Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines

message: What's the etiquette for editing a guideline page? Should I "be bold" and monkey with the proto-guideline while it is also discussed here or should we get a consensus first here before editing the actual guideline?
In any case, I just replaced picture with photograph in cases where it meant photograph, since picture is a synonym of image which includes line drawings and such. --Strait 00:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  I will likely make some changes to the guideline, but I will simultaneously comment on the changes here. --Strait 14:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I just made about a zillion little edits.  Sorry if that's annoying.  Not much has really been changed, but I think the organization is better now. --Strait 23:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etiquette? 

message: I had a guideline that I suggested as a starting point for this guideline section, but it seems to have been removed. I am re-including it below. These are my thoughts on the subject and are only a suggestion. I am including it for your consideration:
*No photograph or video is to show an individual performing a sexual activity of any kind. Photographic content pertaining to human sexuality (including depictive photographs) are permissible ONLY if it fits the topic and it clarifies the subject. Video content is forbidden in the area of human sexuality. Artist renderings and photographs for illustration purposes are permissible for topics of human sexuality (but, again, no photographs of individuals performing a sexual activity). Photographs containing images of sexual body regions must be linked if the context is human sexuality. Non-sexual nudity is permissible without regulation (an example could be an article on naturism). However, if the photograph is even remotely sexual, the image is to be considered pertaining to human sexuality and is not a Non-sexual nudity and these guidelines must be followed. Specifically, such a photograph should be linked.
*Clarification of "Performing a sexual activity of any kind:" If the subject of the photograph/video experienced sexual pleasure (either by him/herself of by another) during the making of the photograph he/she performed a sexual activity and the photograph/video must not be used,
*Clarification of "Even remotely sexual:" Nude persons within intimate proximity, flaunting or bringing focus to a sexual body structure or photographs containing an erection, sexual undertones, etc. are considered, at least, remotely sexual. Discretion must be used here.
*Exceptions to consider: Video of human ejaculation (see article "Ejaculation")
*Current talk: There has been discussion of using photographs to depict areas of human sexuality, specifically human masturbation. This subject is difficult to clarify without proper illustrations. Conforming to the above guideline, 'depictive' photographs can be used. That is, a photograph of an individual (nude) demonstrating the posture. This individual does not perform sexual activity in creating the photograph and the viewers of the photograph are informed by the caption that they are not looking at a sexual action. This type of picture is a picture of an individual showing how one positions him/herself for this topic of human sexuality. This type of photograph is to be considered a sexual photograph and must be linked. These "enactments," as they are referred, are alternatives to artist drawings and are a type of artist rendering, themselves. They can be an accurate representation without the sexual act.  They are for the purpose of demonstration and education, and given the circumstances are allowed for this purpose. There should be NO photograph of a sexual act. -- 678901 02:02, 27 September 2006
:Disagree with most of what you have proposed.  Your rules are very strict and could easily cause harm by preventing useful images/videos from being shown.  Much of the problem, perhaps, is in the language you use.  This is a guideline.  It cannot "forbid" things.  It can only suggest.  In any case, I specifically disagree on these points:
:*"Video content is forbidden in the area of human sexuality."  I agree that it is usually not necessary   (indeed, few articles have video in the whole of Wikipedia) and could easily offend people.  But an outright ban is silly.  There might be a case in which it is useful.
:*"Photographs containing images of sexual body regions must be linked if the context is human sexuality."  I assume that by "linked" you mean "not visible on the page itself".  This is not how Wikipedia works.  If the image is pertinent, it should be shown on the page, not semi-censored.
:*"If the subject of the photograph/video experienced sexual pleasure, [...] the photograph/video must not be used."  Wow.  We can't have images of people enjoying themselves?  Besides the fact that this is just really puritan, it is impossible to enforce.  You can't tell whether or not someone is experiencing sexual pleasure by looking at a picture.  They might look happy and be faking it (like most models, sexual and non-sexual) or be stony-faced and having an orgasm.  Do you really want to have arguments on talk pages about this?
:*"the viewers of the photograph are informed by the caption that they are not looking at a sexual action” I do not want to see this sort of double talk on Wikipedia.  "This picture shows a woman masturbating.  Well, not really masturbating, but rather just holding her hands as though she were masturbating."  No.  If we choose to illustrate female masturbation, we should illustrate female masturbation, not "female with her hand on her clitoris in a posture which might be used for female masturbation" --Strait 14:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree with the proposed guideline above. As someone who as attempted to contribute usefully to WP, including articles related to sexuality, I think that any guideline that values inoffensiveness over being informative to the reader is a bad idea, and frankly does a disservice to Wikipedia in general. Aside from the rules necessarily imposed upon Wikipedia as a result of the laws that it is subject to (obscenity, etc.), I think that the only test for images and other content should be what is most informative given the article at hand. In particular, given the choice between a photo and a drawing, unless the photo is particularly poor and the drawing particularly excellent, the photo should be used -- drawings (particularly anatomical drawings) are often far less helpful than actual photos and are rarely representative of anything but an imaginary, idealized version of human anatomy. But practical concerns aside, I'm against the proposal on fundamental grounds, regardless of various "utility" arguments. (For the record, I agree with most of Strait's arguments, given above.) The final deciding factor for the inclusion or exclusion of any content, should be whether it makes the article more informative. If people are offended by information that is true, correct, and accurate, that is their problem, not Wikipedia's. --Kadin2048 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Proposed Guideline (to consider or integrate) 

message: I'm glad to see that we're all level-headed around here.  It's a pleasant surprise after many flame wars. :-)
Let me pull some thoughts together in the form of a list or two.  Setting aside the issue of whether they appear directly on the page, there are pretty much four approaches to the image issue (three of which are easily extendable to the video issue), all of which are in use somewhere right now:
=== No image ===
====Advantages====
*Cannot possibly offend anyone.
====Disadvantages====
*Article looks boring.
*Reader has no second type of information to draw from after reading the text.
=== Line drawing ===
====Advantages====
*Non-photographs are less offensive to some than photographs.
*Possibly more informative, since unnecessary details are left out and necessary ones are easily brought to the fore.  (This is why textbooks in all fields use diagrams instead of photographs.)
*Relatively easy to produce.
*Relatively easy for third parties to edit to add/remove details (for instance, the teddy bear in the illustration for missionary position).
*May be considered more culturally and/or religiously sensitive.
*May be more acceptable in academic institutions.
*May be considered more acceptable for viewing by minors.
====Disadvantages====
*Possibly less informative than photographs:
**they can be inaccurate, since the illustrator could be drawing something they have never done or seen
**They can leave out details in which the reader may be interested.
*Possibly less credible than photographs.  In subjects where the sexual act is considered by many impossible (Cf. autofellatio, autocunnilingus) a photograph is much more likely to convince the reader that the act depicted is, in fact, possible.
(Note: Anatomical images are usually sourced from the same material by which surgical and medical students are trained, due to the fact when dealing with anatomy there are many other aesthetic disturbances surrounding any specific part, diagrams can break down and overlook distractions where as photographs can not.)
=== Historical artwork ===
====Advantages====
*Non-photographs are less offensive to some than photographs.
*By being established art, they are awarded special excused status by many, and therefore may be considered even less offensive than line drawings.
* Art history is Human history; recordings of the knowledge and beliefs of previous cultures and their accomplishments.  Each piece of art is a serious comment that better validates the seriousness of the given topic than a diagram
====Disadvantages====
*Often the subject matter is hard to make out, either because of age (crumbling Greek statues) or abstraction (in more modern art).
*Often have political or cultural overtones which are completely off-topic.
*Not available for every topic and cannot readily be made available.
*Possibly less informative than photographs:
**they can be inaccurate, since the illustrator could be drawing something they have never done or seen
**They can leave out details in which the reader may be interested.
=== Photographs ===
====Advantages====
*Possibly more informative, since it is the actual thing rather than a representation.
*Easy to produce.
====Disadvantages====
*More offensive to some than either other type of image.
*Might be hard to know that people aren't posting images of ex-girlfriends without their consent, etc.
*Difficult for third parties to edit to add/remove details.
*If edited, they lose credibility.
*Open to exploitation by vanity exhibitionists.
*May be less acceptable in academic institutions.
*May be seen as less culturally/relgiously sensitive.
=== Enactment Photographs ===
====Advantages====
*Possibly less offensive than a photograph of an actual sexual action.
*Individuals participating in photographs do not conduct sexual acts. (For legal clarification and to help remove ill feelings.) A photograph of a nude posture is likely to be deemed less obscene than a photograph of a sexual action.
*More descriptive and informative than artistic renderings (drawings or historical).
*Can be used for educational purposes solely (They are images not intended to be erotic, and can be presented that way).
*Have a more educational appearance and presentation.
*The highlight is shifted from a sexual act to a nude posture, while still demonstrating and presenting the action in a manner that is illustrative. The action is still the focus, and has less distractions.
*Usually these pictures are created with the intent of showing an action and are not merely chosen because they work with the topic.
*Capable of matching or surpassing the quality of an "actual" photograph.
====Disadvantages====
*More offensive to some than either other type of image. 
*Might be hard to know that people aren't posting images of ex-girlfriends without their consent, etc. 
*Difficult for third parties to edit to add/remove details. 
*If edited, they lose credibility. 
*Open to exploitation by vanity exhibitionists. 
*May be less acceptable in academic institutions. 
*May be seen as less culturally/relgiously sensitive. 
*Pictures are not "real."
*Many could still find them offensive.
*They are indistinguishable from normal photographs if not for the caption.
*Possibly more offensive than artistic renderings.
*Often Wikipedia frowns on visual aids created specifically for an article.
*Material may be adequately illustrated with drawings.
=== Linkimages ===
==== Advantages of Linkimaging ====
:*Linkimaging is a perfectly even compromise. It uses available technology to compromise a heated debate.
:*Maintains clarity and neutrality of the article.
:*Is sensitive to Wikipedia users. It's far less "offensive".
:*Offers users a choice. (no big surprises)
:*Nobody ends up feeling that they were tricked into seeing a sex-related photo. If anyone complains, they have to also admit that it was their choice, and nobody tricked them into seeing sex pics.
:*The constant deleting and reverting of articles would be less.
:*Allows the possibility for more pictures and larger pictures.
:*Keeps the article from being content-crammed.
:*Prevents the article from seeming to be focused on sexual pictures rather than the text.
:*Enables everyone to read the whole article that we took so much time to write and edit before they come to the controversial part.
:*Prevents people from using Wikipedia articles for a "pro-sex" or "sex-positive" or "sex negative" political platform.
:*Creates a professional looking respectable atmosphere for an excellent resource.
:*Can be used for all types of media (like photos, videos, etc.) rather than having a bunch of fragmented polices for each type of media.
==== Disadvantages of Linkimaging ====
:*The article is not as sexy.
:*People who are in a hurry have to take time to click on a link to see the picture.
:*The article is not as colorful.
:*People who are new to the Internet might not understand how links within articles work.
:*Images have their own talk pages, which might get ignored. (That might be a good thing in some cases because it will free up space on the article talk page for other issues besides this debate)  APatcher 15:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of advantages and disadvantages to each approach 

message: ==== Advantages of Linkimaging ====
:*Linkimaging is a perfectly even compromise. It uses available technology to compromise a heated debate.
:*Maintains clarity and neutrality of the article.
:*Is sensitive to Wikipedia users. It's far less "offensive".
:*Offers users a choice. (no big surprises)
:*Nobody ends up feeling that they were tricked into seeing a sex-related photo. If anyone complains, they have to also admit that it was their choice, and nobody tricked them into seeing sex pics.
:*The constant deleting and reverting of articles would be less.
:*Allows the possibility for more pictures and larger pictures.
:*Keeps the article from being content-crammed.
:*Prevents the article from seeming to be focused on sexual pictures rather than the text.
:*Enables everyone to read the whole article that we took so much time to write and edit before they come to the controversial part.
:*Prevents people from using Wikipedia articles for a "pro-sex" or "sex-positive" or "sex negative" political platform.
:*Creates a professional looking respectable atmosphere for an excellent resource.
:*Can be used for all types of media (like photos, videos, etc.) rather than having a bunch of fragmented polices for each type of media.
==== Disadvantages of Linkimaging ====
:*The article is not as sexy.
:*People who are in a hurry have to take time to click on a link to see the picture.
:*The article is not as colorful.
:*People who are new to the Internet might not understand how links within articles work.
:*Images have their own talk pages, which might get ignored. (That might be a good thing in some cases because it will free up space on the article talk page for other issues besides this debate)  APatcher 15:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkimages 

message: :*The article is not as sexy.
:*People who are in a hurry have to take time to click on a link to see the picture.
:*The article is not as colorful.
:*People who are new to the Internet might not understand how links within articles work.
:*Images have their own talk pages, which might get ignored. (That might be a good thing in some cases because it will free up space on the article talk page for other issues besides this debate)  APatcher 15:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages of Linkimaging 

message: Please add advantages/disadvantages directly to the list above and discuss here. --Strait 23:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed 'Reader gains nothing.' as it is rather tenuously phrased, I could not come up with an alternative because nothing gained would indicate all our text based articles impart nothing.  In the line drawing section I have added 'culturally sensitive', 'religiously sensitive', 'acceptable in academic institutions', 'acceptable for viewing by minors'.  In the photograph section I have added the following disadvantages, 'open to exploitation by vanity exhibitionists' (as was the anus image in the Anus article which started this whole issue, although two editors there defended any reverts mericlessly), 'may result in loss of access to academic institutes who rule it out as unacceptable content', and 'culturally insensitive and potentially offensive to various ethnicities, religious and cultural groups'.  Hope that helps.  211.30.71.59 16:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my edit comment for my changes to your changes. --Strait 18:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. --Strait 22:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: An editorial decision based on "The image format that provides the most useful encyclopedic detail is always preferred." works for me.  ALso, "When two images give an equal level of useful detail, the format least likely to offend is preferred." seems good.  However "In many cases, a drawing is less potentially offensive than a photograph of the same subject." may be true, but it should be an editorial decision.  The last sentence shouldn' be part of the guideline, I feel.  Atom 01:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, given that it has the qualifier "in many cases", I think it's always true.  I would go so far as to say that it would still be true if you changed it to "in most cases", or perhaps "in most cases when judged by a western audience".  I think that this idea should be included in some fashion. --Strait 01:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I was replying specifically to the previous suggestion of wording.  I think that the concept that we should use the least potentially offensive image when given a choice makes sense, and is incorporated already in the guideline. "Images relating to some topics cannot be informative without also running the risk of being offensive to some. However, when deciding between two equally informative images, the one which is least likely to offend (or is likely to offend the least) should be used."  Atom 01:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * ::* There are advantages to having linkimages so we can give people the choice to see what they want to see. If they don't want to see it, then they don't have to click on the linkimage. If they need to see it, then it is still posssible. APatcher 14:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on above list 

message: Okay, first I admit that my reasoning on this starts as theoretical.  I realize that sometimes there could be exceptions.  But in general, there will always continue to be numerous people who will get a kick out of having their penis, or some other aspect of themselves in a wikipedia article.  We can eliminate many of these by not allowing them from Wikipedia editors.  
Now, also this is consistent with the approach we already take with written content.  No original research allowed, get the material from a verifiable source.  Also, from a journalistic perspective, maintaining independence and neutrality in the article.  It isn't our job (as an encyclopedia editor) to put out opinion into the article, but to work to fairly represent it.   This follows with the wiped policy that suggests not putting in external links to your own web sites, or web sites that you add substantial content to.  The desire is to maintain neutrality and independence.  From an images (photograph) or even artwork (you made yourself), another editor can always argue that you are biased when you express that "your contribution" is the best image for representing the article.
Now, what makes this a grey area, is that in other parts of Wikipedia (notably Wikipedia:Requested pictures ASK for you to contribute your drawings, or pictures of certain objects and places.  In this case, you are independent from the editors who primary interest is that article.  After contribution, you don't really have anything to do with that article, or it’s content.
I'm not sure if I am expressing my thoughts clearly or not.  Certainly, if we posted to the above mentioned page, and asked for people to submit images (their own artwork, photos, or historic artwork) for the masturbation article of a male and female masturbating, and got a few hundred responses, and chose an image that fit the article well, that would be okay.  In that case, I would want primary contributors to the masturbation article to exclude themselves as a matter of neutrality and to maintain ethical clarity.  The end result would essentially, be a photograph (or artwork) from a Wikipedian, but not from one that would be (potentially) arguing that their image was the best choice for the article.  Possibly, if a contributor to the article had their image included with the many others, and stepped out of the process (current and future) of participating in deciding which image was best, that might be okay.  But, personally, I would not feel that it would be appropriate for me to do that in good conscience.  
Atom 01:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you propose this be enforced?  There were many complaints on the Anus article when a vanity poster uploaded his anus to the page without consensus or even discussion of the subject; the image was subsequently defended by User:Kinst and a few of his astro-turfing cronies and subsequently Kinst then fought for the removal of the original consensus approved anus image leaving us only with the most complained about image on Wikipedia.  :P  What method would be employed to stop users such as Kinst astro-turfing vanity images into being main images without consensus being met? 211.30.71.59 16:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to assume good faith, but can you please stop accusing me of things and calling those you disagree with "cronies"? In any case, I never advocated removing the old image on the anus page; it was removed for copyright problems off of commons. --Kinst 00:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinst?  You and Ec5618 are the only people who have a problem with the removal of the hairy male anus?  Don't make me start supporting my comments with a crapload of quotes and references, because I'm more than happy to (and adept at) being anal .. pun definitely intended.  :) 211.30.71.59 09:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say I understand. --Kinst 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Since the "vanity" behind my image is debatable under your criteria, I think that would be a good idea.--678901 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of reasoning behind "No vanity Images" 

message: I just added some more stuff to this one.  Please comment. --Strait 22:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on "Avoid images that show a person's face, or make them easily identifiable" 

message: What was the intent of "(Maybe Tribadism)"?  There are two images there and they don't seem to really be much different. --Strait 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure whether you are agreeing with me. --Strait 13:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on "Given multiple images available, only the one..." 

message: :*I think putting any of the images which cause heated and never-ending debates should be put behind links. I think linkimaging is a perfectly even compromise. The article is just as clear and just as real with a linkimage. The linkimage capacity is a technological advancement of the Web. It makes things like Wikipedia better than a conventional encyclopedia, and I don't see any problem with using it. It is a step forward, not a step backward. These artilces are a lot better because we don't have to have everything all cramed into the text like a conventional encyclopedia does. 
:* Linkimages allow the readers to have more options regarding what they want to see. It seems that those against it just use the fact that we have the freedom to include pictures as the basis for doing it. Yes, we do have the freedom to use pictures. We should have the freedom. But we should also be realistic and somewhat sensitive (or at least concerned) for to the users of this project, especially when they have a good point about compromising. I'm trying to argue a moderate viewpoint here, and that is not as easy as screaming from the left or from the right. I'm not some kind of moral crusader who wants to rid the world of nudity. I don't even think nudity is so wrong in the first place. However, I think we should do everything we can to make this project realistic, useful, diverse, and clever. To do that, someone will have to compromise something at some point. This is just one of those times. The use linkimages allows people the freedom to see it or not to see it. Forcing people to see a picture when they go to one of these articles is not going to make them more open-minded anyway.
:*This is not censorship in any way whatsoever. To censor something is to supress or delete objectionable content. A linkimage is just a simple way to use technology to give Wikipedia users choices. Any resource that offers choices is more complete and more respectable. That is also how the real world is. For example, people wear pants so they are not nude, but they reserve the right to take them off. They have a choice. People have a choice whether to go to the public beach or the nude beach. They have a choice whether to read Playboy or Time Magazine. There is nothing wrong with offering a choice in Wikipedia. 
APatcher 06:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advantages of Linkimaging

message: I'm wondering just how many photographs there are or have been on sex-related pages, not counting vandalism/ill-intentioned photographs, pages which are simply about body parts such as at penis, or photographs that would be generally considered quite tame such as the one at erogenous zones or spreadeagle (position).  I know about the ones on:
* pearl necklace (sexuality)
* masturbation (not there now, discussed here)
There are probably a couple of others that I don't know about, but I'm guessing there's not more than  a small handful.  If so, it seems to me that the discussion above about whether or not to hide photographs of sex acts behind links is premature.  There are barely any non-anatomical photographs as it is, much less ones which depict sex acts (although I guess it depends what you call a "sex act"). We should perhaps wait for there to be an example or two of such a photograph before trying to handle every possibility.  --Strait 08:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (LOL) Atom, I am more openminded than you think. Somebody has to play "Devils Advocate" and since this discussion seems to be mostly you, me, Strait, and Johntex, someone has to bring up that viewpoint. I don't have anything against non-reproductive sexual activities, sexual fetishes, or sexual deviations as long as it is mutual and nobody gets hurt, but some people do, so I made the statement. But I will say this, I ate a huge dish of Mexican food today. When I went to the bathroom to engage in the act of Defecation tonight, I stood up and looked thoughtfully into the commode when I had finished. That long brown stinky thing floating down in there pretty much convinced me that the Anus is not a sex organ. (why don't jalapenos digest ?) LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ts umbra 02:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investigation of how necessary a detailed photograph guideline is 

message: Dear Wikipedia-
I am very disturbed that I cannot allow my children to use this resource.
I am FAR from a prude.
I am of the opinion that the removal of naked pictures is reasonable.  What exactly is accomplished?  I have never encountered an encyclopedia that I could not show to my children.
I am very angry that the 'user community' has allowed pornography, as defined by the FCC (which are a bunch of b******s I'll agree, but they err on the side of letting my children see it at the least), to appear on this site.  For those of you without children -- I can do nothing to convince you of your error.  For those of you with children:  really?  You are going to tell you daughter to go look at some penis pictures?  Really?  I wish I'd known your daughters when I was growing up.  In fact...
Xchanter 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: The editor who initiated this section, Xchanter , was perma-blocked the following day for making repeated legal threats against wikipedia. On an unrelated note, I read through Atom's discussion with JohnTex (above) and wanted to add a brief comment. While I'm most adamantly opposed to censorship, and I think that real legal issues on WP need to be handled by Brad Patrick and the Foundation, previous discussions with JohnTex have convinced me that he has several valid points. The use of linkimage for graphic depictions of sex acts or primary sex organs seems a reasonable compromise between including valid material, and reducing the "shock hazard" to readers of a sensitive disposition. Furthermore, I've found a very simple and pragmatic benefit to the use of linkimage: it can hugely reduce the number of "image blankings" a controversial article or image receives. Since I regard unsourced and undiscussed blankings to be a type of vandalism, I'm convinced that anything which helps reduce vandalism is a good thing. I have circa 400 articles Watchlisted as being "high-traffic vandal targets" and, unsurprisingly, a fair number of those are articles relate to sex and sexuality. Naturally, I cringe every time a title pops up with an edit by an Anon IP. Like I said, reducing vandalism would be a good thing. I don't know if I've contributed anything useful to the discussion or not, mostly I just wanted to "sound off" someplace where people might actually listen :) --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 21:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let us use the Britannica as a guideline 

message: ::I personally don't think sexual types of pictures offensive, but there is still a controversy with unclear parameters here. Therefore, the issue will always be "borderline" and "debatable". <B>What I think we should try to avoid is having people come to Wikipedia and encountering what they consider a "sexual surprise" -- especially since the quality of most Wikipedia articles would NOT be diminished in any way by excluding genital pictures, videos, or illustrations from the actual text of the article.</B> Since we have linkimages and resource links where people can find visual examples that include a wide variety, the pictures and the controversies are not really necessary on Wikipedia. This is not censorship, but it is a way to try to end and transcend a complicated debate. 
What we can do is give users the freedom to see it or not to see it by using linkimages. It's not good to have people forced to view an image just because they are researching sexuality AND it is not good to have people prevented from gaining access to images when they need to see them. The only reasonable compromise I have seen proposed so far is to use linkimages.
There are people in this discussion that have an agenda for "sex-positive" politics and people that have an agenda to "erase sexual things" on the grounds of morality. Wikipedia is not the place for that because it is supposed to be neutral. There should be a "middle-of-the-road" policy to maintain neutral status.
There are only a few people who managed to find this discussion page, and it seems a lot of them are minority leftists or rightists. What if we put this issue to a vote across the entire Wikipedia? -- Or at lest a notice to vote on the sexuality related articles. I believe there is a silent majority of moderates out there who would agree a compromise is in order.
:: APatcher 11:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Never-Ending Image Debate?

message: Maybe this is not a good place to post this, but I figured this is probably a discussion you have had before. I need some people to express their opinion on the use of linkimage and their opinion on the use in general of the picture in List of youngest birth mothers.
Please express your opinion at Talk:List of youngest birth mothers. --Morten LJ 06:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of youngest birth mothers]] 

message: When (homemade) porn crosses into the arena of childrens education, then you need to ask yourselves is wikipedia a truly eductional site or a site which uses sexual images as exploitation material.
:Children shouldn't be looking up pearl necklaces.  Mghabmw (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there was a valid point raised here. Why do porn websites require you to click you are 18 years or older to enter?  What are the legal implications?  Can we have a sexually explicit images (like some porn websites do even where they ask your age!?). A check in the laws could be something what Wikipedia needs. --CyclePat (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've since addressed this point at Wikipedia:Sexual content/FAQ.  My view is that we don't know whether there are pedophiles here.  Do your remember someone asking you for an ID card before you posted?  Covering up a few naughty-bits in articles about sex doesn't mean that someone couldn't be chatting up your child and arranging a spot to meet, either in an unwatched talk page or at a See Also link that leads to a bad place.  By not censoring the site, we provide parents with a way to see, visually, that this is a hard hat area, an encyclopedia under construction.  If you want a nice smooth safe version of Wikipedia you just have to select out "safe" articles and pictures, or edit them down to that, and put them on your own server with child-safe restrictions on where conversations take place and what sites are linked to.  You're even allowed to run ads and make a fair profit for your work! Wnt (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia: Designed by Paedophiles for paedophiles 

message: I realise this page has been dead for a while, but I just wanted to express my thoughts of some of the suggestions, for consideration. I will not argue that we are ultimately bound by law, and it's only additional constraints that I'm concerned about.
Although on the face of it the principle of "given two equally informative images, choose the less offensive one" sounds good, the problem is there's a false dichotomy here: both images may be more informative than either one by itself. A great analogy is hippo, which includes both a photo of a modern hippo, as well as drawings of extinct hippos. Similarly, line drawings and photographs may emphasize different characteristics of anatomy and sexual positions, and I believe they're frequently most useful when combined. An image which does not add enough to justify the space and attention it takes up in the article should always be removed, regardless of how offensive it is.
It's also vital to distinguish "pornographic" images from "legally obscene" images. Wikipedia needs pornographic images, to properly illustrate subjects related to pornography; it's the placement of images in places where they are out-of-context and don't add to the topic that is problematic. For example, although this is against current consensus, I'd argue that a porn actor known for his large penis should be shown with his penis visible, as it is an important defining characteristic, just as photos of giraffes include their necks.
I have no complaints about the identifiability guideline, but I do think there are obviously cases where identifiability is unavoidable; for example, sexual images involving the face.
Any responses welcome. :-) Dcoetzee 02:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts 

message: Can someone take a look at Woman on top (sex position).  A number of SPAs continue to add back in a graphic image which really adds nothing to the discussion.  There are multiple line drawings and old illustrations, and then there is this one poorly shot, poorly lit, poorly staged, difficult to see image image which I can't help but think is somebody who is just keeping it up there (no pun intended) as a trophy (e.g. to have your picture on WP).   7  22:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting a third party 

message: Is this still a proposed guideline or is it a failed one? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of this page?