Disputatio:Pornographia

message: Now really... If one doesn't want to know about pornography, why would they go to this page... I really am against the hiding of all these images... It's an encyclopaedia, which contains truth. Truth is not always pleasant to look at. Where do we stop? Do we hide pictures of war? Of terrorism? Of radical philosophies? This censoring scares me...--Ioshus (disp) 22:54, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say I'm in the middle on this one. I mean, I could definitely see hiding a picture of victims of terrorism, if the dammage was very graphic. As for the picture on this page... well, honestly at thumbnail size you have too look at it pretty closely to see anything shocking. --Iustinus 23:01, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ioshus, the same could be said for the the eiaculatum page, on whose disputatio you said you'd prefer the template. What really distinguishes that page from this one? Nothing. You are still able to view the image if you choose. Why create the template if it isn't intended to be used? Alexanderr 23:04, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Also I agree with Iustinus concerning terrorism, and would like to add that very bloody pictures (those in which people are missing arms) probably should be candidates for the hide template. Alexanderr 23:06, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

text: ;::For the record on the eiaculatum page, and now I assert that I don't think that image should be hidden. I absolutely think it should be displayed. Again, why go to an article on something you don't want to learn about? If you don't want to learn about ejaculate, why go to the page? I merely conceded the point to avoid a big argument, which usually happens between you and me. Plus the template is cool for translations.
replies: text: ::::As you indicate in other words, the purpose of illustrations is to educate. My only objection to showing the currently hidden page is that it's less educational than such an illustration might be: the whitish blob could just as well be something concocted in a kitchen, droppings from an inchoative pancake mix, say, or spatter from an incipient cream sauce. The image would be more educational if something of known size were visible in the it, a well-known coin perhaps, or a ruler. IacobusAmor 00:50, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::But this page? Eh...I just don't see what's so bad about it, man. It doesn't scare me.--Ioshus (disp) 23:10, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Ioshus, I don't really want to argue, but the point of the hide template it to allow those who want to to view an image, without forcing everyone to. And in the case of many pages concerned with sexual topics, well, I see nothing wrong with an article on sex, however it doesn't mean that I want to see an image of it. And there is still the problem of the random search option. Alexanderr 23:17, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::On the other hand, as Alex will remember, I am scared of insects. So maybe we can use the template there? OK, I'm kidding, but this does illustrate the point that it's possible to imagine a situation where one might want to learn about cockroaches, leprosy, decomposition of the human corpse, and so on, without having to actually look at the subject. I can think of a number of times where I've refrained from looking somethign up on en: knowing I wouldn't be able to avoid the illustrations. So the "Why come to the page if you don't want to see the picture?" argument doesn't hold much water with me. But the problem is, where do we draw the line? Honestly, compared to what might have been here (try a google image search), this picture is EXTREMELY tame, and if it came down to a vote, I would say "don't hide." --Iustinus 23:23, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Dammit, that's a good point about the random page. Maybe it's just a steely stomach, but I find very little offensive to look at, and could not imagine myself avoiding looking something up for fear of the picture that might be there... I guess I can agree about bloody pictures of armless people, but bodily fluids, frescoes of ancient pornography... I don't know, just doesn't offend/shock me at all.--Ioshus (disp) 23:29, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
Vide etiam Vicipaedia:Imagines in disputatione. --Rolandus 09:57, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

message: "Pornographia expositionem impudicam dicere vult." That's not NPOV, and it therefore wants to be changed. (The word that's NPOV is impudicam.) Compare the defintion in Webster's Collegiate: "[Pornography is] the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement." No mention of the shamefulness, unchastity, disgust, or lewdness conveyed in impudicam. IacobusAmor 16:14, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prima sententia