Talk:Man/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Man. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Remove the pic

I concur, the Leonardo Da Vinci's picture and Michelangelo's David should be removed! THERE ARE CHILDREN VIEWING THE WIKIPEDIA AND THEY CAN GET A TRAUMA IF SEE SOMEONE NAKED! If you want my opinion, most of the pics in this article are not necessary, the arbitrary selection of "famous men" bothers me a little as it does in all the articles. --Hoygan!! (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Photograph of Michelango's David has been modified to avoid deletion. (Ben Dawid (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC))

Who is the idiot woman or emasculated guy who thought it would be a good idea to show a naked dude? Should have been hit with a brick. *facepalm* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handover111 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My younger brother saw the pic of the naked man and freaked out. And he is only ten years old. He did not need to see that. A pic with a man that is clothed would be just the same. --Creation7689 (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous..Please get rid of this photo! If there is was a photo of a naked woman im sure there would be outrage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.86.93 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No there wouldn't.

Why the hell is there a nude picture of a man in here?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.128.192 (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it's relevant.

Wikipedia knows what is happening. We have a class C for quality while at the same time a Top Class for priority. We should live with that for an open source, free encyclopedia. Mr. Wales, thanks for the opportunity.

Some features of this article are kind of uncomfortable for me. The definition of the features of a man were given by a woman. Thanks for the attempt but she is rather describing her prince charming than making a scholar, scientific or anthropological approach.

Without being too scientific I think we should differentiate the biological from the sociological, from the philosophical, from the functional in the family, from the purely sexual, from the stereotype, from the cultural and so on avoiding cross category judgments. To be shocking enough, being a man in jail, at war, as a parent with a newborn baby at home, in an uncompromised one night stand with a gorgeous woman, in your daily routine with your beloved and faithful wife and kids and as james bond are social roles so wildly apart that the attempts of definitions should be somehow structured in different points of view to allow justice.

In phylosophical terms the ideal of man is well defined in classical Greek culture with the concept of honor, virility, glory and so on. That is primitive but highly efficient in the sense of attending female expectations. A woman wants a man of honor. Still today the concept is applicable. But today there is the concept of new order, liberalism, equality between men and women, marriage and what women expect of it, divorce, pension, work, etc. The social trend makes pressure on man to get away from an honor based definition to a socially acceptable definition of man where honor is not the top priority. A lot of suffering today comes from the difference between the archetypes and the real life situations men and women are confronted.

Women are having the upper hand since they are more prone to express, discuss and evaluate feelings publicly.

Suggestions and critics from male and female readers are expected and welcome.

ManAtWork100 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pro This is a very good comment. I completely agree.--Grondilu (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments seem sensible to me. What changes to the article do you suggest. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

^^^ that.

22 year old man image

What's going on with the image? Why is there some photoshop work going on to add hair? Are we going to add hair to the image used in the Woman article as well?

Matt Yohe (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why naked?

Surely a picture of a man wearing clothes will give you the same effect.

Sometimes I think Wikipedia is run by monkeys. Seriously don't care if Wikipedia is censored or not, use common sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.139.230 (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed nudity here is not justified. This is an article about man, not just about man's anatomy. Most human beings almost always wear clothes, so please consider using a photo of a dressed man. If you want to show a man, you have to show him as he can usually be seen. And this would be with clothes. Please. --77.196.30.154 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

AND DON'T PUT IT BACK

Someone has been smart enough to get rid of the controversial and useless picture, and put a picture of a dressed man instead. Again : this is not a page about man's body or superficial anatomy.

Please don't put the 22 naked man image again. --Grondilu (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why we should change the image.

The picture is unaesthetic and encyclopedic. Wikipedia is supposed to emulate an encyclopedia, and when you open a credible encyclopedia to "male" you don't find a ugly pasty white unhealthy looking guy with baby fat. You find something that is coherent with a certain artistic design, like how all Wikipedia links are blue, mainly white background with then black print so it's easy on the eyes, etc. are images should correspond with that. It just looks really awkward. Just like you want decent writing, you want a decent images. Politically correctness, intellectually, is just stupid logic. Obviously every person who finds this page really cringes. I don't get why it has been up here so long. This page might be locked by some guy in his bathrobe that never leaves his house, I don't know, but someone with power just change it... The statue of Davis? Or a sketch drawing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How quaintly Victorian! Well, I didn't cringe. The picture (and the other one at "woman") actually reminds me of photos in one of our schoolbooks back in Scotland thirty years ago. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You fat old guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

True. Definitely too round! Haven't been able to get into my kilt for years. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Racial Exclusion

All images on this page are of white men or of statues men represented as white by white men. Seeing as white men are much less than half of all men on earth, it is not representative that all the images should be of white men. --97.112.49.34 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Images of more races and the removal of the nude white male photo would improve the article. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 01:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Important note to all editors

WP:Wikipedia is not censored.
There are only 3 photographs of men on this article, of which one is of Barack Obama.

Wikipedia is not censored. It is a central principle of Wikipedia. Please note that both the man article and the woman article display a naked photograph in the lead of the articles to show readers the physical form of a man and a woman (see the counterpart article, woman). Both of these photographs are the best examples on Wikipedia of the physical forms of a man and a woman. There are 3 photographs in this article of men, of which one depicts the United States president (who is black), another is of the pope, and the other is an example of the physical form of a man. If the race of the photograph of the physical form of a man was of another race then that could equally be considered racist. I see no problem with the photographs displayed on this article as images are chosen on relevance to the article rather than to please sensitivities. It is unfortunate if people have some how believed this is either obscene or racist. 88.106.81.80 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure Wikipedia isn't censored, but even the article on fucking has a lead-in images of a 19th century aquatint of the activity and then some lions in the grass, not some pasty white people going at it. The problem people have, I think, is with the image itself, not necessarily with the notion of the image. Putting the image of Michaelangeo's David as the lead-in would still depict a naked, anatomically-correct man, and would also have some artistic merit to boot. Even the equivalent picture on Woman is at least moderately-well composed, even though that image has very obviously had the background removed in an image editor. To say that the selection of images on Wikipedia is done solely on relevance to the article would obviate the utility of featured pictures and all the different criteria for things like Image of the Day, etc. --69.136.181.80 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact that his chest and abdomen are abnormally hairless? Still, to say Wikipedia is "run by monkeys" isn't fair as saying such a thing in insulting to monkeys.71.134.42.129 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2010 (UT

Choice of a picture

Best images candidates so far :

File:Man and son.jpg

My preference goes for the rock guitar player. I like this picture not only because it looks great and is kind of fun to see here, but also because it illustrates very well how much the man concept is far beyond just the man body. And I don't care about his political beliefs.

On the other hand, the man an son picture is nice too, and won't offend anyone (hopefully !). --Grondilu (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This debate concerning the choice of the picture makes me realise the true meaning of the concept of point of view. When something is complex enough to have many aspects, there are necessarly many ways to see it. Man is such a concept. And any image that will picture only one man, will necessarly be a particular point of view of mankind. We just have to choose the one of least resistance, as someone suggested in the similar debate on Talk:Woman.--Grondilu (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia SHOULD use a neutral picture of a man, not a man doing something, or with anyone. IE Right now, that picture will piss off homosexuals and people who do not want to have kids. Stop being so damn complicated and offer a neutral picture. --95.236.4.241 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with the fact that the baby is not necessary here. It does indeed insist on the paternity aspect, which is a POV.--Grondilu (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No valid argument is presented above to justify changing the current pic. Please find something better to do with your time. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Both here and at Woman I attempted to address some longstanding, ongoing objections to images. The objections fell into two categories; some users claimed that certain images were 1) offensive and/or 2) insufficiently comprehensive (e.g., you can't have a young, able-bodied, white female nursing a child stand for a category that includes individuals who may be elderly, disabled, of various ethnicities, etc). First objection is easily handled -- Wikipedia is not censored. No need to explain its implications and applications. People just need to read it. We don't insist that only dogs with collars be displayed at dog, and the only difference between that example and this article is a cultural prohibition which is not and should not be binding on an encyclopedia. The second thing I've addressed by borrowing a collage framework from one of the ethnic group pages, where exactly the same problem occurs -- lots of different roles for group-members of various ages, eras, genders, etc. DavidOaks (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Important note to all editors

Please desist from putting irrelevant and shameful nude pictures on non-pornographic articles such as this one. The practice is revolting to the civilised senses of the majority of users world wide, and pro-nudity editors need to find a better excuse for their actions than the lame 'Wikipedia is not censored' arguments. Bear in mind that non-censorship does not necessarily imply a free-for-all for depraved human expression. (Ben Dawid (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Please review the discussion here and wikipolicy on censorship. This is what human males look like. It's a small photo, and one among many displaying a range of cultural settings, periods, roles. DavidOaks (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A new wave of deletions has begun. Consensus is not a majority -- consesnus needs to be articulated within the purposes and principles of the project. The article leads with a definition focussed on sexuality; it takes a scientific approach. A small medical illustration is not only appropriate -- the article would be defective without it. Wikipedia is not censored, and even if it were, it would be v difficult to make the case that this image is prurient. DavidOaks (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that nudity in this context is sexual, and yet you forcefully - against the stated, vehement wishes of the majority - reinstate explicit imagery in a public place, known to be frequented by young children! (Ben Dawid (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

A topic defined intrinsically by sexuality (man vs woman, for example) would naturally involve some recognition of sexual differences, and that is appropriately illustrated by a non-prurient nude image. If you are awae of wikipolicy that states all pages should be made as inoffensive as possible, and all pages need to be safe for children, please bring it forward. If you are aware of a policy stating that Wikipedia is a democracy where consensus is determined by counting the number of editors expressing support on the various sides, please bring that forward. DavidOaks (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I regard the activity of Ben Dawid and WE223ws as vandalism; in that case, reverting their repeated deletions of legitimate content for reasons out of sync with longstanding wikipolicy doesn't fall under the 3RR rule. However, if an admin wishes to weigh in against me, I will not be offended. DavidOaks (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DavidOaks that the collage at the top of the page should include at least one naked man. It provides information in a visual way about the topic that none of the other photographs do. "Wikipedia is not censored" is not just a slogan, it is a policy that the community has considered carefully and agreed on, and it is worth reading the three paragraphs. If a picture is useful, the fact that someone finds it objectionable is unlikely to be a compelling argument for removing it. Grafen (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the following before posting any explicit images

WP:Consensus.

This is not the place for lone ranger tactics. Wikipedia states clearly that "in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability", and: "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles. Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken..." Let me suggest that those posting nude images here are riding roughshod over the legitimate concerns of the majority. (Ben Dawid (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC))

Good efforts have been made to maintain WP:GF assumptions, but the latest bit, vandalizing the image of Michaelangelo's David, makes it clear that this is vandalism or trolling, a waste of everybody's time. THe continued violations of wikipolicy will be reverted without comment. You think you've got a case, please contact an admin. DavidOaks (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is merely begging the question to state that "vandalizing the image...makes it clear that this is vandalism"; and furthermore it is a violation of common sense (let alone wikipolicy!) to revert without comment a contribution based on sound morals and backed with a good argument as well as general consensus. Wikipedia's WP:Images and media for deletion states the following: ‘To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created — see WP:burden of proof."’ (Ben Dawid (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC))

I think it's now obvious to all that you're enjoying this; now you're wikilawyering, on irrelevant grounds, either because you haven't bothered to read carefully (it's about non-free content) or because your real purpose is trolling. I resent the waste of time, but for the sake of community and benefit of others who may be reading: 1) "sound morals" are not a canon on Wikipedia. It is notoriously difficult to achieve consensus on these things. 2) "common sense" does not sustain exaggerated judgments like "shameful" "pornographic" "insipid" "unprofessional" with reference to a clinical illustration. 3) consensus is not a majority vote, and there can be no consenus that goes against wikiprinciples such as non-censorship. You are now far across the line into edit-warring. I have given good weight in terms of respectful response, but I regard this activity as vandalism. If you think I am wrong, you absolutely should contact an admin. DavidOaks (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that WP:Images and media for deletion is only about non-free content? The page claims to be about all "images and other media files which are unneeded". Also, I have used no such expressions as "insipid" or "unprofessional" - I think you're referring to some of the statements of the many others who also appreciate the fact that full-frontal nude photographs are not needed here. Finally, you say we exaggerate the "shameful" nature of the image, while you yourself misrepresent it here as a "clinical illustration". Please show some decency and leave the nudity to those who wish to find it (for whatever reason!) - we all know that innocent young children are bound to stumble across it here. (Ben Dawid (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC))

I am sure that there is a majority here who would support the inclusion of nude images if these are considered to improve the article. That is the only basis on which such decisions should be made. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought it obvious that, if the things which differentiate man from woman are invisible without clothing, then it's reasonable and necessary to include a clinical illustration of an unclothed male, most especially if it's 1/11th of a collage, and again if the only people who could see anything to offend them are those who made the effort to click on the thumbnail in order to enlarge it. This is the natural, culturally-neutral state of a human male. The article would definitely be defective without it. The only objections that have been raised thus far are culture-specific taboos, personal preferences and positions directly in conflict with wikipolicy. Those who wish to remove the picture need to make the case within wikipolicy and the purposes of an encyclopedia. DavidOaks (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

One more time -- those who want to delete the image need to frame their arguments, as I have done, in terms of policy and purposes, not their own preferences, and certainly not dtermination to censor the wikipedia or make all pages safe for children (which, BTW, this page already is, by most reasonable standards. My 7th grade library contained publications with anatomically correct photographs.) It would be irresponsible to illustrate "man" in an encyclopedia WITHOUT a nude image. I'm now repeating myself, but not getting responsible discussion in return. DavidOaks (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a photo of a naked man is appropriate for an article illustrating the concept of "man". It is not an explicitly pornographic picture, and it is but one that illustrates a number of features of "man". Objections to it need to be explained properly - just repeatedly asserting that it's "disgusting" or whatever is not the way consensus works here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DEFINATELY ADD THE NEIL ARMSTRONG PICTURE

How come it's not there?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.153.26 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing talk pages

Friendly note -- in general, we don't edit comments on talk pages. Sure, fix spelling or format, indents, but don't go back and change whatcha said. And never ever ever what somebody else said. And with that, 'nuff said. DavidOaks (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi David. You might be referring to the fact that I (i) tweaked a couple of my own sentences stylistically to make them a bit more sensitive, and (ii) replaced one of my own words with a better synonym. If anyone has objections, I'm happy to put the original wording back. Regards, SAT85 (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

GET RID OF THE PICTURE

REALLY. Children use Wikipedia. --79.13.175.167 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree - the picture is terrible and needs to go. A couple of arguments why: 1) Wikipedia is used all the time in schools and offices, where nudity and nude photos are not considered appropriate. 2) "Man" is a pretty broad and generic-sounding topic that should have a non-controversial article with non-controversial images. We can tell this is a controversial image by the number of posts about it. 2) Almost always when you see a "man" in the real world, he is not naked. Shouldn't the picture portray the subject as it is normally encountered? All of these arguments would also apply to the "Woman" article. Dunncon13 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC) There is a naked woman in the woman article. --97.112.49.34 (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Internet is not for children, so don't bow to this "pressure" and remove the image. Maybe people should not let their children on the internet without a parent or guardian present. Do I have to spell it out?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise

Here is the current Gallery

I propose moving the nude photo of the guy to be the last photo of the group. i.e.

Thanks for considering.--Talktome^(Intelati) 06:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. The question, however, is not about the placement/arrangement but the existence of explicit imagery on the page, so what you suggest is not in fact a compromise between the two parties here. Since, as you say, the picture is not the most important thing in the world, let me suggest a compromise involving the removal of such imagery at least from such a page as this, where it violates even Wikipedia policy (i.e., the use of good judgement, being thoughtful and considerate, what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia, etc., etc. - see discussions). Ben Dawid (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We're still waiting for a response to the position that the picture assists the purposes of the encyclopedia by helping to illustrate the subject. The responses have been exclusively expressions of personal taste, private religious/moral conviction or assertions of norms -- none of which strikes me as compelling or even likely to be accurate in terms of general opinion (have a look at, for example the German, Esperanto, Norse, & Gaelic versions of this article). And the idea that editorial decisions should be made for the purpose of keeping information away from women is really opposed to the purposes of the project. Harming children would be a compelling concern if the image even came close to standards of pornography or depicted someone likely to be below the age of 18 in a sexuallly explicit way. Doesn't meet that test. The talk page is for improving the article, not conversations about philosophy. A purely private agenda has been given patient and respectful hearing, but it really is time to close this. DavidOaks (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, also, it strikes me as rather ironic that while defending the explicit content as relevant to the article you actually attempt to censor the ensuing discussions as irrelevant! Where has common sense gone, man? Ben Dawid (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

But, of course, it’s only your opinion that those who disagree with you have not adequately stated their case. I think the burden of proof is on those supporting the imagery, and my opinion is that your position has been comprehensively refuted and that even Wikipedia policy is against the inclusion of controversial material in a completely neutral article. Inserting it here, and shamelessly lobbying for its permanent inclusion, is what I would call pushing an agenda. I think we’re on to something, though, when you agree that harming children ‘would be a compelling concern if the image even came close to standards of pornography’. However, there are no fixed ‘standards of pornography’ in Wikipolicy whereby anything harmful to children might be automatically removed, so we have to use common sense here. And when it comes to the protection of children in this area it’s far better to be safe than sorry and to refrain from uploading sexually explicit content to articles known to be frequented by unsuspecting minors. You’re arguing on really dicy ground here, especially since you admit there would be problems if such imagery depicted anyone under the age of 18. For everyone’s sake, let’s be responsible, let’s be considerate, and let’s not fight too hard for our own personal rights. Ben Dawid (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it is not surprising that a few European versions of the article might have explicit content; but in this case the exception only proves the rule. Ben Dawid (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a matter of opinion that the key and repeated question continues to be neglected: how does removing the picture increase the amount of information available on the subject? DavidOaks (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect, it is only your opinion that your constantly repeated line is the key question – in reality it is beside the point. Even regardless of the question of obscenity, there is the matter of how real human beings obsorb information, and removing a glut of 'information' is necessarily going to improve an article intended for teaching other human beings. Besides, quality counts just as much as quantity. Let’s say some clown uploads a thousand different nude images to this article, and insists they are relevant; can you demonstrate how removing any of those pictures might 'increase the amount of information available on the subject'? Not really the point, is it? Ben Dawid (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly a consensus to keep the image. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly a consensus to remove the image. Witness the fiery messages further up on the talk page, perhaps from people who were so disgusted with the obscene content that they haven't come back. Ben Dawid (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if you could prove that a silent majority in favor of removal of the image exists, they would have no voice in this discussion anyway because they chose not to say anything. Moreover, merely having a strong opinion about something does not give one's vote more weight in a discussion; only making reasonable, policy-based arguments can do that. Frankly, arguments like ergo, those whose civilised senses are horrified by foul content on parts of the website where no sane man expects it have absolutely no recourse to justice. Has Wikipedia really got so far out of sync with society as to force us all to wallow in lowest-common-denominator muck once we step inside its bounds? Or are the rather lax regulations perhaps being twisted to the advantage of online libertines and perverts? and However, educating children to accept evil by means of involutary desensitisation is nothing short of depraved. (your words) would be simply ignored or even deleted from the discussion in most content disputes, but I'm being sensitive here, assuming good faith, and not removing them. However, that doesn't mean that appeals to morality grounded in the pre-assumption that nudity is sinful are going to get us any closer to actually removing the images. I encourage you to stop the accusations of immorality and focus on making arguments based on Wikipedia's pre-existing policy. —Soap— 11:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Those gathered fragments of my expressions (as well as all my Wikipedia policy-based arguments) have been drawn out by the nature of the issue at hand, and I have assumed all along that both parties are free to express their thoughts on the appropriate Wikipedia talk page without fear of censorship. I am sorry that you don’t care for appeals to morality, though it is pleasing to find that some of those statements and questions have not been completely ignored. And thank you for your sensitivity. Ben Dawid (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment on this latest exchange. I personally do not believe that there is anything wrong with nudity, and I do not think the image under discussion is in any way pornographic. However, I recognize that there are some people with strong religious motivation who genuinely believe that showing such images is evil, and that the POV that says they're OK is depraved - in fact, for any metaphysical position that one might care to adopt, I'm sure there would be someone who would find it depraved. And so I'm really not offended by honest generalized opinions regarding morality, evil and depravity - as long as there are no personally-targeted attacks, and I don't think there are, then I'm happy for people to be open and honest about their beliefs. Whether such an approach is constructive is, of course, a different issue altogether, and I don't think it is - the strength of emotion put into a comment has no bearing whatsoever on evaluating the consensus (and, I think, is actually likely to be counter-productive). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Dawid, your bible references really brought home to me my faviourate biblical passage: Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! Thanks!--Zucchinidreams (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See above for reply to your similar comment. Ben Dawid (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Dawid, I overreacted. See above for my apology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zucchinidreams (talk • contribs) 13:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.231.76.242, 29 October 2010

{{edit protected}} This is unrelated to the current picture debate, but would an administrator be able to restore the lead section to how it looked like in this edit, because it appears it was vandalized, then removed instead of restored. I ask because I noticed the article on woman does have what seems to be the standard Wikipedia lead sentence that "defines" the article title, while this one currently lacks it.

71.231.76.242 (talk) 08:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done I have made this change because it seems to be uncontroversial. If there is any disagreement I will revert on request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Again

Undid (again) the deletion of the picture; there was no consensus to overturn wikipolicy WP:Wikipedia is not censored. DavidOaks (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am becoming so enervated because I feel like these discussions here lead nowhere; the people pushing for the picture keep saying that it adds encyclopedic value to the article and Wikipedia is uncensored and I say that the nude picture is gross and disgusting and lack of censorship is not absolute. But I think the pro-nudity people here should not get their way with this photo until a consensus has been reached; a photo that is so sleazy should not be kept right now especially when keeping it disregards the sensitivities of so many viewers. The pro-nudists have to address the concerns of people like me who are offended by this photo and until that happens it needs to be omitted. We233ws (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not censored represents well-established general consensus among many Wikipedia users over time, and I assume previous consensus has already existed here to include the photo. Thus the burden lies on those against the picture to form a new consensus against the current consensus, not on those supporting the current consensus for the picture; the current picture should remain up until those against it can convince us otherwise (which they very well might), not the other way around. Also keep in mind that many pictures on Wikipedia disregard the sensitivities of other viewers but remain up due to consensus, including pictures of the prophet muhammad and and one of Wikipedia's most controversial images. 74.93.188.161 (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Specifically for We233ws, but also SAT and others who want the picture removed: what consensus do you seek, except that the picture is offensive and needs to be censored? Neither will happen because the picture is quite clinical (and small, and 1/11th of a collage) -- as inoffensive as nudity could be; therefore insisting on its removal on grounds of its offensiveness (as oppposed to cogent arguments about its relevance and usefulness to the topic, or its potential to be replaced by a more effective image) acts on a nonexistent policy of banning nudity from wikipedia. That's not seeking consesnus, it's seeking victory for censorship. Your purpose is not to improve an article, but to alter policy, which can be done, but not like this. I too will leave this discussion now. If you think your arguments have not been fairly heard, you need to follow Boing's advice and take the next step in dispute resolution. Good luck and happy editing to you all. DavidOaks (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)