Wikipedia talk:Censorship (2006 proposal)/archive03-2006

message: I'm not very good at writing this type thing, please improve it. Comments are welcome here, I suspect there will be lot's of them. Gerard Foley 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please edit the article to make it better

message: Regarding this: "Deleting text of images because it is illegal in the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted." First, it's confusingly worded; are you talking about image alt tags, captions, file names, or what? Secondly, are there any situations at all where Florida state law has ever been an issue with any Wikipedia image or article? I would think the First Amendment trumps practically any such law Florida could ever come up with. --Aaron 17:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's the word of confusing you that was a typo. Gerard Foley 17:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida Law 

message: As worded, this seems to indicate that any text deletion, including false (and uncited, and unciteable) claims would be considered censorship. I... don't think that's such a good idea. I see enough people crying censorship over that sort of thing as it is. Michael Ralston 18:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not the intent, if you can word it better, please do. False (and uncited, and unciteable) text should be deleted. Gerard Foley 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerald, there is a massive disconnect between the ALA description of censorship linked from the "policy in a nutshell" paragraph, and the more sweeping description further down in the proposed wikipedia policy.  If you want to reject the ALA description and substitute your own, some explanation of why you think the ALA is wrong would be appreciated.  Thanks.  Phr 23:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That is what my question is about.  What specifically do we need extra and why do we need it? Phr 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Text 

message: Autofellatio had an image of the type you advocate and Jimbo himself deleted it. How do you propose to deal with the issues of that infamous case? WAS 4.250 01:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It wasn't deleted for being porn. Wikipedia has a number of porn images. Supposedly it was a copyvio, though. Babajobu 20:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Jimbo deleted the picture because he thought it was "completely unacceptable" . David Sneek 11:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Autofellatio

message: How does policy affect Wikipedia articles on shock sites such as Goatse.cx ("so shocking it must be described not seen")? Do we REALLY let it all hang out? Should we? WAS 4.250 01:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fucking hell, I see what you mean! But perhaps that's how Muslims feel when they see those Muhammad cartoons, but because we westerns do not find those images offensive in any way they stayed right at the top. Gerard Foley 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles on shock sites

message: There should be some discussion of (and a section about) the difference between discretion in deciding what is encyclopedic and censorship. Often Censorship accusations are made when the real issue is a difference in opinion in how to exercise editorial discretion in what is or is not included in an article. Trödeltalk 01:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to do that with the line This is not an excuse to replace images in articles with more controversial ones unless there is a reason to do so., I admit it's not very good. You are free to expand and clarify. What you are saying is one of the things I want to help end with this. Gerard Foley 01:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a note to the effect that if a number of images would serve a similar encyclopedic purpose, using the least controversial one is a good bet. This applies for instance to our use of drawings rather than images to depict sexual positions; both illustrate the position well, so there's no reason to use the image that is more likely to offend. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with this point. Sexual positions should have photographs if they are available. I don't think just because they are controversial is a good reason not to have them. Gerard Foley 10:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A cartoon could indeed be MORE descriptive than a picture, as well as less offensive.  Brokenfrog 15:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A cartoon could discribe it differently, but a photo shows it like it is. Gerard Foley 15:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Depends, doesnt it? Cartoons can be more descriptive on some things, like a position, while a tecnique would really require a film clip, and to show a certain actor, a photo must be better than a carton. But film clips would take too much space and bandwidth, wouldn't it? DanielDemaret 17:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would nearly always be in favor of a photo, as I said "it shows it like it is". If a cartoon has information not given in the photo then I would say there's room for both. Gerard Foley 18:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial discretion 

message: The proposed guidelineWhat censorship is seems to be riding on an unworkably broad definition of censorship! It is one that definately has no sense of its own boundaries. It fails to make the basic distinction between allowing autonomous user discretion (which inlining and hiding basically are) and censorship. I would like to see the references (of course noteables!)for this definition. For the moment, I will assume that it is not OR. Thanks in advance, AlwaysNever 05:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your call for references, so forgive me if I'm completely off the point here! In one instance (ordered by Jimbo) English Wikipedia does not directly show an image but provides a link instead: Autofellatio. Attempts to apply tis solution to other articles have failed due to vociferous protests from editors complaining about censorship. French Wikipedia operates a system of "rolled-up images" on many pages (see, for example :fr:Pénis): this solution is also controversial on fr:, but obviously more widely applied than what we do here. Physchim62 (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A link? On my screen I see an image in the autifellation article.DanielDemaret 07:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The definition of censorship given here is the definition used for the purposes of this policy. It's not a dictionary entry, so we can use whatever definition we find acceptable. The French system has a major flaw, all images must be downloaded, then they are hidden. The images are visible until downloading has finished.Gerard Foley 00:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for References: inlining and hiding 

message: Just to throw something into the hat! I would love it to say somewhere that just because Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors, this doesn't mean that Wikipedia is not censored. The case of Florida law has already been mentioned, and let's not forget the largest subset of Florida law cases: Wikipedia is censored for images and text in violation of US-enforceable copyright. Wikipedia is also censored for the non-notable, the commercial and the nonsensically ridiculous, with several hundred articles being deleted every day. It must be one of the most censored sites "that you can edit"! The vast majority of editors prefer it that way. The editor who cries "Censorship!" is usually just admitting his or her failure to come up with any other argument to keep the material in an encyclopedia, IMHO. Physchim62 (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing can be done about Florida law. As for the editor who cries "Censorship!", I would like the policy to prevent that, come up with real arguments as to why something should stay or go. If the only argument people can come up with for keeping something is censorship, then it probably should go. And if the only argument for adding something to an article is censorship, then it probably shouldn't be added. Gerard Foley 10:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  People cry "censorship!" when useful and informative content is removed to cater to the sensibilities of someone or some group who have no interest in enhancing the quality of the article, but rather want to extirpate information that is anathema to their worldview. In those cases, the censorship is real, and should be resisted for the good of the encyclopedia. Removing an irrelevant or poor-quality pic fron an article is not censorship, it's a genuine effort to improve the article. The two are very different, and while one is an expression of the mission of this project, the other stands totally against that mission. Please don't conflate them. Babajobu 04:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Wikipedia is censored and that is how it should be.  The policy that says we are not censored for the protection of minors is a legal tactic to try to limit our responsiblity/liability if any future court ever decides that we allowed a minor to see an offensive image, such as a sexually explicit cartoon.  If such a legal case ever occurs, we have a fig leaf to hide behind because we can say, "We warned them we weren't censored, they took the risk". Johntex\talk 23:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And what is censored from Wikipedia? What should be censored? Gerard Foley 00:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We currently censor potentially libelous inforation, potentially plagarized information, potentially offensive information, etc.  There are no pictures of penetrative sexual intercourse here, as far as I know.  There are no photos of child sex (I discount the images on Lolicon that show nudity but not sex.  There is not a photo or a movie of a woman being raped at rape.  As to exactly what we should and should not show, that of course will be a subject for discussion at the article in question.  I'm sure opinions will ebb and flow on this point over time, and that different decisions will be reached in different circumstances.  However, to argue that we are not censored, is simply incorrect.  The only reason for the wording saying we are not censored is to point out for legal reasons that we do not guarantee that we censor ourselves to any particular level. Johntex\talk 18:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Wikipedia is censored. See my Opposition point in the poll section below. Haizum 10:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia IS censored 

message: I'm not sure why we would need this extra policy; it feels a little like instruction creep to me. What does it really say that WP:NOT and the content disclaimer don't say already? --Nick Boalch ?!? 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a lot of argument about the Muhammad cartoons and there is still arguing and edit warring at Lolicon about the images used. A lot of this is based on trying some form of censorship instead of what should be discussed i.e. which pictures help explain the article better. I don't want to solve the censorship argument on Lolicon only to have to start it again somewhere else. Is this instruction creep? Yes it is. Gerard Foley 23:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that there are still arguments about these issues strongly suggests that WP:NOT and the content disclaimer aren't explicit enough that Wikipedia does not censor beyond what is necessary to comply with laws.  The hope is that having a clear policy directly on point should obviate subsequent arguments so that all decisions are purely editorial ones.  Postdlf 23:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessary? 

message: Does the image have to be so big, what's wrong with the standard thumbnail size, and let users click for the larger version, as is the norm? I don't want to censor it, it just looks bad when it’s so big. Gerard Foley 21:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do find that the image is WAY to big for those of us with lower screen resolutions. It was just fine at 250px in my opinion. — TheKMantalk 22:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict) I just remembered I have a wide screen monitor, I resized it to a "standard size" and it takes up half the space. It looks even worse then before. Gerard Foley 22:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a little small for me. Septentrionalis 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine to me now. However, the image to which it links (i.e. the enlargement) ought to be bigger! As it is now, it is nearly impossible to 'decipher' e.g., the cartoon in the left hand corner furthest down (a cartoonist looking nervously over his shoulder).  Varga Mila 22:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Although the 400px version seems to portray the correct amount of detail and although I despise people who insist on keeping resolutions below 1024x768, I must say that 200px closer to the standard. If someone wants to see a larger image, they can click on the thumbnail or the link to the larger picture. joturner 22:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Since I've been contributing on this article from the Feb. 6 I've noticed the occasional changes in the image size but frankly on my higher resolution screens it's never been an issue for me, that said there are those who do use lower resolution and with that in mind the image should be set to 250px. Netscott 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: To me, this seems childish. Leave it at 200px as context for the article, and so that it is viewable by a majority of users. Let people click the thumbnail to view the image in full. Can we leave the issue?  James  Kendall  [talk] 22:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, didn't realise it was 250px. To me it looks small as I have a high-res laptop screen, but it looks fine, and I expect its quite large on smaller resolutions. We are meant to be creating the world's best free reference material, not a bitchfest over pixels.  James  Kendall  [talk] 22:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "A bitchfest over pixels" - I'll have to remember that one. joturner 23:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Try to click on it, can you? Resid Gulerdem 23:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully wikipedia won't be targeted if it is enlarged :/ --SeanMcG 23:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be left at 250px and I apologize for the resizing... I forgot that some people use smaller screens and that it could cause issues. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 08:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "it is a low-resolution image; the full details of the drawings cannot be seen, nor can the text of the article be read (and thus should not inhibit Jyllands-Posten from selling their newspaper)". Netscott 04:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The size and the placement was not quickly agreed, it went on for days/weeks, there was never consensus, and there is a three-volume e-book with the logs .  Also, 200px is not a standard size and the style guide suggests 120px WP:MOS#Pictures.  But there's no point rehashing that argument; please try to get back to discussing policy and why you think the ALA guidelines on censorship are insufficient for Wikipedia's goals. Phr 06:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually poll two showed a very strong consensus for keeping the image at the top. There was no poll on image size, though, you're right. Babajobu 20:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Size

message: Is there any way to say we want absolutely no censorship but let's not try to get there all at once? To take human emotions into account? To move in a deliberate but unhurried way towards that end, just in case there are reprecusions (donations?). Can we implement this in a deliberative thoughtful way rather than all at once? WAS 4.250 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for others but if this is accepted I won't be going on an anti-censorship crusade across Wikipedia. I will be using it on articles I'm already involved in or will be in the future. Gerard Foley 03:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pace of change

message: Please add to the policy somewhere whether the policy is for or against censorship....DanielDemaret 09:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I put it at the top. WAS 4.250 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: seems to me to trivialize what censorship really is.  It recurs in instances of what I call "Demi-Godwin's law" (miniature version of Godwin's law): in any content dispute someone will eventually accuse the other side of censorship.  It's too often nothing but a special pleading by someone trying to force a WP:POINT.
I propose this definition, from the American Library Association Intellectual Freedom Q&A:
:What Is Censorship?
:Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, “Don’t let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! ” Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.
I think we need to have a serious understanding (like the one above) of what censorship is, before we can sensibly debate policy about it in much detail.
--Phr 11:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a confusing use of the word censor and overly simplifies the issue in order to be pithy. In America and Europe, regulations control who has access to sex/violence but do not "see to remove access...so that no one else has a chance to read or view the material..." Both societies have determined they have a compelling interest in protecting some segment of the population, and the use of the power is widely discussed and debated. This is very different than the censorship exercised by China, and some Islamic regimes. Additionally, by describing it all as censorship, the outrageous behavior is "excused" because the comment implies that china's censorship is no different than the US governements regulations on sexual content, when, in reality, it is quite different. No one dies for showing a breast during the superbowl, but China kills or imprisons disidents who publish political information they don't like. Trödeltalk 14:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That purported definition of censorship 

message: As I have been thinking about this issue - I am concerned. One, as mentioned above, editorial discretion is often confused with censorship. Two, people who remove non-notable information are often accused of censorship. And Three, Wikiepdia can not censor. 
Traditionally, censorship can only be performed by a state actor. Since wikipedia has no authority to restrict the flow of ideas outside of the wikipedia website, there can be no true censorship. 
Finally, since Wikipedia is so transparent, censorship becomes moot. Nearly all changes are reviewable, and discussions of issues are also covered in the history. 
Therefore, I think having a policy like this will only make things more confusing for new users, and further muddy the waters of discussion. Use of "censorship" too much devalues the word, and does not allow it to be used when true, state sponsored, censorship occurs, whether overtly or through the suggestion of implied threats of bodily harm to news organizations. Trödeltalk 14:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding [the] quote [below] - I think it captures the intent of the page - and is worded in such a way as to avoid my concerns. Trödel•talk 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia can '''NOT''' censor 

message: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are appropriate for children or adhere to specific social or religious norms. While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted. at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not WAS 4.250 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a guideline that clarifies that that policy means that whinging about dirty pictures on articles about Oral Sex is not acceptable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually a guideline that gives people an excuse to be offensive when being prudent would be a better course.  There is nothing wrong, for example, with moving a shocking image down the page and warning a user with a spoiler warning that it is comming. Johntex\talk 00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is already policy

message: "Informative" was just added in appropriate places and "This is a guideline that clarifies that that policy means that whinging about dirty pictures on articles about Oral Sex is not acceptable" was given as an answer to why the existing censorship policy is not enough; so I would like to chew the fat about being clear versus instruction creep. I think deciding the exact meaning of "no censorship" on an article by article basis is going to occur with or without this added guideline and I have no clue if it would help or hurt that debate or hurt or help fund raising when peope are emotionly tramatized when their cultural boundaries are graphically violated (sex, violence, politics, religion). "Informative" is surely what is meant as is "relevent". Should we add "relevant"? Again, I have no clue - we know that is what is meant - so is that an argument to add or not to add "relevant"? More to the point would be some way of being clearer about what we mean by "informative and relevant". Maybe a few pointed examples drawn from actual Wikipedia history. And if we are going to use wikipedia history, I recommend we cut to the chase and say specifically if this guideline suggests shock site photos are to be expected to be shown on the relevant shock site Wikipedia article and if that is a reason to not have a borderline shock site article at all if its going to further distribute a shocking for shock's sake image. WAS 4.250 18:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Musing about being clear versus instruction creep

message: I would like to point out that in the world outside wikipedia the word "consensus" means that everyone agrees. I know that there is an alternative definition in use here, but I would very much prefer the term Qualified Majority or supermajority for a 2/3 or 9/10 majority. It would lessen confusion. 
Let me lighten up the mood here by quoting Ben Franklin : ' "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote" '.
Consensus might be when they all eat smoked salmon?
I have changed my mind on the vote here, and I now think we should talk some more to reach consensus intead of voting. The policy wording is now : "Wikipedia disregards "offensive" or "objectionable" as valid grounds for the removal of information or images." So far, so good.
Perhaps we should add " or blasphemous" to this, since some think that there may be a difference. 
Perhaps we should add that if there is consensus , in the sense that everyone agreees not to show a picture due to ut being "offensive", then there is no reason to show it, but if a single person can make a coherent argument that the picture adds needed information to the argument, i e a text is not enough , then the picture should, by policy stay. In other words, we give the sheep some arms.
I am not even sure about the details myself, but Resid and Babajobu have convinced me that there is a double standard, that has so far been dealt with by democracy and edit wars. It would be much better if we could all agree on a guideline to help these cases become policy.
Perhaps it would simplify matters if a first policy statement only dealt with images, since this is the current discrepancy?
Let's sit down and talk until everyone agrees. There is no hurry. It may take weeks until the next crisis.
If there is no consensus on what the policy should contain, then I feel there should be no policy, but rather endure the double-standards, edit-wars and article-by-article battles. It just seems a bit sad, doesnt it?
DanielDemaret 08:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps an entire censorship policy is premature? Perhaps it might be easier, and we only need a tentative general agreement on how the handling of these few images should be handled the same? Which would surely mean a temporary decision that we allow all of them to be inline.DanielDemaret 10:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am happy with the page as it is now. Blasphemous would fall under objectionable, but if people feel this needs to be clarifid I don't mind. I am happy to suport this now unless someone can point out problems with it. Gerard Foley 13:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: How do we get this from a Proposed Policy to a real Policy, or do people think it still needs work? I am happy to support it. Gerard Foley 23:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can not even guess what effect this policy will have, then I think it needs more work.DanielDemaret 08:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In any way that will make a difference to how articles are debated or written. If this proposed Policy does not change anything at all, then what is the point of making it a real policy?DanielDemaret 16:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So do you think the policy is a good idea or a bad idea and why? Gerard Foley 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were not for human emotions, I would agree with this as being policy 100%. But humans are very very emotional and wars occur based on emotions. I think whether this becomes policy or not should rest on the practical consequences and I'm not sure we know what those will be. I recommend LOTS of talk and publicity. Let's be sure of ourselves. The POINT of emotions is to motivate behavior. Logic is a poor defense against physical behavior. WAS 4.250 23:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this proposed policy is a very bad idea for reasons given elsewhere here.  In a nutshell, it is wise to give more flexibility to editors of individual articles.  In particular, there is nothing wrong with offensive images on a subpage.  This keeps them from smacking the unsuspecting reader in the face, while at the same time making them easily avaialble to those who want to see them.  What is or is not likely to cause offense can be handled on a case by case basis by the editors of the article, without the need for a centrally imposed fiat. Johntex\talk 19:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you Johntex. Nuff said. DanielDemaret 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Policy to Policy 

message: I was looking around the various shock site articles, and I see that most of them are missing images of the sites themselves! If Wikipedia is to be an informative enyclopedia, wouldn't we need images of these sort of things? After all, it would be much more informative if we had examples of this species of web site. After all, look at the lolicon article: a few "tasteful" images of drawn child pornography definately increases the understanding of the subject! MajorB 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why the above comment was made and then deleted so I'm re-adding it. Gerard Foley 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe MajorB thinks it is so obvious that we don't want or need shock site images on wikipedia that he can say the opposite of what he means and successfully communicate in a humorous kind of way, not realizing others think that illustating an encyclopedia's article with the most relevant image is so obviously the right thing to do that they won't pick up on his humor at all. Someone might think it trollish and delete it, but it should not be deleted. WAS 4.250 17:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Images 

message: I was just looking at some of these flash animations. They are very scary from most points of view. If we are writing a censorship policy I think we need to decide what to do with them. I believe the current situation in the Prank flash is fine, but the policy should state this. Comments? Gerard Foley 14:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps mentioning certain cases of how articles have been handled so far, to make guidelines clearer, you mean?DanielDemaret 16:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no agreement or substantive evidence as to what information may cause concrete, objective harm to society or individuals.
I think this argument falls apart with the animations. Even knowing what was going to happen and having the volume turned down it still caused quite a shock. Gerard Foley 17:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no agreement or substantive evidence as to whether receiving quite a shock may cause concrete, objective harm to society or individuals. --cesarb 17:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if you have a heart condition? It probably doesn't matter, video can't be displayed inline anyway and without the sound it's not that shocking. Gerard Foley 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't figure out what the problem is supposed to be. We link to animations that are ten second scary movies. So what? What does this have to do with this proposal??? (And I do have a heart condition. Don't censor what I see based on that, thank you very much. Real life is scary. War is scary. Monster animations that go "Boo" are meant to be fun.) WAS 4.250 17:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not complaining about the linking, I just want to know if we could display them inline, would we? Or have I found a limit to how far no censorship goes? Gerard Foley 17:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry about it. Forget I said anything. :)Gerard Foley 20:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just for the record. I looked at links. No reaction. We have not reached any consensus on limits here. As far as I am concerned the worst pictures that I can imagine are already in wikipedia depicting the real horrors of war. And I think they must be shown here. DanielDemaret 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prank flash]] 

message: Since there is no discussion going on, let me ask a question that might lead somewhere.
If we make this a policy,  do you think this policy would 
# Help the keeping of the Mohammed Cartoons by policy, so we can minimize that discussion for a similar case next time?
# Help the current status of the lolicon images (whatever that status is, I havent checked) or current status on the goatse images by policy so we can minimize that discussion for a case similar to any of those the next time?
In other words, even the policy does not change anything, perhaps it helps status quo, so we can minimize discussions in the future.
Not even policy is written in stone, so we can always change it later if we need to.DanielDemaret 22:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of the policy is that the Mohammed Cartoons and lolicon images stay, and if someone re-adds the goatse images then they cannot be removed (except for other reasons). The very reason I made this page was so I would not have get into a censorship debate again (on Wikipedia at least, the lolicon images debate has now started on Wiktionary). WP:NOT does not explain what is considered censorship nor why we can't and don't do it (it reads more like a disclaimer), so this page is good for that also. The lack of discussion seams to suggest to me that no-one has any major objections to this (Is this true?). Gerard Foley 22:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the only way I can interpret it. Then lets move on. Let us make this a policy, and see what happens. :) DanielDemaret 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving on 

message: Your suggested change is poor English, a poor suggestion, and doesn't add anything. Reference to the other Wikipedia policies exists when we say reasons other than censorship (being offensive) can be used. 
Violence is not always offensive.
: Can you give an example?
::Movies, war? Gerard Foley 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say, that war is not offensive? Since war is the most offensive act of human kind. Raphael 62.116.76.117 22:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I never said so. Do you want sexist or racist articles on Wikipedia? Raphael 62.116.76.117 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  KKK? Gerard Foley 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMHO the article describes a historic organisation and does not promote their ideals. Raphael 62.116.76.117 22:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because promoting their ideals would violate NPOV. Gerard Foley 22:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr 62.116.76.117

message: I oppose this policy as it is currently written.  There are many forms of editorial restraint (call them self-censorship if you prefer) that are beneficial to the project.  There is nothing wrong with hiding a potentially offensive image behind one extra link, for example.  If we did that at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy then everyone would win.  Muslims who would be offended by the image could still come to our article to read about the controversy.  They would not have to complain about being insulted or experiencing religeous persecution.  At the same time, people who want to see the image have it avaialble to them at the click of a button.  There would be no reason for them to howl about "censorship".  Johntex\talk 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is the Muhammad cartoons are not behind a link and I don't think they will be any time soon. If you try it people will probably howl about "censorship". What if people wanted to hide girls in bikini's, would they go behind links also? Let's end this endless debate and get on with writing the encyclopedia. Gerard Foley 00:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Censorship is already against policy, so the heading is a moot point.  A link of important material to another site may be classed as censorship, since I have seen those sites being censored before my very eyes, and hence totally destroying all content in an article. But on the other hand, I am not personally 100% convinced that just adding a link to a sub-article really is censorship. I have seen people howl that it is censorship, but I have not seen anyone give any reason why. Perhaps someone could explain why a link to a sub-site or just putting an image lower in the text is censorship? DanielDemaret 00:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't aggee that censorship is against policy.  Our current policy not only permits but requires censorship in some cases, such as libel, etc.  As for offensive images, there are many examples where a given image was removed for various reasons.  Also, putting a potentially offensive image behind one-click, does not mean we have to hold it off-site.  We can put the image at Article/Hidden_Images.  This way, we have control of keeping the images available. Johntex\talk 18:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So your interpretation of the quote "Wikipedia is not censored" that I copied here further down is not to interpret it as a guideline that wikipedia should not be censured, but perhaps as something else? Please develop your interpretation.DanielDemaret 18:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well trying to move "offencive" images lower down a page or on a sub-page will get you more useless censorship debates. I want them to stop. Gerard Foley 00:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be great if that would stop. But that still does not explain how one can consider it censorship. Perhaps if we understood why "lowering" an image is considered censorship, we could counter the problem in this or another policy. DanielDemaret 00:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Because you're treating it different to other images just because some people object to it find it immoral. Gerard Foley 00:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? Are there any other reasons to change articles, than people who object it's current stage? Raphael 62.116.76.117 01:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Fair enough. I think you are convincing me :) We wont stop the "howl about "censorship", even if we lower the images, which is what Johntex argument was that it should do. DanielDemaret 01:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have misunderstood me.  I am talking about putting potentially offensive images behind one extra click, not lowering them down the page.  Your point is fair that people may still complain it is censorship, but you will never have a policy that no one complains about.  My point is that putting images such as this one click away should satisy most reasonable people.  People who want to see the images may click and do so, people who don't want to see the images don't have them show up unexpectedly. Johntex\talk 18:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have agreed with this earlier Johntex, and indeed have myself argued similarly in the cartoon article, but the votes of 90% of the people seemed to suggest that either 1. this is not so or 2. most are not reasonable, or 3. I am was dazzled by the vehement response and have forgotten exactly what happened. I am not used to editing or writing articles where so many disagree so much. Perhaps you can investigate and elucidate on which of these three it might be? DanielDemaret 18:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: DanielDemaret was asking about moving the images down the page. If you start putting images behind links you'll just end up with random link boxes scattered all over pages like penis, defeating the purpose of images to begin with. Have a look. You might as well list them in the see also section. You also give people the impression that these pictures are "wrong" or "shameful", which is a message we should try to avoid where possible. Gerard Foley 18:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether the picture is "wrong" or "shameful" is your opinion.  Why force your opinion on everyone else?  Putting the images one click away is a reasonable compromise to accomodate both viewpoints. Johntex\talk 18:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if people find bikini images "wrong" or "shameful", do they get linkimaged also, to accomodate both viewpoints? Gerard Foley 18:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Linkspam must be covered by some other policy, I sure it says "Wikipedia is not a collection of external links" somewhere, or a style guide has a recommended number of external links. Get the links and we can write that in here. This censorship policy was never meant to override other Wikipedia policies. Also I would like to know what you think of the penis page. Gerard Foley 19:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dislike the proposed penis page you show.  I like the fact that their is no picture of a penis at the very top.  This gives the reader a chance to read what a penis is before seeing a picture.  That is not a bad thing.  Imagine a student in France who does not know much English and hears the word penis for the first time and comes here to look it up on a class computer - they may appreciate the discretion.  However, I would prefer to show at least one pencil drawing of a penis further down the page.  A photo of an erect penis and a photo of a penis covered in VD sores could both be behind links.  That would be my ideal compromise.  I'm sure other people would prefer to draw the line slightly differently, but there is no harm leaving that up to the authors working on each page. Johntex\talk 19:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You never answered my bikini image question, I believe Muslims might find them offence. If they started to complain, would we link to them also? Gerard Foley 19:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please understand that my opinion is to chart a reasonable middle ground.  Given that I am not aware of a large group of users citing offense at images of women in bikinis, at this point, my opinion would be that showing those images is consistent with a reasonable middle ground.  However, if the bikini article generates a lot of complaints, we could and should consider remedies.  A question for you, how would it harm our readers if the bikini image comes far enough down the page that the reader can read a little before seeing an image. Johntex\talk 19:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said above: "Because you're treating it different to other images just because some people find it immoral". As you know, immoral is a POV, and varies a lot between people. One reason for NPOV is because people will never agree on what is immoral, or offensive. A neutral way of dealing with the problem is to simply disregard it altogether. Remove immoral and censorship from the equation, and we can make Wikipedia the best it can be. With so many POV in the world, most people will probably find something immoral on Wikipedia anyway. Gerard Foley 19:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every editorial decision we make involved POV.  Is this link relevant?  Is that source notable?  Is this well written?  Even this propsoed guideline says that deliberately shocking material should not be included.  Whether something is deliberately shocking or not requires a POV.  This is no different.  There is no harm in having faith in our readers that we can give them the tools to decide for themselves whether to see a particular image.  Why not give the reader more credit and more room to decide? Johntex\talk 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, what images do we let readers decide to view or not? Bikini images might not have caused any edit wars yet, but may still be offensive to some. And where does it say deliberately shocking material should not be included? Gerard Foley 20:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To your second question, please note that I did not use quotation marks around my statement.  What this proposed quideline currently says is actually "This is not an excuse to deliberately contribute content to offend members of a race, nation, gender or religion intentionally."  The term deliberately shocking was my own.  To your first question, my answer is that we should always give the reader the opportunity to see the image.  Whether it is in the article, or one mere click away, this can be decided by the editors of the individual article.  They know best the article they are working on.  There is no reason to take away this tool from them by fiat. Johntex\talk 20:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Moving images down is an imprecise tool. Those with high resolution monitors or widescreen monitors will see more of the page than other people, and sometimes, it will make it so that images will show up on the "first" page. Personally, I'd be okay with one thumbnail sized image illustrating the overall topic, and links to further images. For example,  on the penis page, this would be a picture of the famous cross-section pictures of a penis that they hand out in middle school sex ed. Copysan 12:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some censorship is good

message: Even if we should all agree on the wording of this policy. Which, by the way is not about whether we should have censorship or not, but only what the old  wikipedia "no censorship" really means, what would it take to make it a policy? Does anoyone know? DanielDemaret 09:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. I apologize for asking a question that was not about this precise proposal. I was just curious about the technical procedures for policies in general, and I was hoping someone could tell me. My mistake. DanielDemaret 20:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: H Daniel - I don't think you should have to apologize.  You asked a fair question.  I do think it is clear from the edits here today that this does not have consensus to be promoted.  I am suggesting one modification in a new section below. Johntex\talk 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason Daniel apologize is that he is so polite. I do not see a reason other than that for the apology either. As a new person, I was also trying to understand what is going on here in this discussion... Resid Gulerdem 21:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final to policy? 

message: I feel that a few quotes from other pages needs to be reminded:
1. An old well known Wikipedia policy :
Wikipedia is not censored Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are appropriate for children or adhere to specific social or religious norms. While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted. See also: Wikipedia:Profanity.
:And this is not telling us that we cannot use our editorial common sense or take compromise measures to allow our users to choose whether or not to see particular images.  Note that it says "may contain" not "will contain", "does contain", "should contain", "sets out to contain". Etc.  It is first and foremost a disclaimer saying that we are not responsible in a legal sense if someone gets offended, or if some contributor  uploads questionable content. Johntex\talk 19:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is neither polite, toughtful nor smart to insult people because of their religious believes, as it is done by showing the cartoons on the MC article. Raphael 62.116.76.117 13:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is not about the cartoons. You may discuss the cartoons in the cartoons articles. This article is not about other wikipedia policies. You many discuss each and every one of wikipedia policies in their respective articles. If you object to Jimbo's statement above, I suppose you could take it up with him. This article is about what the word Censorship should be taken to mean in Wikipedia.DanielDemaret 14:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is attmepting to become a guideline for all of Wikipedia, as such discussion of particular articles on Wikipedia, and how this guideline would affect them, is certainly relevant. Johntex\talk 19:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in full. Haizum 19:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Policy 

message: There are many examples where we move content down a page or put a picture behind a link instead of showing the picture.  Promoting this page to a guideline or policy without clearer consensus is an effort to shift behavior. Johntex\talk 19:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in accord with the previous comment. Haizum 19:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, we can change the context of the article, put into a better from and include in the Wiki policies, can't we? Resid Gulerdem 20:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This proposed policy does not reflect current opinon

message: I propose modifying this proposed quideline to remove any prohibition about putting images on a subpage with a link from the article.  We would replace this with a statement that Linking to images instead of having them in the article is an option that is open to the editors. Reasons:
#Putting the image on a subpage allows readers who may be offended by the image to read the article and learn about the topic without having to see the image.
#This still keeps the image readily available to anyone who wants to see it.
#Editors of a given page deserve to be able to use this tool if they decide it is helpful to them.
Please note that I am not saying articles must use this technique, only that it is an option available to the editors. We should devolve responsibility for this decision down to the editors of a given page rather than taking away from them a tool that may aid in their work. Johntex\talk 20:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a clear norm so that minorities can get their voice be heard. A percentage, some number of users, etc. I cannot think of a good measure or norm for it at this point. Otherwise this possibility may create another dispute. Resid Gulerdem 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a good idea.  Let me think on that for a while.  At the moment, my feeling is that this currently proposed guideline is trying to say editors have no flexibility at all in the matter.  I think that is very bad. If we can agree they should have some flexibility, then we could try to hone in on a more specific guideline as you suggest. Johntex\talk 21:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, flexibility is a good option. Personally, I believe that if even one editor do not like a picture, s/he should be able to say 'let us have a link instead'. There is no harm to the article if the picture is linked even per one editor's opinion. Resid Gulerdem 21:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, certainly one editor should be able to ask for a link, but that does not mean the consensus on that individual page will agree.  No one editor gets to have veto power over what goes into an article.  (Unless its Jimbo, of course). Johntex\talk 21:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: John, I think we are looking at the case from different perspectives. I would like to see 'empathy' included in the editorial standards. I can also see that it is not so easy... Resid Gulerdem 08:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's the case, you might as well remove all pictures from Wikipedia. Gerard Foley 21:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly not... These are all overstatements. I do not think that there is someone who want a picture linked just for fun... Resid Gulerdem 08:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I want to assume good faith about your comments, Gerald, but I must tell you this comment seems like trolling to me.  Why would you say that we "might as well remove all pictures from Wikipedia".  Please help me understand your post.  Thanks, Johntex\talk 21:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you were replying to Resid, not to me?  If that is the case, please indent your commetn further. Johntex\talk 21:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change - linking to images is left to editors

message: I added a paragraph to introduction regarding how censorship be understood. It basically loosen unnecessary restrictions such as naming 'having a link instead of a controversial picture' as censorship. Any comments? Resid Gulerdem 20:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Hi John, (1) I hope I can contribute further in that direction. (2) I am not a native neither the most fluent speaker or writer ever in English. Any wording suggestions are very wellcome. (3) I actually changed the article after I discussed above. This was a second note. Will you change it to my version back now?  (4) What is your modifications on the intro section I proposed then? Resid Gulerdem 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Resid, thanks for your note.  I don't feel comfortable with the level of discussion to change it back myself. However, if you want to change it again, I do not plan to revert you again. I think it would be better to discuss more here before you re-make your change. Johntex\talk 21:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I changed to the earlier form. Can I get your modifications and suggestions on it please? Resid Gulerdem 21:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about (new words in italics): No The no censorship policy does not mean having no editorial standards. 'Insult' or 'pornography', for example, should not be included generally be avoided in a Wikipedia article. High editorial standards would add to reputation of Wikipedia. Any Most text can be expressed in a way that it includes no insult but still express the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can help in that direction. If a picture causing concerns in an article, having a link to the picture instead may lead to a compromise.    (from Johntex\talk 21:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly right.  That sentence needs to be removed as well.  There is nothing wrong with editors of an article decided to put one or more of the images on a sub-page, with links. Johntex\talk 21:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is better not to change the proposed policy while we are discussing the proposed policy - it is confusing.  That is why I am suggesting my changes here.  As to linking and porn, I see no harm in linking to a porn image.  There is no reason that someone who does not know who Brooke Skye is should go to her article and see a picture of pornography.  On the other hand, once someone does go to the article to learn that she is a porn actress, then if they want to see a picture of her in porn, that should be up to them. Johntex\talk 00:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (after edit conflict with Gerard) - the people who started this proposed guideline do not have ownership of it.  Anyone is free to help build a new policy.  As to consensus, it is clear from the comments here today that taking away editorial discretion in the case of linking to articles does not have consensus. Johntex\talk 00:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't say it has consensus, I said it needs consensus. Who said anyone owns the page? Gerard Foley 00:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.  However, you did say "the people who helped make this policy..."  That sounded to me like you were trying to exert some sort of priviledge on behlf of the first people who worked on this.  I apologize if I misinterpreted what you were saying.  However, the fact is that there is no such thing as "the people who helped make this policy", because this is not policy. Johntex\talk 00:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is this is what we are proposing. If enough people don't like it I'm sure it won't pass and changes may need to be considered. One of the main goals of this has always been to try to stop the endless unhelpful censorship debates across Wikipedia, and people are willing to protest about linking to images so we must include that. There's an encyclopedia to write! Gerard Foley 01:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an encyclopeida to wirte - Exactly.  Let's write that encyclopedia so as not to give needless offense to people.  Continuing to allow image linking helps in that. Johntex\talk 01:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the censorship debates? We can't continue to have them every time some controversial image is uploaded, or someone wants what they find offensive linked. This is explained on the policy page. Gerard Foley 01:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a debate on a specific article page about the appropriate way to edit the article in quesiton is exactly what those article discussion pages are for.  A central policy tieing the hands of those editors is harmful. Let them use image linking if they choose. Johntex\talk 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the page to debate the article and how to improve it, not censorship. Gerard Foley 01:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use it to improve the article to appeal to more readers, including in-lining the images if that is what they decide to do. Johntex\talk 01:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is silly. You're not going to convince me, and I have a feeling I'm not going to convince you. Let's agree to disagree. Gerard Foley 01:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you wish, I just wish you wouldn't try to enforce your opinions on other editors by trying to pass such a restrictive central policy. Johntex\talk 01:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no harm to put a link if a picture considered to be offensive, even by minority. Wikipedia policies should be proposed to strengthen the quality of Wiki and apperantly insults are not good to that end. Flexibility matches better to the philosophy of Wiki, not unnecessary restrictions. Resid Gulerdem 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How small a minority are you talking about? Say I'm offended by pictures of the FSM or even the Wikipedia Globe, should we link those? We need concrete definitions of minority. Copysan 12:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  You are right, and it is actually my concern too, if you read the discussions above. But I believe the most important thing here is this: Do we want to regulate the policy so that minority gets their voice heard. If we agree on that, I believe we can make that regulation. Pesonally, I believe good will of human being, and do not think that anyone want to change a picture for no reason. On the other hand, if it is offensive to even one person, I would prefer to reconsider, if I am an editor. Empathy is so civil and it should be part of Wiki standards, I believe... Resid Gulerdem 18:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Adopt Wikipedia:Censorship as policy?
=== Support ===
# Strong Support We need to end censorship debates throughout Wikipedia. Gerard Foley 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would fall under the what censorship is not section of this policy since it's an editorial issue so it wouldn't fall under the policy. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Movie with nude scene: it is "irrelevan[t], lack[s] of information content, [and] redundancy." Vomit and goatse.cx, I personally think we should have a picture there. As for Lolicon, I think the pictures should be removed and deleted because "its use on Wikipedia is illegal in the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted." (See Lolicon#Status_in_U.S.) While the Supreme Court has struck down previous provisions, this one is still in effect. So I think they should be removed for now, until the USCOTUS strikes this one down. Then again, if we abide by this, well need to also abide by slapping a "Beware" page. Maybe we can get away with the third rule of the Miller test, being of "serious liteary, artistic, or scientific value". Too bad educational value wasnt in there. Copysan 05:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest." Lolicon. I suggest you mail foundation legal your strongly worded concerns - I am certain they will take it under advisement. Where did you get your law degree from? Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that this project is far from being complete. First we should determine what the censorship is, and is not with a consensus. The limits and definition should be expressed clearly. I do not agree the statements in the project. I could call it neither policy nor guideline. What I can say is this: It has to be changed and improved... Resid Gulerdem 08:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an FYI to the party who suggests that the opposed side "read the proposal" -- I not only read the proposal, but the lengthy discussion on the talk page as well as the numerous links to discussions on lolicon, goatse and Mohammed cartoons.  I then re-read the policy more than once before making my vote.  Please do not insinuate that people who disagree with you are ignorant.  If you have specific objections to the points raised on the oppose side, you only need to mention those objections. --BostonMA 13:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. -- Avenue 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, and I don't see how appealing to the status quo is helpful to your position. I'll refrain from pointing out that fallacy...for the time being. Haizum 13:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "The current policy of case by case discussions will always result in some groups getting special treatment. The proposed policy will guaranty equal treatment for everyone."
Could you give an example of where some group received special treatment under the current policy?  --BostonMA 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm opposing this, not because I condone censorship, but "censorship" is a highly subjective term. Imposing any definition of it constitutes a form of censorship in itself. Nor do I agree with this definition. If you can avoid offending someone without a loss of content (As in the image in the Bahá'u'lláh article), I see no reason not to do so. If this policy is supposedly not an excuse to deliberately offend people as it states, it shouldn't ban ways to avoid doing so, either. --BluePlatypus 21:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: # Strong Support We need to end censorship debates throughout Wikipedia. Gerard Foley 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # Oppose -- See below -- Mwalcoff 02:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: # I do not think that the project in this form should be called a policy or a guideline. It has to be improved. Resid Gulerdem 08:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project need to be improved before voted 

message: I am generally opposed to censorship. However, I feel this proposal goes too far and is not needed. True, Wikipedia is not censored. But that does not mean we should use potentially offensive images and text gratuitously. For example, we should have a picture of breasts on breast. But for an article about a movie that has one nude scene, which is irrelevant to the plot, we don't need a picture of that scene. I fear that if this policy was to be adopted as currently written, it would prevent the removal of the second picture.
I also think there should be a distinction between censorship for "decency" or "protecting children" on the one hand and simple good taste on the other. We have no picture on vomit. On goatse.cx, which is about a homoerotic shock site, we don't display any of the pictures from the site. Instead, we link to them and display a nonpornographic picture "suspiciously similar" to the most-famous one from the shock site. Most people don't want to see picture of vomiting or some guy's anus, even if they want to read about digestive disorders or a famous shock site. 
I think in some cases, editors should be able to take offensiveness into account, as they have done with vomit and goatse.cx. For example, in the case of Lolicon, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to put the images below the fold (that is, below where they would be visible immediately upon navigating to the page) and with a warning and link to an all-text version of the page. I don't see why someone who wants to read about this phenomenon should have to see an example of it even if he or she thinks it is repulsive.
Mwalcoff 03:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would fall under the what censorship is not section of this policy since it's an editorial issue so it wouldn't fall under the policy. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Movie with nude scene: it is "irrelevan[t], lack[s] of information content, [and] redundancy." Vomit and goatse.cx, I personally think we should have a picture there. As for Lolicon, I think the pictures should be removed and deleted because "its use on Wikipedia is illegal in the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted." (See Lolicon#Status_in_U.S.) While the Supreme Court has struck down previous provisions, this one is still in effect. So I think they should be removed for now, until the USCOTUS strikes this one down. Then again, if we abide by this, well need to also abide by slapping a "Beware" page. Maybe we can get away with the third rule of the Miller test, being of "serious liteary, artistic, or scientific value". Too bad educational value wasnt in there. Copysan 05:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest." Lolicon. I suggest you mail foundation legal your strongly worded concerns - I am certain they will take it under advisement. Where did you get your law degree from? Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that this project is far from being complete. First we should determine what the censorship is, and is not with a consensus. The limits and definition should be expressed clearly. I do not agree the statements in the project. I could call it neither policy nor guideline. What I can say is this: It has to be changed and improved... Resid Gulerdem 08:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an FYI to the party who suggests that the opposed side "read the proposal" -- I not only read the proposal, but the lengthy discussion on the talk page as well as the numerous links to discussions on lolicon, goatse and Mohammed cartoons.  I then re-read the policy more than once before making my vote.  Please do not insinuate that people who disagree with you are ignorant.  If you have specific objections to the points raised on the oppose side, you only need to mention those objections. --BostonMA 13:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. -- Avenue 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, and I don't see how appealing to the status quo is helpful to your position. I'll refrain from pointing out that fallacy...for the time being. Haizum 13:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "The current policy of case by case discussions will always result in some groups getting special treatment. The proposed policy will guaranty equal treatment for everyone."
Could you give an example of where some group received special treatment under the current policy?  --BostonMA 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm opposing this, not because I condone censorship, but "censorship" is a highly subjective term. Imposing any definition of it constitutes a form of censorship in itself. Nor do I agree with this definition. If you can avoid offending someone without a loss of content (As in the image in the Bahá'u'lláh article), I see no reason not to do so. If this policy is supposedly not an excuse to deliberately offend people as it states, it shouldn't ban ways to avoid doing so, either. --BluePlatypus 21:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: I believe a better appreciation of guideline versus policy might help this discussion. I believe this proposal merits being a guideline but does not yet merit being a policy. As a guideline there is no mandate to put shock site images on shock site articles. As a guideline, there is plenty of wiggle room for debate. While the original intent of this proposal is to somehow to nail this thing down to minimize futher debate, I feel it both unwise and impossible in fact to not have debate on such things as shock site images. I think labeling it a guideline is an appropriate compromise between the two positions. I think being a guideline (NOT a policy) in fact represents the actual compromise that currently exists on Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 04:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that this project is far from being complete. First we should determine what the censorship is, and is not with a consensus. The limits and definition should be expressed clearly. I do not agree the statements in the project. I could call it neither policy nor guideline. What I can say is this: It has to be changed and improved... Resid Gulerdem 08:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy versus guideline

message: === Editorial standards vs censorship - updated below ===
 This section is under discussion and may contain contradictions with other sections here.  Please the the Discussion page.
The no censorship policy does not mean having no editorial standards. Insults or pornography, for example, should generally be avoided in a Wikipedia article. High editorial standards would add to reputation of Wikipedia. Any text can be expressed in a way that it includes no insult but still express the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can help in that direction. If a picture causing concerns in an article, having a link to the picture instead may lead to a compromise.
    
Academic objectivity, collective consciousness, the culture of compromise are the tools needed for better Wikipedia articles. Being responsible is a natural result of these principles.
-----
Moved here from main page, to avoid confusion on which page is voted on. Especially because this section conflicts with the main text. --KimvdLinde 08:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for carrying it here, I did not realize a poll is opened before the change... On the other hand I do not agree on activating a poll before a consensus on the current text. Resid Gulerdem 08:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  what do you think about adding a clause that favors a less offensive but equally informative picture over a more offensive one? Copysan 12:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a very specific picture that is known to be offensive, then no, I don't agree. If it is a general topic that can be described with equal detail with an number of pictures, then yes, I can agree with you. Haizum 12:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is actually mentiond under the list of what is censoership, maybe it should be made more explicite --KimvdLinde 18:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  The point here is, editors should be able to determine whether they want to put a link instead of a description -visual or verbal- or changing one form of description to the other one or changing one description to another one of the same kind. The policy should not dictate any unnecessary restrictions. Resid Gulerdem 18:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed section by  [[User:Rgulerdem]] 

message: This section is under discussion and may contain contradictions with other sections here.  Please the the Discussion page.
The no censorship policy does not mean having no editorial standards. Insults or pornography, for example, should generally be avoided in a Wikipedia article. High editorial standards would add to reputation of Wikipedia. Any text can be expressed in a way that it includes no insult but still express the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can help in that direction. If a picture causing concerns in an article, having a link to the picture instead may lead to a compromise.
    
Academic objectivity, collective consciousness, the culture of compromise are the tools needed for better Wikipedia articles. Being responsible is a natural result of these principles.
-----
Moved here from main page, to avoid confusion on which page is voted on. Especially because this section conflicts with the main text. --KimvdLinde 08:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for carrying it here, I did not realize a poll is opened before the change... On the other hand I do not agree on activating a poll before a consensus on the current text. Resid Gulerdem 08:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  what do you think about adding a clause that favors a less offensive but equally informative picture over a more offensive one? Copysan 12:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a very specific picture that is known to be offensive, then no, I don't agree. If it is a general topic that can be described with equal detail with an number of pictures, then yes, I can agree with you. Haizum 12:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is actually mentiond under the list of what is censoership, maybe it should be made more explicite --KimvdLinde 18:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  The point here is, editors should be able to determine whether they want to put a link instead of a description -visual or verbal- or changing one form of description to the other one or changing one description to another one of the same kind. The policy should not dictate any unnecessary restrictions. Resid Gulerdem 18:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial standards vs censorship - updated below 

message: The Wikipedia:Offensive proposal is the Wikipedia:Censorship proposal with the word "censorship" removed. Please feel free to edit it without changing its spirit. Those who want a policy/guideline that says "no porn" should write such a proposal, rather than repurpose existing proposals. We have lots of proposals , failed proposals , and inactive proposals . Discussion is good. WAS 4.250 15:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think censorship policy can be stated in a way that it can cover 'no porn' policy as well. I do not see a need for policies for each and every particular issue. Changing the word 'censorship' might be good though. Resid Gulerdem 18:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we need the word "censorship" ?

message: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored "obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links"
Wikipedia:Profanity "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." WAS 4.250 17:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Existing codification of guidelines

message: ::* ...in the name of accessibility to those offended by them? Guess what, I already suggested that what is and what isn't going to be considered "informative offensive/objectionable material" should be decided by the editors, not rioting Muslims, not clinic bombing Christians, editors. Haizum 05:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rioting Muslims and clinic bombing Christians can’t edit Wikipedia? Gerard Foley 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as a bloc. They have to work with a diverse group of users to get something accomplished. Haizum 08:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * How do you explain to people in a NPOV... You don't. As long as the article contains enough information, subdued and explicit, and satisfies the NPOV litmus; the editors don't have to answer to anyone. One article's relation to another is irrelavant because all articles are worked with on a case by case basis; to suggest otherwise is a fallacy. Haizum 05:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why are Muhammad cartoons linked but piss Christ not?". "We don’t answer to you." Gerard Foley 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to oversimplify it. I'll consider that a straw man personal attack. Haizum 08:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * ...which will be told to put up with it? My intention is to make a small percentage of articles more accessible to more of the public. This isn't about what my personal opinion is on potentially offensive/objectionable material; I'm rarely offended by anything. I wish, I wish Gerard Foley, that everyone could be as thick skinned as you and I, but that just isn't the case. I would like to bring Wikipedia to those who otherwise wouldn't visit a particluar article. Haizum 05:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So which groups will be told they have to put up with offensive images / text / ideas? I bet it will be the minority, which currently includes Muslims. Gerard Foley 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how it is now. Why don't you get that? If anything, my suggestions would make Wikipedia more hospitable. That's obvious to anyone that isn't trying to be combative. Haizum 08:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: On the one hand you're trying to paint my position as demeaning to minority groups, but on the other hand you support the status quo which doesn't even consider the percentage of people (minority) that would use Wikipedia more if it were more user friendly to them. You simply aren't using logic. Haizum 09:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to use the Muhammad Cartoons article as an example, as it was the one that inspired me to take the position I have. My stance here isn't about religious tolerance; I don't even consider myself a tolerant person, but what if a peace loving Muslim wants to learn about the cartoons controversy yet they do not know what outlet to turn to for fear of seeing the actual cartoons? Wouldn't it be good for Wikipedia if it could provide such an outlet for this person without completely removing the cartoons for other people like myself and yourself to see? Isn't a bigger audience good for Wikipedia? This isn't about this Muslim's religious sensitivities; frankly, I don't care. It's about accessibility. Good for some people, better for Wikipedia. Stop treating me like the enemy. Haizum 05:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should extend the same courtesy to everyone else, and link to all the potentially offensive images (some types listed above). Good for some people, I agree. Not good for other users forced to click, click, click for the info they want because someone tock offence to it. Gerard Foley 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have to do anything, but the editorial flexibility should still be there. I must stress that editors will have the final say. Also, I'm not seeing how more than 1 extra click would be required to, let's say, view a Mohammed cartoon. The expansion of accessibility outweighs the extra click in my opinion. I don't think that is an unreasonable opinion either. Haizum 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You can look at this as a selfish venture for Wikipedia if you want: Editors can extend a 'courtesy' to whatever group they want to grab more users without limiting information. If the complaining group doesn't seem to be worth the gain in users, let'em whine. Haizum 05:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You say "I believe a majority of editors will not object to allowing those that do not wish to view particularly objectionable material to still be able to utilize and enjoy Wikipedia." and "what is and what isn't going to be considered "informative offensive/objectionable material" should be decided by the editors". Maybe the problem is one of communication between us. Your emphasis on letting "offensive" be an editorial criteria; instead of emphasizing informational as an editorial criteria that trumps "objectionable". Or do you wish informational to NOT trump "offensive"? WAS 4.250 05:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Information' must always trump 'offense,' if it was the other way around then articles could have their pictures removed or be deleted entirely. Haizum 05:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  break 2

message: The above discussion is rather long, and I'm having difficulty following. But I understand that most of the controversial offensive content are in fact "images", but have been generalized into "material" and "information" during the discussion. Can we be more specific in the wording of the policy/guidlines? I believe there is a hugh difference between "text" and "image" when it comes to  censorship issues, both in wikipedia and in the "real world". Why can't we address the two separately? --Vsion 23:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that is a good suggestion.  For my part, I can clarify that I am talking specifically about images. Johntex\talk 00:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict)Most of the controversy is over images, but the same standards should be applied to text also. Just because someone finds some text offensive is (by itself) no reason to remove it. This in fact is already done with words like fuck. We don't remove, hide or link to it just because some people find it offensive, but we also don't use it for the sake of using it. Editorial sanders don't allow "Some people think the X-box is a fucking shit." for example. Gerard Foley 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have the flexibility with words, to rephrase the sentence and make the language sounds encyclopedic and factual, like in Patrick Leahy, the article has the sentence "The discussion ended with Cheney telling Leahy to "... go fuck yourself" and giving Leahy the middle finger." Is this a problem with any editor? We don't have the flexibility with images, unless we are willing to consider pixelation, black bar, etc., which I don't think are on the table.  --Vsion 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word fuck is a problem for some editors, I have seen people change it to f**k for example, which is against Wikipedia guidelines. Gerard Foley 00:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one here has brought up any text as being of concern, it seems like we can safely confine this discussion to images. Johntex\talk 01:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't logical to treat text the same as images. The medium of information for the human race is language, which involves words both written and verbal, there's no way around that. If the word "fuck" is necessary to inform, then there is no way around that, and therefore it can't be substituted or removed. I highly doubt the word "fuck" would be used in a Wikipedia article without a good reason. Also, "fuck" cannot be censored when a person is running a search on "fuck", and we have to assume that the person is smart enough to not look up "fuck" if they are going to be offended by it. In the case of images however, the Mohammed cartoons being a good example, someone may be looking up information on the subject and not want to have to view the images; maybe for religious reasons, maybe to try and keep an NPOV. If "fuck" appears in that article's text, then it probably has an informative reason for being there, and therefore it cannot be removed or linked away. What's obvious? The obvious difference is that images (a non-verbal vivid description/representation/likeness) don't convey an explicit message in - what medium was that again? - oh yes, laaaanguuuuaaage. Haizum 06:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, the infamous cartoon were published in Egypt and no one protested. They were copied and shown by Danish muslims to thousands of  other muslims for debateable purposes and no one has accused those muslims of doing anything against Islam nor have those who viewed the cartoons shown to them by those Danish muslims claimed they did anything wrong by viewing the cartoons. asking others to not do what those Danish muslims have done themselves is the height of either ignorance or hypocrisy. It is a perfect example of using claims of insensitivity to achieve censorship. Right up there with saying whitey can't say "nigger" but blacks can. Wikipedia is insensitive or otherwise in the wrong for showing cartoon that the Danish nuslims themselves copied and distributed to other muslims???? Hogwash!! WAS 4.250 15:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The face behind the message is part of the message. Jay Leno and Pat Robertson can say exactly the same words, but it will send different messages. This is the reality of our society. --Vsion 16:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While there is no doubt that the face behind the message is an unavoidable part of the message ("the medium is the message"); the person recieving the message is the person interpreting the message. The interpreter of the message is responsible for deciding what is "offensive". Neither the sender of the message nor the message itself can force the interpreter to be offended simply by supplying mere data. If you get angry when you hear a sound like "nigger" based on who says it, own your own emotions as you caused them with your interpretation. In the context of this discussion, the reciever of the message determines the offensiveness and not the "face behind the message". WAS 4.250 20:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is insensitive or otherwise in the wrong for showing cartoon that the Danish nuslims themselves copied and distributed to other muslims? Hogwash! That might actually be a good rebuttal if it was actually what I said. Try again. Haizum 03:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Image" vs "material" 

message: The no censorship policy does not mean having no editorial standards. Negativity (insults like suggesting anyone or anything might be evil) or emotion-causing words or images (an image or description or expression that is intended to cause excitement; pictures of naked women, suffering babies, religious figures, delicious foods, ...), for example, should generally be avoided in a Wikipedia article. This high editorial standard would add to a reputation for Wikipedia. Any text can be edited to remove anything anyone dislikes. A careful use of language can help make Wikipedia doubleplusgood. If a picture causes concerns in an article, just link it instead. (1)Academic objectivity: Add "maybe" and "perhaps" a lot. (2)Collective consciousness: My thoughts are agreed to by the silent majority (3)The culture of compromise: Everything is relative, there are no absolutes, my truth is as good as yours. WAS 4.250 17:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What an interpretation!?... You might reconsider the date 1984, as your interpretation goes back to the dark ages. Resid Gulerdem 19:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1984

message: To make Wikipedia accessible to people who may be trying to diet, images and descriptions of delicious foods should not appear in Wikipedia articles. 
Because vegetarians may be upset by images or descriptions of, animals being killed, hunting or meat; Wikipedia should generally try to avoid such images or descriptions in its articles.
As there are many religions and faiths in the world, and because people may find images or descriptions of faiths which are not their own offensive, Wikipedia should try to avoid such references in its articles.
Actually, because we don’t know what a visitor to Wikipedia may find offensive, Wikipedia articles should try to avoid any text or images at all. With this culture of compromise, together we can make the world’s least offensive encyclopaedia ever created. So what if everything is hidden behind warning links. 
What do you think? Gerard Foley 18:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't figure out if the nihilists or the anti-nihilists would be more offended by an empty encyclopedia. Maybe the least offensive encyclopedia is no encyclopedia at all, not even an empty one. Then we won't offend anyone. As in WarGames, the only way to win the "but that's offensive to me" game is to not play it at all. "Offensive" must be disallowed as a legitimate criteria for editorial behavior. Random insults and gratuitous sexuality are not appropriate for other legitimate editorial reasons (eg relevance). WAS 4.250 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Meaningless generalizations can caricaturize the case but do not help at all. It is not a positive approach. I cannot see why you insist on a policy which dictates unnecessary restrictions to the editors... Resid Gulerdem 19:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new censorship policy 

message: I think that, given the difficulty of drawing a line on what is and isn't offensive, in the interest of freedom of information it would make the most sense to, instead of going by the standards of one culture/religion/political affiliation, use the most lenient cultural standards on each topic (Dutch standards for sex and nudity, U.S. standards for things like the swastika, etc)...within the bounds of Florida law, of course, and still going by what's encyclopedic and fits into the article in question (ie, there's no reason to use profanity in the article on the economy of Switzerland). Any comments? Suggestions? Rotten fruit to throw at me? Yeltensic42 don't panic 17:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just disregard offensive and immoral (instead of the most lenient cultural standards) and we're done. Everything else sounds fine. Gerard Foley 19:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My Opinion

message: I start a new ploicy page Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I would appreciate for your contribution. I especially need help in terms of current policy pages, etc. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 00:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] 

message: This is one of the best articles on wikipedia. The very introduction is a pure gem: No Censorship. Couldn't have put it better. Let's start a vote to make this proposed policy into a policy and end the endless debates.Loom91 12:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about holding a vote in the month of April? Run it the whole month. WAS 4.250 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine as long as votes are not cast during 1ST April :) Anyway, I have appealed to Jimbo on his talk page, please check out User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Loom91 05:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start a vote to make this policy? 

message: The way I see the interpretation of this article regarding editorial freedom, editors are ONLY barred from using the vaugue, non-objective and all-encompassing notion of "offensive" as the SOLE reason for removing content. Content has to satisfy other criterias like NPOV aand verifiable, but as long as those are satisfied we exercise censorship only to the point mandated by Florida law. People in support of removing "offensive" images (as the debate is almost exclusively about imagery rather than textual content) consider this:
LOTS of people OVER THE WORLD are seriously offended by the picture of a girl in a sleeveless top. There are a lot of them and most of them can not be called religious fundamentalists or minority fanatics. So do we make sure all womans are wearing burquas?
In truth, censorship is not a true policy, only a clarification of the fundamental WP policy of WP:NPOV. Any and all forms of censorship are fundamentally POV, because holding certain content to be offensive is expressing a POV potentially disagreed with by millions.
Anyway, whether or we should tag "offensive images" or use warnings does not directly concern this policy. This policy only bars the REMOVAL of content, so please don't tangle debates about taggings and warnings with this policy, these may be used even if this policy is approved. That's a technically unrelated matter. Please approve as long as you don't support removal of content? Loom91 18:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, what you say is not true.  This proposed guideline attempts to remove all sorts of editorial control.  It tries to cover not only deleting the image but even moving it further down the page.  Please re-read what you are supporting. Johntex\talk 20:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's make this clear: editorial freedom 

message: The proposed policy states:
:Deleting it because its use on Wikipedia is illegal in the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted.
While the Wikimedia servers article states:
:89 machines in Florida, 3 near Paris, 11 in Amsterdam, 23 in Yahoo!'s Korean hosting facility.
Perhaps the proposed policy should take this and the possibility of future expansion in to other countries in to account.  -- noosphere 09:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate on how it breaks the French laws? --BluePlatypus 23:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That may become a problem.  MediaWiki does not at present AFAICS offer any way of ensuring that certain articles are only served from certain servers, but there are clearly several ways in which that could be achieved.  Given an assumption (it might be an assertion elsewhere) that since laws on content relate to generally held views in any country where WP is likely to be hosted and therefore the inhabitants of that country and perhaps those nearby will not generally wish to retrieve that content, it would be logical to host such content elsewhere, as the advantage of hosting it nearby would be minimal anyway. Midgley 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia servers not only in Florida 

message: Feces on H5N1 was delinked; causing me to look at it to try to figure out why. Among what I found out was that the following articles are affected by the choices of censorship or not: Feces, Human feces, Penis, Clitoris, Masturbation, Anus, Vagina, Semen, Human urine, Smegma, Phlegm, Meconium. WAS 4.250 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Affected articles

message: *Censorship ? When it is mandatory and enforced by laws of a country, I incline myself. But still fight. For ourselves, no. There is enough internal regulation. People who do not want to see irrespectful or sensible articles must keep their children away, it is their own responsibility and they have tools for that.
*The ideas are vicious. Auto-censorship does not lead to any evil : evil is already there. Think, breathe, smell and write free, in any country, amongst people you share something with.
*The method gives twoscore wikipedians discussing in a page during one fortnight. The news are found at the village pump. The subject of censorship is as much important as the collecting of donations, where there is a template on every page, all year long. 
- Please consider the goals of Wikipedia : what are they ? It is time to build something, not to be afraid. To take sea, not to navigate between reefs. (Posted at 19:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose : the project, the underlying ideas and the method itself 

message: I think the definition of censorship in this proposal is too inclusive. Moving an image down the page, as was done in the Bahá'u'lláh article, or placing it one click away, as in Autofellatio, is not "censorship" in any meaningful sense of the word. Everybody who wants to see those images can see them after making one minimal movement with their index finger. David Sneek 11:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The definition

message: Progress comes in steps. I propose the following amendment to the policy which I hope will temporarily satisfy both sides.
This is what used to be:-
Moving 
Moving items further down the page. 
Moving disputed sections to other pages where they will be in turn further whittled down in due time. 
Deleting 
Deleting or removing items from an article. 
Linking to 
Replacing items with links, or listing images on MediaWiki:Bad image list. 
Replacing 
Replacing photographs with drawings, replacing literal description with euphemism or metaphor, or using other similar means to minimize the information provided in text or image form. 
Resizing 
Making images smaller. 
Hiding 
Using panels or having the same background and text color. 
Blockading 
Getting "alliances" of like minded editors to block encyclopedic and legitimate insertions in to artlicles.
This is what I propose:-
Moving 
Moving disputed sections to other pages where they will be in turn further whittled down in due time. 
Deleting 
Deleting or removing items from an article. 
Linking to 
Listing images on MediaWiki:Bad image list. 
Replacing 
Replacing photographs with drawings, replacing literal description with euphemism or metaphor, or using other similar means to minimize the information provided in text or image form. 
Resizing 
Making images smaller. 
Hiding 
Using panels or having the same background and text color. 
Blockading 
Getting "alliances" of like minded editors to block encyclopedic and legitimate insertions in to artlicles.
So I have given editors the provision to move images within the page and replace displayed images with links to them. If people agree to the policy with this ammendment, I will change the policy page. I'll like to hear your comments, uncensored. Loom91 13:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving or resizing images is not censorship. It is layout. -Will Beback 22:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, your suggested edits look fine. Go for it. -Will Beback 09:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with Will's sentiment. To that end, the phrase "Doing any of the above for reasons other than censorship including relevance, verifiability, [and] copyright [is not censorship]." addresses just about all possible misunderstandings effectively. I think the proposed amendments make good sense. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposed ammendment 

message: *Censorship is 
**doing anything to an article where I think the most important information is not given the exposure it needs.
*Censorship is not
**anything I do to the article to improve it;
**anything done to an article which I would have done if I had thought of it first.
No - I don't agree with this and I don't agree with any attempt to specify what must end up as a personal judgement.  No to the proposed policy, and no to any minor variation on it.  "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is enough of a test.  --Audiovideo 23:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A POV policy?

message: "The Production Code enumerated three "General Principles":
   1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. 
      Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.
   2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.
   3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.
Specific restrictions were spelled out as "Particular Applications" of these principles:
    * Nudity and suggestive dances were prohibited..." --193.56.241.75 10:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remember Production Code