Template:Did you know nominations/Jailbait

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn

Jailbait

(

)

... that opinions are divided on whether non-nude sexualised images of minors are legal in the United States?

ALT1:... that the frequent use of the term jailbait in popular culture had been linked to an increased understanding of age of consent laws amongst teenagers?
Reviewed: Der Kreis

5x expanded by Freikorp (talk). Self nominated at 16:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

Just as a precautionary issue on that image. The news frequently has stories about under-age people whose photos show up on the internet without their permission. Regardless of the "adults only" Flickr section this was uploaded from, Wikipedia should check out the licensing very carefully. This just looks like a kid in a pool at someone's home. — Maile (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If the licensing is an issue i'll have to wait on a expert to look into it. I just assumed if it was on commons I could use it on any relevant article. The photo probably was simply taken in someone's pool at home, but that is exactly the kind of image that gets shared on jailbait forums. I specifically chose that image from all those available on commons as the girl appears a bit older than some of the others that were available; the uploader does not specify her age and just describes her as a teenager, she could be 19 (Meredith Monroe and Alan Ruck convincingly portrayed themselves as minors on Dawson's Creek and Ferris Bueller's Day Off respectively when they were actually in their late twenties). This one, File:Annabelleal.jpg, is much more consistent with jailbait images as the girl is obviously a minor, but I don't feel comfortable using it specifically for that reason (believe it or not i'm not a jailbiat pervert, i'm just going for the article that I think will get me that most DYK hits). This one, File:Young woman in Kiev.jpg, might be a better alternative if there are issues with photo's of minors; again, this one might not be underage, but this one is also wearing more clothes and clearly not uncomfortable about having her photo taken; i'd be extremely surprised if anyone got upset about it. Freikorp (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, I nominated File:Annabelleal.jpg for deletion, that is why it is now a red link, see here [1]. Freikorp (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Freikorp, I did not intend to specifically imply there is a problem. Just that DYK should check this out thoroughly. Sometimes what is on Commons shouldn't be. And sometimes reviewers say "image looks fine" and it later gets pulled. I don't know one way or the other. I did notice that with this image on Commons there is a "Personality rights warning" on the image. And I did notice that this was uploaded from an "Adults only" section of Flickr. As you say, have a Commons expert look at it. Just to make sure nothing comes up later. — Maile (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Needs a full review. Putting this arrow here to make sure no one thinks the previous conversation was a review in progress. — Maile (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Ha, I just removed that awful image from the article, since it's sexist, stupid, and offensive. Also, who says the woman in the image is younger than such-and-such age, and what jurisdiction we're talking about, and etc? So, that this would be "jailbait" image remains to be seen, and we're not going to put such an image on the front page with the meager excuse of "it's about the image" or something like that. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I've reduced back to a redirect. The article was almost entirely a coatrack. Mangoe (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Following Mangoe's change of this to a redirect, I'm formally rejecting this. Even if this did pass, that image with this topic would be unacceptable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It's no longer just a redirect. Since it's an article again, this is ready for a review. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the content referenced here over to age of consent. There's not enough left for a DYK. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please not close this DYK nomination for a few days until we reach a consensus regarding this new bold edit? It took 3 editors disagreeing with Mangoe over 4 days before he stopped moving this page to a redirect, so I get the feeling this new issue is going to take a while to resolve. Any comments on the articles talk page would be appreciated. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The picture is not necessary and not something we need to have on the front page. InverseHypercube (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus has already been reached regarding the picture. It has already been removed from the article and reference to it has been removed from the hook. I've removed it from the original nomination as well now to stop confusion. Freikorp (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If "jailbait" is basically "slang for a person who is younger than the legal age of consent for sexual activity" then this is nothing more than a WP:DICDEF. I see nothing in the article that has validity outside of "age of consent", even after Mangoe's shuffle. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Last century Jailbait was nothing more than slang definition, however thanks to the internet it now means more than that, as shown by the referenced fact that jailbait images were the most searched for images on the mainstream website Reddit. Information about jailbait can work at "Age of consent", however, the cutting and pasting of content from the jailbait article to "age of consent" is contested by myself and the only other editor who has joined in the debate on the jailbait talk page, on several grounds. Freikorp (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

When you say "jailbait images" you're saying something like "images of young people below the legal age of consent for sexual activity". So "jailbait" is just sexy short-hand for that. Usage of an alternative word doesn't mean that the alternative word is a valid topic for an article. A rose is a rose by any other name. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
"Jailbait images" isn't the same thing as "jailbait" any more than oars are the same as oarlocks. This is a coatrack for the internet image phenomenon, not an article about the specifics of US (and one gather British) age of consent law. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Inappropriate subject-matter for the mainpage (yes, I am fully aware of NOTCENSORED, but this is a matter of our collective editorial common sense, and we are allowed to exercise that). In any event, the proposed hook is meaningless, given the very wide range of types of images that might be referred to, not to mention that it doesn't identify which of 190+ countries' laws are being addressed. Finally, although I understand that the image is out of the article and is not coming back, I am compelled to add that having it there in the first place was reprehensible; one can only imagine the feelings of that young woman if she became aware that her photograph is or was Wikipedia's depiction of "jailbait," and all the more so considering the alternative definition of "jailbait." Exercises of poor judgment such as this one, which came to my attention on a critic site, bring the project into disrepute and must not be repeated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue of which countries law is addressed can be easily rectified by modifying the hook, which I have just done. Alternatively, I could easily propose another alternate hook, one that places jailbait in a much less favourable light if that would appease you (not that the current hook approves of jailbait in any way). The article clearly states, amongst other things, that online jailbait communities are "a very insidious force on the internet that is pitting overly clever pedophiles against insecure teenagers". This article is in no way in favour of jailbait. I don't see how this is inappropriate for the main page; are we going to just bury our heads in the sand and pretend things like child pornography don't exist? Bringing attention to the subject is exactly what lead to the popular jailbait subreddit at Reddit being banned in the first place! If this DYK is approved it will not be the first time there has been a DYK that mentions child pornography. And yes, in retrospect the image was a bad call. I mainly stick to gnomish work on wikipedia and my previous DYK's have been uncontested. I thought if an image was on commons it could be used for any article. I have autism and sometimes I have poor judgement and do not consider the feelings of others. It's clearly not going to repeated, so I don't see why you need to mention that. In my defence per my comments above I deliberately chose the eldest looking subject that still met (my interpretation) of the definition (there were much younger images to choose from, which I wan't comfortable using), and I was 100% open to suggestions. I apologise to anyone who was offended. Out of curiosity, can you tell me which critic site mentioned this? But no worries if you're not comfortable specifying where the criticism came from. Freikorp (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, though it doesn't change my opinion that this article isn't a good fit for DYK. The critic site is called Wikipediocracy, but the particular thread appeared in a non-public, members-only area. (It really is the only dedicated Wikipedia-criticism site that exists at the moment; its predecessor, Wikipedia Review, is moribund. And please, no one say that I'm promoting WO by mentioning it here; I actually seem to be the hate-flavor of the month there right now.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

NO NO NO NO NO. There's no way we should be making the acceptability (whether in a legal or any other sense), of erotic images involving children, a subject of debate. Plus, the title of the article itself is unacceptable -- it should be sexualised images of minors, not jailbait, which is slang. I don't know what image was originally part of this nom but... Oh, just read the discussion above: "I just assumed if it was on commons I could use it on any relevant article. The photo probably was simply taken in someone's pool at home." -- oh dear God, how close were we??? EEng (talk)

Seriously. Can someone actually review this nomination rather than just comment on how inappropriate the removed picture was? The picture was removal 2 weeks ago and nobody contested its removal. It was a non-provocative photo of a late teen girl who was wearing a bikini. If you had of actually read everything it would be plainly obvious that we weren't even remotely close to having the picture accepted. Most people didn't think it was appropriate. I apologised. Can we move along now please? Also I think your comment that the articles title should be "sexualised images of minors", not "jailbait" is absolutely ridiculous. "Jailbait" or "Jailbait images" are what the images are actually called; using your logic we should rename Glamour photography or Cheesecake images "sexualised images of people who aren't minors". Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The image was only the worst of the bad judgment shown here. See the other points I made. EEng (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You made two points. Your need to voice your opinion on a removed picture that is no longer a part of this nomination, and your opinion that the article should be titled to something that the images never actually get referred to as. They don't call it "sexualised anime images of minors" because there is actually a term for that: Lolicon. Likewise they don't call it "sexualised images of minors" because there is a term for that also: jailbait. I replied to both your points, but you didn't reply to my rebuttal argument. Now i'd appreciate it if someone could actually review this article. Check whether it is new enough, long enough, has close paraphrasing etc... Freikorp (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I made an additional point, which is that WP should not in any way be an instrument for advertising the idea that there is any kind of "difference of opinion" on the sexualizing of children. 01:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The difference of opinion is not on the sexualisation of children, both the legal experts cited found the images to be in poor taste. The difference in opinion is simply on whether the images are legal or not. Whether you think something is immoral or not (let's use abortion as an example) is a completely separate subject to whether or not it is legal. I.e even if you think abortion is wrong in the United Stataes you can't hide from the fact that under certain circumstances it is legal. As i've stated before, this article is clearly not "pro" jailbait, it is just a collection of every reliable source I found on the subject, the majority of which, not surprisingly, view the people who look at the images in an extremely negative manner. Freikorp (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just changed the ALT1 hook to be on a different subject to differences in opinion, in order to address your concern, even though I don't agree with you. I would be perfectly happy for ALT1 to be chosen instead of the original hook, once this article gets an actual review. Freikorp (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, are you less opposed to this article being at DYK if it is the (clearly less controversial) ALT hook fact that is used? Or does to make no difference? I ask as if the ALT hook addresses your concern of inappropriateness, I will remove the original hook and replace it with the current ALT hook. I'd like to upset as few people as possible (whilst still getting a DYK approved). Freikorp (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Too long; didn't read? I don't blame you. Here is a summary of what has happened so far:

I nominated the article, along with a picture. The picture was promptly removed by another user. I did not contend it's removal.
The article was boldly reduced to a redirect to Jailbait (disambiguation) by another user, at which point the DYK nomination was closed. It was reopened after another user reverted the redirect, stating that it violated WP:MALPLACED.
This article was then nominated for a move request. Current count: 5 opposed, 1 in favour, and the 1 person in favour has not replied to the last counter-argument against their position. See Talk:Jailbait (disambiguation).
It was proposed that his article be split into two separate articles, one on the term jailbait, and another entitled "Jailbait images". Current count: 1 in favour, 2 opposed, and the user in favour has not replied to the last counter-argument against their position. See Talk:Jailbait#reducing to redirect
1 person is opposed to the nomination on the grounds this is not a suitable subject for the main page, but acknowledges this goes against WP:NOTCENSORED.
1 person is opposed to the main hook for similar reasons, so I wrote an alternate hook that addresses their concern.
Nobody has actually reviewed this article yet. I.e. Checked whether it is new enough, long enough, has close paraphrasing etc... Freikorp (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In the history of the article was a CSD G6 deletion (to make way for a move) which was never undone. Early in this history there is a revision which puts this short of a 5x expansion. This early material is not a copyvio, so I believe it is the starting number that we need to go by. The article is a bit over 4000 prose characters now, but this revision is a bit over 1800 prose characters. This would mean that the article would need to be expanded to around 9000 prose characters (unless I'm missing a larger revision somewhere else in the history) to qualify for DYK. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

IronGargoyle thanks for your comments. Well I must say this is an interesting revelation. Not being an administrator, naturally I didn't have access to previous versions of this article. All I had to go was the article history I could see before you restored the deletion, and I have most certainly 5x expanded it from there. I don't really think it would be fair to deny this DYK due to this previous version for two reasons. Firstly not only has the page not been of a substantial size for 7 years, it was not even possible to view the previous version as it had been deleted. But more importantly, the version of you page you have linked to at 1800 characters of prose only remained on wikipedia for less than two weeks, before other editors removed the unreferenced un-encyclopedic content and the sheer nonsense [2]. You are correct that this information is not a copyright violation, but the main reason it is not a copyright violation is because the 'essex insult' paragraph is sheer nonsense and the unreferenced anime paragraph clearly did not belong there (and was accordingly promptly deleted.) It was only a matter of time before someone who knows anything about wikipedia's guidelines deleted them. If this article had of once been 1800 characters of encyclopaedic and relevant prose I would immediately withdraw this nomination. But I don't think it is fair that this article should be ineligible for DYK just because some unreferenced inaccurate information was on the page for a week or two before it was deleted. Please respond, thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right that you couldn't have been expected to have access to the deleted revisions, and you're also right that the Essex section is nonsense and bordering on vandalism. Should that material be counted? Probably not. I picked a bad revision as an example. This revision (1656 characters) is slightly smaller but free of vandalism. To expand from this revision, you'd need 8000+ prose characters. The DYK rules are pretty clear on the point that it doesn't matter how badly referenced or written the text is. As long as it is a good-faith attempt to write an article, those prose characters count. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your prompt reply. It's a right shame that there was a CSD G6 deletion which was never undone, as if I had of had access to this articles history I wouldn't have wasted my time nominating it for DYK or the time of the several other users who commented on the nomination. Oh well, these things happen. Nomination withdrawn. Have a nice day everybody. Freikorp (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to feature this as a DYK - per Newyorkbrad - "collective editorial common sense" dictates that we not feature this "article." Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)