic chance of passing and will only serve to gauge consensus amongst editors here which is already apparent. More importantly though this will only fragment the discussion amongst a multitude of "votes" when what we need is a centralized discussion around what the core issues seem to be.(I have attempted to start one below) A real vote should come after a clear summary of both arguments can be made, an RFC is requested for outside input, and a proposed wording has some sort of potential to be passed.AerobicFox (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

On a closing note, WP:NOTCENSORED refers broadly to all types of content, including text which has far less potential to be shocking. Currently there are guidelines which specifically discuss image use, in particular WP:Offensive material which recommends choosing the least offensive if multiple options which adequately represent the topic are present. Recent proposals all seem centered around image use, and they should make that clear if they do not wish to be applied to an articles text.AerobicFox (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Semi break/Summary
 * Wall of text is making it difficult to join in after only being gone a couple days. I will try to accurately sum up propositions and their rebuttals here:
 * 1) WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, etc, already require censorship of content, so the argument that we don't self censor is false and should not be reflected in policy
 * 2) *Censorship can refer to removal of any content for any reason, but it is often used to describe removal of potentially offensive content, the American heritage dictionary gives its first definition of censorship as "to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." The above policies are put in place to censor incorrect information because our goal is to provide verifiable information which gives an accurate depiction of the topic. By censoring verifiable, accurate information for being potentially offensive you are violating WP:WEIGHT for not giving due weight to the offensive aspects of a topic, preventing the reader's access to potentially useful information, and violating WP:NPOV by largely skewing objectionable content away from an English audience, but not others(Muslims for example), and by removing the shocking an disturbing element important to many topics such as the Holocaust.(would not a Holocaust denier prefer to remove the most graphic images of that event?)
 * 3) Where the line is unclear we should turn to reliable sources for precedent since we already do so with our text.
 * 4) *Reliable sources often use copyrighted content which can not be reproduced in Wikipedia. Media, especially printed media, is usually limited by resources to what it can publish: number of photos, color photos, etc, resulting in many sources using images sparingly, adding an additional burden to editors to find precedent for image use in obscure topics. Reliable sources often have a smaller audience than Wikipedia, and are dependent upon the commercialism of their works, often resulting in censorship of less vital information to prevent a financial loss due to offending some of their market. Since Wikipedia has a broader audience to provide information to there is a greater chance of information being potentially useful to somebody, and since our content isn't financially motivated we are more free than reliable sources to provide content which is not profitable but still notable. Additionally such a policy will promote a WP:FUTON bias where in editors seek out online resources which can publish more non-text media then potentially more reliable printed media.
 * 5) Current policy dictates that we ignore an images offensiveness, which gives editors the ability to not address an images offensiveness when discussing its relevance.
 * 6) *The current policy does not ask that editors ignore an images offensives, but to focus on it's relevance which offensiveness is a part of. If an important element of a topic is that it's shocking and grotesque(a severe medical condition, holocaust, etc), then the discussion of an images relevance would note that an image need be "sufficiently disturbing" in order adequately illustrate the inherently disturbing nature of the topic. An image of the bubonic plague in it's mildest form—while less shocking— would not be as relevant as an image of a typical, and shocking, case of bubonic plague. On the other hand the use of shocking and disturbing images should not be gratuitous, a topic on medical disease should not find the most severe and disturbing case of said disease, but it should find the most relevant image.
 * Some thoughts on your points:
 * Due weight is established by sources, and only by sources. It is not established by what editors think is important, or useful to the reader. That goes for text just as it does for illustrations. Using a type of illustration that is non-existent or extremely uncommon in the pool of reliable sources, compared to other types of imagery, is by definition undue. We should strive for a mainstream presentation. On the other hand, if a type of image is essential to presenting a significant minority (or majority) view, as borne out by the presence of such images in reliable sources espousing that view, then it should be included, whether offensive or not. If we don't use a type of image, it won't be because we find it offensive, but because we find that reliable sources don't use it, or prefer different types of imagery to make their point.
 * We have in common with commercial publishers that we want to serve our readers well, and provide a quality product. Whether the reader pays money for that product or not is irrelevant. A publisher loses money and credibility if customers don't buy their publication, or if critics say it's a poor piece of work. We lose something just the same if people don't read our articles, or say that we produce poor work.
 * Once an image has been identified as controversial, there is no need to focus on potential offensiveness in deciding whether the image is appropriate or not. Complaints about offensiveness should simply trigger source-based research to check that we are using an approach that is in line with reliable sources. Once that research is underway, complaints about offensiveness should stop. In that sense the wording "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." is correct. However, if we say that, then we do also need to say something about what "appropriate" means. Just like text disputes, these discussions need to be informed by reliable sources rather than unsourced opinion. For example, historical works on the holocaust show images similar to ours (even school books show such images, for that matter). We are doing the right thing there, and we can prove it to anyone who doesn't agree. When it comes to illustrating a medical condition, we can likewise refer to reliable sources to help us gauge what the most common type of illustration is, and to what extent extreme images are used. In deciding whether an image is "sufficiently disturbing" or not we should defer to the judgment of those who have the medical and educational expertise – the authors of our sources. -- J N  466  20:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree on some areas of that, particularly the decision on whether or not an image is appropriate, but again I dislike tying it simply to offensive materials. In most cases people seem to respond well to the idea that certain pictures might not be appropriate and will debate usefulness and attempt to show why an image could be appropriate.  However my key hang up is this keeps coming back to offensiveness, which I believe is in invalid reason.  I will happily attempt to see both sides on images that might not be appropriate for the article (i.e. lack of supporting text, doesn't add anything to the article, does the car really need a naked lady) but I don't accept that it should be foremost in our minds. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Images or media that are apt to cause offence and ill-will towards this project call for due diligence. We simply have to make doubly sure that our approach is in line with reliable sources. -- J N  466  21:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reluctantly Oppose - its a good effort Masem, but the issue is that for many things commercial interests and not educational ones will decide what is necessary. While I agree we should go with the less offensive one when multiple options are viable, relying on what RSes use, especially when many of those are commercial ones regulated by additional rules than those of the state of Florida or the Federal Government imposes in general. Some of these are because they'd rather maximize readers than offend a specific group even if that would harm the educational value. At the same time others may choose to use shocking media for exactly that same reason. The bottom line is more important to a profit-making industry. Since those are a large number of what we consider RSes, we cannot use their choice as a clear indication of whether an image is appropriate.
 * EDIT: These publishes will generally be sensitive only to the primary audience. They will censor things that they will mind, but much less so secondary target audiences and rarely if at all tertiary. These audiences are targeted subsets of the populace of a given language and rarely the entire world. Wikipedia does not target such specific subset; we target primarily the entire English-speaking world, both native speakers and non-native and secondarily the entire world population. We don't really have a tertiary audience since the entire world is already covered, unless you believe in faires or the like. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That same argument could be made for text. If we don't trust educational sources to be truly educational, but believe them to censor inconvenient facts, why do we abide by WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? -- J N  466  21:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly right. We are to be a tertiary source and completely trying to avoid introducing new OR anywhere.  That includes how a topic is typically handled, not just in terms of content, but in format and presentation, to a reasonable degree.  That means, things like images as well, even if there is a cloud of corporate or government restrictions on what type of images are used. We apply that metric to text and prose, and it should apply to pictures.  Mind you, we're not restricted (short of US Florida law) of what we can use, so even if there are a bulk of sources from one specific country that purposely block a specific type of image, but fewer sources that originate elsewhere freely use such images, we should be considering the use of them. --M ASEM  (t) 21:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's what you intended Masem, that's not what the text reads would be allowable. The doesn't allow for NPOV except to further remove an image, text or video. " f few to no sources use offensive imagery while providing comprehensive coverage of a topic, editors should avoid introducing such to the Wikipedia article. " That line would not allow for the inclusion if most sources did not for reasons I stated above. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's probably a footnote cavaet to be added: if the majority of sources don't include an image because the sources are purely text based, that's a reason to discount them in the survey of sources. Similarly, if specific types of images are normally externally censored from a specific subset of sources but other sources are not, we discount the ones that are limited in that fashion. --M ASEM  (t) 22:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion between original research and original writing/summarizing/presentation. We do not engage in original research because that is what a primary source does, we do however engage in original summation of secondary sources and original ways of presenting them. Most of what we rely on are secondary sources, they authenticate the results and opinions found in primary sources. In our aim to provide a synopsis of relevant secondary sources we create our own original content, and do not merely repeat how another tertiary source summarizes secondary sources. The important thing to remember about WP:OR is that it only refers to using WP as a primary source, to write/illustrate ideas and concepts not reported/covered by other sources, it does not apply to original ways of phrasing/illustrating ideas and concepts that are covered by other sources. Similarly, WP:Original images: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments.AerobicFox (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No one here is suggesting that original images cannot be used, or are original research per se. OR concerns only come into play when the subject matter of an image is something that hasn't been published in a reliable source, thus introducing an unpublished idea. Can you cite even one WP:MEDRS which confirms that the video in ejaculation is an accurate representation of the act? This may seem like a silly example, since most adults know what it looks like. But that method of confirming the accuracy of article content is original research. Now suppose that an RS could be found to verify the video. If we represent the act at a level of explicitness that only 1 in 10000 MEDRS uses, we are forcing an extremely WP:FRINGE idea into a mainstream article, in violation of WP:UNDUE. While original images are just as necessary as original text, they are both subject to WP:NOR limitations. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood the policy. The subject matter of ejaculation has been published, so as long as a video is illustrating that subject matter it is not original research; there does not need to be an RS that specifically states that our video is a correct representation. The method of illustrating/summarizing/etc is not original research because it is not research, it is illustrating secondary sources which have verified the original research of primary sources. AerobicFox (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course we don't need an RS affirming that our video is correct. But the only way to verify, in the sense of Verifiability that the video is really illustrating the subject matter is by editorial comparison with another video that has been published by a reliable source. Textual descriptions won't pass muster. This is not a case of a an editor-generated graph or other illustration summarizing existing published data. The act filmed is new data, with the man involved participating in an original research project, until the video can be verified. This requirement might be waived for obscure subjects - we could take the photographer at their word that an portrait really represents the person claimed, without having an image in an RS to compare it to. Original photographs of well-known places might be included without specific citations, knowing that there are hundreds of press photos depicting the same subject. Here, in a prominent article, there's no excuse for including a video that would be extremely difficult to verify. Either the data embodied in a video of an ejaculation is unverifiable by recourse to any RS, or so fringe as to warrant omission in a mainstream article. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose for a number of reasons
 * I think we have pretty much hit the offensive/educational boundary pretty well with the current wording.
 * We shouldn't be limited in presentation of content to how others present the content.
 * I believe that offensive is too poorly defined and dependent on person/culture to be useful here.
 * Hobit (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The desire to appease the vocal image-haters is laudable, but ultimately unworkable. When deciding to include an image in an article, offense is simply a negligible concern.  Inclusion discussion should be about what value it brings to the reader, to how it enhances the subject matter.  That is all. Tarc (talk)
 * I believe that there's also a strong case that we need images from RS to compare original images to, for verification purposes, in high-profile articles. Suppose that there were such a thing as a "lightning viper", that all of the text in the "article" was reliably sourced, and that File:Crotalus-basiliscus-basiliskenklapperschlange.jpg were claimed to be a photograph of this species. How could one ever determine, based on the textual description, that the image was accurate? Do understand that creators of hoax articles are likewise capable of hoax photography. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need that except in contriversial cases where its unclear the image matches the text. Indeed that can lead to issues such as those that erupted in Fan service. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  04:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Tarc and Hobit both make good points, but fundamentally, I view NOTCENSORED as even more important to retain with respect to images if we're going to eventually have a configurable edit filter. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The wording is too prescriptive for me. I like the idea of being guided by how RSs use controversial content, and believe it should be suggested in a policy (WP:IUP?) or guideline (Offensive material?), but "if few to no sources use offensive imagery while providing comprehensive coverage of a topic, editors should avoid introducing such to the Wikipedia article" may affect the educational quality of an article. For example, when I was prepubescent and wanted to know what an ejaculation was like, I would have been helped by the clip at Ejaculation far better than any text, and this proposed wording would exclude that clip. As a helpful tip, "reflect the sources' use" may sometimes be useful, but as black-letter policy, it may do harm.
 * I'm still concerned about the use of "potentially offensive" for the same reasons outlined by the 2010 report of the Wikimedia study into controversial content. I posted a quote above outlining those reasons.
 * Per Tarc (except for the appeasement bit), educational merit is the criterion. Unlike Tarc, though, When deciding to include an image in an article, offense is not a negligible concern, but a second order concern after educational merit. We should bear in mind though that educational merit may be overwhelmed and negated by extremely disaffecting content. Difficult judgment calls ... but difficulty is no reason for deciding all such choices in advance by simple diktat. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I've been persuaded by the subsequent discussion. It is a bit of a stretch to extend NPOV across image use, but it may be time we did. It would provide a much needed compass for navigating controversial content curation, hopefully keeping us from constantly straying into inappropriate editorial decisions, and hopefully reducing the number of subsequent interminable controversial content discussions. The counter-argument, that we are a unique resource with no commercial, cultural or political pressures who should not be constrained by the policies of sources that are subject to these pressures, has weight. But, frankly, I think the relative fearlessness of the press, particularly academic press today, pretty well assures us this proposition will not harm the educational value of the project while ensuring we exercise good taste in our curation of controversial content. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not a stretch at all. WP:NPOV has directly named images as a type of article content that falls within the rules of DUE since 2006.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That piece of policy is addressing the proportionate presentation of competing views. (Images can be used to add undue weight to a minority view.) Here we are talking about modelling our selection of controversial images on the practice of reliable sources. That is, this is not a question of weight but of taste and concern for our readers' sensibility. I don't believe this debate is going anywhere until proponents of this proposition admit we're talking about new language that enshrines in policy something most of us have been doing instinctively all along. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So why is it perfectly fine for the editors of an article, whoever they may be, to determine on the article talk page what the appropriate weight for each viewpoint in the text, while at the same time arguing that making exactly the same determination for images cannot possibly be left to editors at a talk page because they do not have the necessary understanding of all cultures, etc? Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To several of the above, educational merit is definitely a key reason to include a potentially offensive image, but that merit is something that we should be determining from reliable sources as well, and not creating the definition ourselves. Including factual information under the claim of "education merit" that the bulk of sources does not include (assuming they had the capacity to) is putting undue weight on a minor topic.  That same should apply to organization and presentation of articles which include image choice. --M ASEM  (t) 04:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually, I'm sure you're right. But I can think of too many exceptions where educational value would be diminished by strictly replicating the controversial content use of other encyclopedias and sources. Hence, as a guide or rule of thumb, I'm fine with it; but it would be detrimental to lock us into step with such media. We are different. We can devise our own standards that respect the sensibilities of our readers but permit content that Encyclopedia Britannica may, for commercial or other motives irrelevant to us, shy away from. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia marches to the beat of a different drummer. I wonder when someone is going to try to add photographs of flaccid penises to Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. It's going to be hard to take us seriously as an academic project until we act like one. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not following you. Do you mean there would be some real educational value in adding an image of a flaccid penis to that article? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no serious value in that, educational or otherwise. But, because under not censored, being objectionable is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content, the policy claims that the image should be treated like so many others we use for decor. There's a reason I'm contributing under a nom de plume. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I get it. I've been in those battles, and I'm involved in this discussion because I'm sick of them and sick of watching all the effort lost on them. This proposal would simplify things in that department for sure, but I am still worried it may be too prescriptive. But I am weighing the very good points being made in this civil discussion of a very emotive topic, and am open to having my mind changed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be then shock value which NOTCENSORED does cover and does include as images that can be removed. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  05:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What serious value does the ejaculation video have? "Educating" prepubescent children, seriously proposed by Anthonyhcole above? That strikes me as a little bit creepy. I don't know anyone who's in the habit of masturbating in front of prepubescent children, and I really don't see how doing it over the internet makes it okay. "Not censored for the protection of minors, it's parents' problem to supervise and filter internet usage" or whatever kind of implies that we aren't targeting sexually explicit content at minors. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The ejaculation video would in any event be available via the Commons link. -- J N  466  06:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Once we assume that we know better how to create sex-educational content than the entirety of the world's sexologists and sex educators (spanning a pretty broad range of approaches ...), we have jettisoned a fundamental principle of this project for no apparent good reason. By the way, I am not aware of anyone having done the source research to verify whether any sources actually do use media similar to ours in explaining ejaculation. If they do, knowing that they do provides us with an excellent response to anyone complaining. On the other hand, if none do, it's hard to see how it's different from OR. -- J N  466  06:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Our high school health book had a picture of ejaculation. It was a penis with some semen coming out of it, probably more to teach girls than prepubescent guys.AerobicFox (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just remember wondering when I first heard about it what it looked like, and if Wikipedia had been around at the time I'd have known. There was nothing prurient in it, just my curiosity; it seemed so alien. But I'm well aware this is a difficult call. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if that is so, then that is fine, and provides RS support for our way of illustrating the topic. This is how we should handle internal discussions, and it's how we should handle complaints about images being offensive. -- J N  466  08:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose mainly due to the implied absolute standards of offensiveness in the proposed text. I'm also worried about defaulting to prudishness: if two sources are found, one with images and one without, this proposal favors no images. But images may lack from reliable sources for a large variety of reasons. For example, there are probably bazillions of research papers about ejaculation, but many address some less-than-basic research topics, so they have no need to illustrate the basics. Also, the space taken is a concern in many publications, but not so much for Wikipedia per WP:NOTPAPER. This proposal assumes that lack of an image from whatever publication is proof of the image's offensiveness, and that is WP:OR. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Moral support only. The proposal goes generally in the right direction, but due to the issues described by ASCIIn2Bme, in practice it would shift the balance way too far. We just need a minor correction that helps to shut up those editors who shout everyone down as soon as they sense a chance that content they like is removed based on a normal editorial consensus that factors in real-life people's reactions. Hans Adler 12:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Current policy is sufficient, there is no need to tweak and constrain a long-established and tolerably-well functioning system regarding the use of potentially controversial graphics in mainspace. Carrite (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To restate a few points to consider in rewriting the above:
 * Yes, I can see now that defaulting to the less offensive may seem to be a problem. I'd have that as encouragement, but not even with strength of guideline.
 * In terms of what sources use, I would refactor the approach to be based on avoiding the use of certain types of images that never appear at all in any source, or that only appear in fringe sources.  And clearly, of course, we're talking about sources where there is freedom to include images without space restrictions or the like, not just all sources.   So, for example if out of 100 sources, ten use a nude photo to depict an activity while the remaining use a clothed photo or opt to include no photo altogether, then it is still ok, per WP:OR, for WP to use a nude photo, though the ultimate choice is up to editors.  On the other hand, if only 1 source out of 100 used a nude, it is like a fringe case and thus not in WP's interests to use that.  In other words: when selecting an image, the choices should be based on the type that some significant proportion of the sources have already used before (and countrary to my original suggestion, not necessary based on what the majority says).  We absolutely should not be introducing a type of photo that no other source has used and creating a novel presentation of the information, as a tertiary source.
 * While WP is free speech (and possibly something more) and not beholden to commercial or government or any other group's interests, an ultimate goal of the Foundation is to have a work that can be free distributed across the globe. If we were only electronic, this would not be an issue, but we're already talking about distribution and redistribution through print and digital media.  Obviously we cannot hold ourselves to the lower-common denominator in terms of content, making the work to match the most prudish of moral expectations; we are going to have images and articles that will contain material that will offend. However, we can at least recognize that when we are knowingly introducing content that is offensive, content that other global sources have purposely avoided, we are probably doing harm to the Foundation's goals for redistribution.  Again, this is why using established approaches to the types of images to include with a topic based on what's already published at least assures some degree of redistribution.  --M ASEM  (t) 13:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The distinction you make above, between 10 out of 100 sources vs. 1 out of 100, is an important one, because it affects our ability to provide due coverage of significant minority views that rely on imagery to make their point. -- J N  466  13:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Break 4: Should editorial standards in reliable sources count for anything?
Let's examine the underlying questions, without for the moment trying to come up with a wording to include here or elsewhere:


 * 1) Should the editorial standards reputable secondary sources apply for image and media use count for anything in Wikipedia?
 * 2) Should our aim be to provide a presentation that is a neutral reflection of reputable secondary sources, i.e. one that does not strike people familiar with the relevant literature as strange, or unbalanced?
 * 3) If there are complaints from readers or editors about insensitive image/media use, should there be a discussion informed by an examination of the literature on the relevant article topic?
 * 4) If your answer to any of the above three questions is No, what is your philosophical justification for handling illustrations differently from text, bearing in mind that the above considerations are key elements in the way Wikipedia defines appropriate textual content?

If we can gauge consensus on these fundamental questions, perhaps it will be easier to come up with a wording that we can all sign up to. -- J N  466  10:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The editorial standards in reputable, international, NPOV, educational sources that are not censored and are not otherwise constrained in their use of images should be used as a reference point in a discussion about Wikipedia's standards. Any other sources will have their image and media choices influenced by factors that are not relevant to Wikipedia. You wouldn't expect The Pitch to make reference to the image standards of Thai Rath or Journal of Sex Education and Therapy when deciding their editorial policy, so why should we make reference to theirs? They and we all serve different markets.
 * Our aim is to write an NPOV, Free content, general purpose online encyclopaedia. As a necessary component of being from the neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored. Our images and media should be ones that illustrate the articles appropriately.
 * No. There should be a discussion informed by our policies, particularly on neutrality and verifiability, and a re-examination of whether there are images that better illustrate the subject now available.
 * Because Wikipedia is in a position to use images and media significantly differently to almost all other comparable projects as a consequence of not being on paper and being a global, NPOV project. The images and media we have available to us are vastly different to that available to other comparable projects. With regards to text, the difference between what we can do and what others can do is not so significant (primarily just volume). Text and images are qualitatively different - one can simply reword sentence, but one cannot similarly reword a picture. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Happily, we are in at least partial agreement on 1. Two points: firstly, there is no such thing as an "NPOV source". NPOV is defined as reflecting the balance of sources available to us, representing viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. It is generally accepted that the most reputable sources are accorded the highest weight (Thai Rath would not feature prominently there, any more than any other tabloid). Secondly, unlike the publications you mention, we are a tertiary source – we summarise secondary sources. That is why it is appropriate for us to reflect editorial standards in (a wide variety of) secondary sources.
 * As has been pointed out before, we are (self-)censored, consciously and intentionally so. Our content is restricted to what can be found in reliable sources. We delete any contributions that cannot be backed up by a reliable source. As such, we are in our sources' hands. We trust them to get it right. And neutral point of view really does only mean reflecting sources' views in correct proportion. Wikipedia knows no other neutrality than that.
 * Neutrality and verifiability are inextricably linked with sources. You cannot check neutrality and verifiability without recourse to sources. So even though you reply No, what you suggest should happen instead is actually the same thing.
 * An NPOV project that is significantly different from its sources is, unfortunately, a contradiction in terms. There are differences in that we are a website, and some of our sources are not (I say some because we need to remember that we usually cite news websites that have electronic images and embedded videos like we do, rather than physical newspaper copies), but there is no reason why our approach should not be as congruent as possible with that of our sources. -- J N  466  13:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @ 4. If we try and be neutral without following our sources everything goes to hell as its impossible to agree on an overall standard of neutrality otherwise. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as with text following our sources is likely to end up in a sensible position.
 * Yes
 * Yes, but we should only do so if the complaints are substantial. One person complaining shouldn't force us to go to vast lengths to satisfy them. If there are a substantial number of complaints we should have to address them. Its well worth pointing out that there are only a tiny handful of articles where the images used currently are complained about by a substantial number of people. I can only think of two, Muhammad and Pregnancy.
 * N/A. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It depends.
 * Yes.
 * It depends.
 * For #1, as I mentioned with Masem, we shouldn't weigh sources solely by quantity, but have a measure for determining what to pick (if we do at all). In many cases publications are beholden to market forces and as such censor their content to increase sales or for governmental control (and rarer purposefully use the most shocking images to increase sales). If we just take sources at their face value and do not consider mateial based on the underlying profit motive and demographics they are targeting we will be giving a non-neutral representation. A publication for the US may be different from a publication in India and describe the same thing with each region censoring different things. Even in the same region, different publications target different subsets of the population. Even if more sources come from one region or target one subset, we aren't the a regional encyclopedia nor a niche encylopedia; we are a global one. If we had to make one subset of the population we cater to, its the English subset (both native and as a secondary (or tertiary) language and then secondarily everyone else. Most of those publications can care less about a given population and thus can censor (or use shock value in some cases) because they target a more select audiance.
 * As for #3, there comes a point where people tend to bring up the sole argument in the same article about the same image time and again. Even assuming good faith that they aren't sockpuppets or purposefully being disruptive, we there comes a point where if the only reason someone can come up with is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that's their only reason, we should be able to simply direct them here or other areas that talk about our policies/guidelines on censoring (or the lack thereof). ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  16:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to not mentioning sources solely by quantity - well we have to do this for text already and have to compare it in more detail and take some of your points into account anyway.
 * With regards to points being bought up over and over again which article are you talking about? Both the high profile cases that I have mentioned above, pregnancy and muhammad, are likely to offend very large numbers of people. With pregnancy, 500,000 Americans complained about seeing a nipple for less than a second in 2004 (source), and with Muhammad it offends all Sunni muslims, of which there are a billion, or 1/7th of the world's population. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about ones that talk about more controversial items. One on my personal watchlist (mostly for vandalism and the like) is hentai. There will be very few people that say that the images don't offend them unless they are actively seeking that kind of thing, but it still has educational value for the article. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  19:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that really needed to show the point? Come on. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes:  The standards in reputable sources (taken as a whole, not just a narrow subset) should count for something, although not quite for everything.  In fact, WP:DUE demands that we consider such factors, and it does not make an exemption for images.
 * 2) Yes:  WP:DUE applies even to images.  Articles about vegetables should be illustrated by images showing the vegetables like normal, reputable sources do, not by showing the vegetables shoved in various orifices (which I assume we can all agree would qualify as a "strange" choice for an article about an agricultural product rather than about sex toys).
 * 3) Yes:  If we get a lot of complaints, we should talk about it—but not necessarily make any changes.  For example, in the real world, the family of murder victims fairly often objects to all sorts of images (e.g., a photograph of the loved one's dead body, or of a crying family member, or of the alleged perpetrator with any non-guilty or non-disgusting expression on his face, etc.).  If we're doing more or less what other sources do, then we're probably doing the right thing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Break 5: A fundamental philosophical disagreement
We normally don't use images directly from RS for copyright reasons, unless they are important historical photos that cannot be retaken. However, an argument that I've heard quite frequently above is that we cannot adopt the approach to illustrating articles generally used by reliable sources, because RS censor themselves to a degree that we, because of NPOV, shouldn't. This is what's commonly known as the WP:ACTIVIST interpretation of NPOV: the sources are screwed up because of pandering to prudes/right wing extremists/religious zealots/large corporations/the psychopharmaceutical complex/hegemonic scientists/the illuminati and so on, so NPOV is defined in terms of setting things right. This construction of NPOV for images is no more consistent with the policy as written than for text. The policy actually says that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Unless we want to open a Pandora's box of troubles by reworking NPOV to accommodate WP:ACTIVISM, compliance with the current policy is not optional. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with that. If the only RS out there explicit avoid discussing certain details that are otherwise known factually true but only in non-RS sources, we don't include those details.  Even if this is an act of large scale censoring - WP is a tool to enable information transfer, not to be a political device.  Same has to apply to images, even if it is regards to offensiveness. --M ASEM  (t) 19:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That really can't be done with controversial images. Ifyou have a Muslim who believes the image of Muhammad on his titular article is sacrilege even 1 image is too much. Yet at the same time there are a ton of people who aren't Muslims who will be fine with that image. There is no middle ground here. Both groups are broad groups too nor can you balance that by saying you'll split the difference and only show his head. That's still too much for such a large group who believes no image should be shown and a head is still an image. If the sources were about the same between those who were fine and those that weren't, we can't split the difference.19:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides what was said pretty well above, re this section of the proposal: "and, in the case of images, precedent of the same or comparable illustrations in reliable sources. " - sorry, Wikipedia is not other places. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  19:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE refers to similar articles on Wikipedia, not how reliable sources treat a subject. This is the first time I've heard "other stuff exists" invoked in an attempt to defeat NPOV. Now, regarding Muhammad, it is sufficient to recognize that the images were the subject of a heated controversy on Wikipedia, which was not resolved by "not censored" since editors could still contest relevance to the article. This could easily be settled by recourse to an examination of how anglophone reliable sources, which are preferred over non-English references, generally treat the subject, without editors performing a subjective evaluation to ultimately determine offensiveness or lack thereof. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I cited the wrong page. No it was not in relation to NPOV. As of course, all encylopedias have some level of POV behind such "controversial" things - you know, the whole making money and catering towards the audience that will allow it thing. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Masem: if all of the reliable sources refuse to disclose something, then we must follow the lead of the sources.  WP:V and WP:DUE are not optional.
 * But I'm concerned from the comments that some of you may not quite grasp what that means. That's "all of the reliable sources", not "all of the reliable sources, except for the thousands of sources that were published by someone who isn't a Sunni Muslim".  In the case Robert mentions, many sources do include images.  Therefore we may include such an image and still legitimately say that we are following (some of) our sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If English language sources discussing Muhammad generally do include a picture of him, and the evidence can be gathered which shows that to be the case then we should include an image of him. If we can show that large numbers of sources generally do include images of Muhammad then we can as well - and have a much stronger case for doing so than WP:NOTCENSORED.
 * If you are going to do such a look at sources you are going to need to include as many English language sources as are found - there is no good reason to only include sources from Anglophone countries. English is widely spoken and read worldwide.
 * And actually including less images of Muhammad, and a disclaimer would be significantly more respectful without removing all images. We already essentially do use "disclaimers" for similar purposes in other controversial topics on the project, e.g. Ireland has a hat-note link to Northern Ireland even though the possibility of someone wanting to read the article on Northern Ireland going to Ireland is extremely remote. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Better idea, get rid of the disclaimers everywhere except the page that is about controversial topics being discussed on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. Not a "coddle the loudest complaining group of the week society". More below. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How is that possibly a workable solution? If you are offending hundreds of millions of people then there is going to be an endless supply of people complaining about the issue. Additionally if you don't engage with them then they will gain a consensus to do what they want. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're correct. We shouldn't need disclaimers, but humans are far from rational. Myself included, as my unworkable solution points out since it does not address the reality of the situation. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  00:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing is correct. This is a question of reflecting viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. The discussion about the Muhammad images needs to bear in mind that the Persian miniature tradition that created these images was a courtly tradition of non-public art (illustrated manuscripts for the private enjoyment of wealthy patrons) that never enjoyed distribution among the general populace. This type of art was never used or displayed in public places. Apart from the Persian miniature tradition, it has to be said that there is a certain amount of popular art depicting Muhammad in present-day Iran, where posters and postcards showing a likeness of Muhammad are freely available and not particularly controversial (even if it does not mean that such posters would be displayed in mosques). However, the vast majority of the Islamic world, throughout history, has viewed images of the Prophet as either silly or offensive. They have too much respect for Muhammad to allow some fanciful image based purely on an artist's imagination to be equated to him. Muhammad's words in the Quran, or verbal descriptions of Muhammad's physical appearance in the hadith literature, however, suffer from no such restriction. They are believed to be authentic, and beautiful calligraphy of them abounds throughout the Islamic world. Many English-language biographies of Muhammad reflect this, limiting themselves to the mainstream reception of Muhammad in their choice of illustrations. So rather than showing figurative images on their covers, they show the various types of calligraphy that are customarily used to represent the Prophet's name, or calligraphic renderings of Muhammad's words in the Quran, or calligraphic panels reproducing extant descriptions of his appearance. Or they may show a picture of a mosque. Now, per NPOV we should reflect viewpoints in proportion to their prevalence. This means that the one thing we should not be doing is plastering Persian miniatures all over the Muhammad article. We can show one or two such images, reflecting the significant minority viewpoint of Persia/Iran/Shia Islam, but the bulk of illustrations should be devoted to the mainstream calligraphical representations of Muhammad, which far outweigh figurative images. There is actually no problem if you apply NPOV consistently. -- J N  466  07:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But we are talking a biography. We aren't talking about the article on Depictions of Muhammad or Islamic art. We are looking for a representation of how Muhammad's human form was depicted - calligraphy does the opposite. Paintings with veils later painted over his face do the opposite. Paintings with veils painted into the original do the opposite. The purpose of all three of those is to prevent or supplant a depiction of what he was perceived to look like.
 * As for being respectful of others' beliefs, (1) we didn't honor CoS's requests. We didn't honor LDS' requests either. And (2) (the important one) it has nothing to do with being respectful of others' beliefs. They aren't allowed to create such. Nowhere is there a prohibition against me creating or viewing such.
 * What *I* would like to see is an Islamic painting of Muhammad that wasn't later defaced. As for the Shia Islam thing, sorry, that does not matter. That would be like us taking a stand on "what version of Christianity is more important?" - which should we choose? RC? LDS? Baptist? Mormon? Protestant? In that, in one major respect, Muhammad is like Christ in being the cause for the various sects and we do not differentiate which is the "true Christianity" or the "true Islam". Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  16:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need an image for a biography. That said, since depictions are used in some cases having 1 depiction would be appropriate. Just as we cannot ignore English sources that use his visage, we cannot ignore non-English sources that don't. That's purposeful systemic bias. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  17:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to say what a depiction of Muhammad should look like, whether it should be a flame, a veiled figure, one with a face, a calligraphically executed verbal description of what he looked like according to people who knew him, or calligraphy of his sayings. We should use images in proportion to their prevalence. -- J N  466  18:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Jinnai: I never commented on how many images or such. Nor specified a need (perhaps other than myself and others finding such educational, which has been rehashed numerous times). R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen: calligraphy does not look like a human. And if it's a text description, it causes two problems, (1) it is not readable by those who speak English only - that might make it suitable on different language versions, but not here since we can't read it. and (2) such is already described in text making it duplicative if it was readable. As for the veil and flame, those were added after or included in works create far later. And their intent is to not portray how he looks. "Here is a picture that doesn't show how Muhammad was perceived to have looked" is the exact opposite of "Here is a picture that does show how Muhammad was perceived to have looked" - such pictures were very intentionally created to not depict how he looked. You cannot substitute them for the exact opposite purpose. Is there merit to including them in the article? Emphatically, yes - but not as a depiction of how he was perceived to look. Almost everyone in this discussion, including you, have admitted that such images were created to not portray his perceived features/what he looked like. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Our sources will have to make these same trade offs that you are pointing out here. Just as with article titles we should follow our sources in this area.
 * By requiring all these decisions to be made on an article-by-article basis you are expecting our editors to have appropriate empathy and understanding for people of different cultures to weigh these decisions up over whether certain content is appropriate. That is an unreasonable burden if nothing else. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. If judging the appropriateness of what to include in an article is such an unreasonable burden for editors on article talk pages, why do we do just that for every other type of judgement related to article content? 2. We don't require our editors to have an appropriate empathy and understanding for all other cultures, because we not censored the sensitivities don't come into it, we're only concerned about what image illustrates best the topic at hand. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Robert, you're not getting it. None of the paintings "show what he looked like"!  He didn't sit around while someone painted him.  The available images are no more informative about what he actually looked like than any of the paintings of Jesus, Buddha, or Socrates.  As a result, we can't "show what he looked like".  We can only say "here's how this person has been imagined by artists"—which in the Jesus article could mean a figure with black skin, or with blue eyes and blond hair, or an Asian Jesus.  It could also be a non-human figure, e.g. a lamb.  The point in these articles is not to "show what he looked like", because nobody actually knows what any of these people truly looked like.  The primary point instead is to show how artists have represented him through the centuries, even if those representations are more frequently as symbols than as made-up human figures.
 * When you only want one (or a few), you choose from among the many options by looking at what the sources on this subject choose, not by looking at what the sources on some other kind of subject (like 20th century politicians) do. So in the case of Jesus, they mostly show images that illustrate some scene from Jesus' life, rather than Jesus just sitting around.  So our main article mostly does (and should do) that, too.  In the case of Mohammed, they mostly show art without a face, so we, too, should show mostly art without a face.  It's not that we cannot show a face; it's that it's UNDUE to give only or primarily images that are unusual because they show a face.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that is kind of a double edged sword with the Jesus pictures, seeing how everyone that can look at things like ethnic background will realise he is not a white guy. The reason those pictures are represented here is because this is a western european/western hemisphere centric encyclopedia.  Quite frankly if someone wanted to include additional images of what people believe him to look like from non western cultures I would be a supporter.  However going there and telling them to tear them all down because "that isn't what he looks like" is ludacris.  The showing without a face happened after 1500s (ish) and we are reaching some compromises to how we should show the pictures.  I believe the current accepted way forward is one from each time period (one without veil, one with veil and one as flame.)  The problem with this is to some of the Islamic faith this is still unacceptable even though we are removing the majority of the pictures.  In order to have them happy we would need to delete ALL the pictures which I find unacceptable since most of the early ones were comissioned by the same groups that are against them now. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)