Wikipedia talk:Hardcore pornography images/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Content disclaimer section

The content disclaimer section of the essay quoted an old version of the disclaimer. I've updated this to reflect the current wording of the disclaimer: [1] Given that the current version of the disclaimer says that "some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts", the criticism expressed in this part of the essay was no longer as well founded as it was at the time the section was written. I've had a go at updating the wording. [2] Please review. Thanks. --JN466 15:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --JN466 16:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, thank you. By the way JN, since you're apparently watching this page, would you be so kind as to as to take a look at Cyclopia's recent edit? Cyclopia's edit history shows that he extremely hostile to the thesis expressed in this essay, and he's part a group that works with some of the other editors we have seen here. Since I am effectively locked out from editing this page (part, a less sanguine person might suspect, of the point of that whole exercise), it would be a kindness if you would take a look at that. Herostratus (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus, you are half right. I am indeed very much against the thesis expressed in this essay (and I find its arguments especially weak: you could have done a better job), but I am part of no group at all -I happened to see the discussion related to this essay and I have fixed a couple of things. If there is a group working to maintain such content on WP, let me know -I'd love to join it I'll probably either request a move to Wikipedia:Hardcore images are inappropriate or put a section in favour of such images (so to speak) -the title as it is leaves the reader think that this is consensual advice on sexual images, which is definitely not. I'd feel nice to have an essay covering both points of view. --Cyclopia^talk 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Cyclopia, we can have two essays. Each will link to the other, but please let this essay say what it wants to say. Thank you. --JN466 20:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have two essays: Wikipedia:Hardcore images are inappropriate (this one) and Wikipedia:Hardcore images are appropriate (the one yet to be written). Maybe with disambiguation at WP:HARDCORE. It would be good to have both positions stated clearly; a good basis for wider discussions within Wikipedia and beyond. --JN466 20:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It is OK; I still prefer having one with multiple sections but no problem. I can draft the second one. --Cyclopia^talk 21:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Drop us a link when your draft has matured, and we'll add a link to the essay here. Cheers, --JN466 21:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Could this be moved to your proposed title, in the meanwhile? As it is now, it is seriously misleading. And also WP:HARDCORE should become WP:NOHARDCORE or something like that. --Cyclopia^talk 21:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind moving it as you suggest, with a shortcut of WP:HARDCORENO or something like that. You can write WP:HARDCOREYES, like we do with WP:ELNO and WP:ELYES. However, I would like to hear from Herostratus first before I do that. --JN466 01:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The term Hardcore, or Pornography are not appropriate as an article title. The issue is broader, and that is: What kinds of images are acceptable within WIkipedia? As pornography is not a static or objective term, it is useless. Also, it only applies to sexually explicit images, and we are okay with sexually explicit images as long as they are relevant to the topic. We don't belive in censorship. Other images outside the range of sexually oriented images are more important to address. Images that are offensive or obscene of other reasons that because they are arousing. Hate or violence oriented images for instance. So, the correct term for discussing this topic needs to be used, and not a narrow term. Atom (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I technically could agree, but I think that's not the point of this thing. --Cyclopia^talk 22:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So, you think that their goal is not really to improve Wikipedia, but to censor sexually explicit images, but under the guise of, what, misogny?? Atom (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't say that or I would violate WP:AGF. What I mean is that this essay has a narrower scope and there is nothing wrong in that per se : I agree that the discussion could be wider, but this could be in the scope of another essay. --Cyclopia^talk 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I've added a paragraph on following reliable sources in illustrations as we do in text. Pls review. --JN466 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the editorial judgment of reliable sources. : Canard often repeated as an argument for this kind of cases but absolutely wrong and misleading. Wikipedia reflects the content of RS. Almost all other policies and practices of WP are not shared by RS, sometimes explicitly (Wikipedia is a wiki ; we don't accept wikis as RS as a rule: does this mean that we should stop to be a wiki to "reflect the editorial judgement of reliable sources"?). A lot of RS do not care for NPOV, V or the like: it's us that we care. Scientific journals are among the most respected RS, yet they almost only publish what we would consider WP:OR if published here. If you want to make an argument that WP should reflect not only the content but also the practice of RS, then do so, but do not state this as fact, because it's a total falsehood. --Cyclopia^talk 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording. [3] While we do not follow the editorial judgment of any individual source, we do try to map the editorial judgment of the overall pool of reliable sources available to us in our textual content. This is the fundamental premise of NPOV: views that are very highly represented in published sources are given priority over views that are rarely voiced. --JN466 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. It is again wrong, in the meaning that it is not what we do. We map the content. We do not map any other aspect of editorial judgement. Again:

• We are a Wiki, no RS is, so we're not mapping any "pool"
• We require verifiability on other sources ; RS often not
• We do not allow OR ; RS do it (more often than not they are OR from their point of view e.g. scientific papers)
• We require NPOV ; RS often don't
• etc.

There is no such thing as the "judgement of the overall pool"; and in any case nowhere WP attempts that. We stick to sources for the content; but what and how we present content, is independent. Again, the rewording is still false and misleading (I don't want to sound rude, but unfortunately it is). --Cyclopia^talk 00:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement is correct inasmuch it refers to editorial judgment regarding content, rather than editorial process, and we are talking about content, not editorial process. Cyclopia, your editing here is now disruptive. You are free to disagree with the argument made in this section, and are welcome to argue otherwise elsewhere, but please let the argument stand. --JN466 01:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What is disruptive is your baffling misunderstanding of how WP works. What we write reflects RS, but how we do, and especially how we illustrate an article, that definitely we do not -it is a decision between editors. Do we look at how RS section content to decide how to divide articles in sections? Do we ask our featured pictures to be similar to ones already reported in RS? Also, illustration often follows different rules: for example, do we refuse all original photographs, drawings and diagrams because they are original content? Your argument can stand even without stating a falsehood: you can simply argue that it should be that way for images instead of saying that it is. It's not matter of disagreeing with the argument (I do, but that's entirely another matter); it's matter of not misleading readers by presenting as fact something which is not. --Cyclopia^talk 01:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an essay, not a guideline or policy. It is clearly marked as an essay. I think editors generally understand that essays are not binding (unless they acquire a status close to that through community consensus). Look at other essays, like WP:COATRACK: it makes definite statements ("Coatrack articles run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy") which are based on the authors' interpretation of policy and do not necessarily enjoy full community support ("What if most of the RS coverage is about a scandal?"). Your interpretation of policy may differ from mine, but that does not prevent each of us from stating our interpretation in an essay. I actually look forward to your outlining your understanding in an essay. I think it will be intellectually stimulating. It will further debate, and I will not delete what you write because I think it is "wrong". --JN466 03:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

*Sigh* I am not trying to censor your opinions, nor interpretations. I am talking of something different: You state factually something which is untrue. Essays may be biased as much as they like, but they cannot be false. If I write in an essay "Wikipedia encourages original research and detests verifiability", you would be more than right in deleting it, and I couldn't say "oh but it's just an essay" to justify my assertion. Essays play a role in WP and ought to be factually correct, to avoid misleading people who read them. Again: if you want to say that Wikipedia should behave in some way, you're more than welcome to do so. But you (and anyone else) is not welcome saying WP behaves in a way as it is was common knowledge, while this is false. This borders on bad faith. --Cyclopia^talk 03:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It is untrue or false in your opinion. It isn't in mine. Essays are opinion pieces and they are clearly marked as such. --JN466 03:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't be serious. I listed above a half dozen counterexamples. It is not a matter of opinion. That organization of WP content is a mere mapping of RS practices is a blatant falsehood, not an "opinion". You can be of the opinion that it should be, but if you are of the opinion that is you are either deluded or in bad faith. --Cyclopia^talk 03:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Re the tag: What "factual accuracy" (in the current section of the article) is disputed? Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cyclopia, please read some other essays that are welcome in project space:

• Wikipedia:Anti-Wikipedianism ("Wikipedia is the best website in the entire universe, with a better userbase and better content than any website in history and it is under persistent attack by the far copyLeft"),
• Wikipedia:A_navbox_on_every_page ("The goal is to have a navbox in every article"),
• WP:ANAL ("Wikipedia has a basic guideline that suggests you must not be anal").
• Wikipedia:Discrimination ("Discrimination policy is on top of any other policy in Wikipedia and it reflect the Human rights that the editors and readers of Wikipedia have as human beings and thus it reflects the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)")

This essay is tame in comparison. The standards you are seeking to apply are not those that commonly apply to Wikipedia essays, and your desire to apply such standards arises from your deeply held beliefs about what Wikipedia is and should be, and the fact that they are at variance with mine. Please tolerate dissent. --JN466 03:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing me that other essays are crap; this is not a valid reason to make this one deceptive as well. I am tolerating dissent: again, I am not saying to take down the argument, I am not trying to silence you and I've said it multiple times -to make me look like I am trying to shut up dissent (which would be ironic since I'm the one who is against censorship) is also malicious and in bad faith. I am trying to avoid that false statements are deceptively included like they were fact. Wanna argue that they should be fact? Go for it. Wanna argue a total upheaval of WP? Please do. Want to make an essay on "Why everything Cyclopia thinks about how WP should be is wrong"? I beg you to do it. Wanna lie saying that your opinions are already fact? No thanks, this I will oppose, no matter what argument is being made. --Cyclopia^talk 12:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The idea that Wikipedia maps, or summarises, reliable source coverage is a core principle of this project. If you want to do something else here than what reliable sources are doing, you should state where exactly you would like to depart from practices of reliable sources, and why. Remember, I am talking content here, not process. I'm listening. --JN466 13:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
    • "The idea that Wikipedia maps, or summarises, reliable source coverage is a core principle of this project." : Deceptive (again). Wikipedia uses reliable sources as, exactly, sources for textual content (WP:RS, WP:V) and in general to assess the balance of content in case of competing viewpoints (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE). Apart from that, practices of style -that is, on how to structure, format and present content, are mostly assessed in house, to my knowledge (perhaps with the exception of WP:COMMONNAME). For example: When we decide how to divide an article into sections, it's for sure not common practice to look at how RS divide the subject into sections: sometimes the whole exercise could simply be meaningless, given that we collect material from multiple sources and we structure it and present it. For images the editorial latitude is even larger, given that we readily accept user-generated photographs and diagrams. What you imply about using the photographic coverage of RS as a gauge for our photographic coverage does not exist (to my knowledge) in any accepted known policy or guideline of WP: the quantity and type of images that we put in articles is and has always been an independent editorial decision of ours. RS play a role in deciding if an image is germane, or if it's reliable, of course: but they never decided if we put images or not, or how many, or how large -just like they do not dictate how long our articles are or how . We simply never did that. You may disagree with this (lack of) practice, and there may even be good reasons to disagree: but that's how things are. Is it clearer now? --Cyclopia^talk 14:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
      • When we are condensing two dozen books and 20 newspaper pieces into an article, we cannot use the same chapter headings, headlines etc. as our sources. We do our best, devising some sort of structure that will result in a clearly organised, legible article. The aim is to give the reader an encyclopedic and neutral summary of coverage in the most reliable sources. We are not trying to differ in systematic ways from this coverage. What you are saying is that when it comes to illustrations you want to reserve the right to be systematically different from reliable sources, and define standards according to your personal preferences; standards you are fully aware are systematically different from those used by mainstream sources. That is POV pushing, and improper. --JN466 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is that when it comes to illustrations you want to reserve the right to be systematically different from reliable sources, and define standards according to your personal preferences; standards you are fully aware are systematically different from those used by mainstream sources. That is POV pushing, and improper. - I fail to see how it could be POV pushing (since editorial decisions on structure of content are hardly a content POV): I am simply describing what happens: we already reserve the right to be systematically different from RS and define standards according to our (as a community) preferences. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Can you find a single policy, a single guideline saying that we should tune the number of images in articles according to the number of images in RS? I doubt so.

I'll try to convey what I mean by an example. The vast majority of scientific peer-reviewed papers about paleontological findings -the most authoritative RS on the subject- do not include colour life-like illustrations of the organism reconstrunctions -in fact, they can even include none at all in the main text [4], [5], or they could include black and white sketches ([6]). Yet our articles on extinct animals -and nearly all our featured ones- include colourful illustrations that appear almost surely nowhere in these reliable, authoritative sources. Now, be honest: are you going to argue that we should remove such illustrations, to follow the editorial judgement of authoritative scientific journals? And most importantly to the issue at hand: do you still think that, as a fact, we strive to be systematically similar to RS when dealing with image coverage -that we "take the lead", to use your wording? Or perhaps we don't,after all? --Cyclopia^talk 22:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The same argument, even more strongly, could be made for extrasolar planets, where we include regularly artist impression of the planets (based on...almost nothing) even if they appear, again, nowhere in the vast majority of academic reliable sources. (There are even more reasons to take these images down than hardcore ones: after all a real photo of the sexual act is for sure a honest depiction of the act, while the planet impressions are just sloppy guesswork, most of the time.) Now, do you still believe that Wikipedia "maps" the editorial judgement of RS when it comes to illustrations? Again, one could argue for that to happen, but it is not what happens right now. To state that we do that is to propagate a falsehood. --Cyclopia^talk 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I just used dinosaurs in a discussion elsewhere as an example of the exact opposite point you are trying to make with them: because our illustrations of Stegosaurus do indeed look just like the illustrations of Stegosaurus you find in popular-science books, which are reliable sources. Images are content. Your position is, as far as I can see, this: "Yes, reliable sources discussing pornographical genres eschew adding photographs to their publications. However, I want Wikipedia to be different." How do you rationalise that? Where is the policy support for that? To me it looks like you wish to impose your personal and off-mainstream preferences on the project. --JN466 01:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, how do you rationalise your wacky idea that it is common practice for WP that RS decide if we have to put images in an article. It is you that have to show me the policy for that, because it is you that state this like it was a fact. A RS can be used to decide if an image is proper or not (like your Stegosaurus examples, to check that it looks like the ones on the sources). But we don't collect statistics on RS that talk of Stegosaurus, see that there are on average 1.75 images per source, and decide to put 2 images instead of 1 or 3. You are confusing completely (and maliciously, since you're not stupid: sorry but I can't assume good faith anymore) decisions on whether to use images at all or not versus decisions on the consistence of an image with published ones. The second thing depends on RS. The first, not.

And no, my position is not "I want WP to be different". Or better: this is also my position, but that's not the point. You are free to argue otherwise. What I am objecting is that WP is already different: WP does not count images on RS to decide how many images to put in an article (and if we did so, your Stegosaurus images would go probably down the drain, by counting the average number of them in RS). Therefore you can't deceive people in stating as common practice something which is clearly only in your imagination. Show me the policy/guideline that says "The number of images in our articles reflects the number of images in RS", and I'll change my mind. I'm not saying something "off mainstream" and personal, nor an opinion: I am saying objectively what is our practice. --Cyclopia^talk 02:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Asked clarification. --Cyclopia^talk 02:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I admit I did not read the entire discussion but I felt compelled to comment on the actual idea that if reliable sources do not include images then we shouldn't either, as I find it absurd. The reason other sources do not include images might be a matter of the custom (e.g. it is not customary to include photographic material in field of Operations Research. It is customary to include photographic material in Wikipeia) availability (we have access to images sources might not have) or practicality (purely textual databases can't or couldn't in the past practicably include images), none of which should apply to Wikipedia. Sources can and should help in deciding if a certain image is a reliable depiction of the subject, but no more than that. Whether "sexually explicit still shots from pornographic movies or other hardcore pornographic images" should be used or not is another matter. I personally don't think explicit material should be used, but definitely not from this reason. --Muhandes (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Muhandes. Could you also confirm that such a protocol is currently not followed on WP, according to your experience, and therefore it shouldn't be presented as a fact? --Cyclopia^talk 11:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I never saw it followed, or even mentioned, before. But I've covered just very specific areas of Wikipedia. --Muhandes (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia community demographics

Herostratus and all, I wonder if it would be helpful to add a paragraph on Wikipedia community demographics. For the most recent survey, see http://www.wikipediastudy.org/ as well as the recent press coverage on the gender gap. The typical Wikipedia contributor is an 18-year-old single male. This may create a susceptibility to systemic bias in community decision-making, which needs to be tempered by reference to reliable published sources. Views? --JN466 21:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

which needs to be tempered by reference to reliable published sources. What do you mean? (Honest question). --Cyclopia^talk 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And what's the problem with that? It's not the requirement of every private organization to be a perfect representation of the demographics of the world. It's called personal choice and many factors go into why someone may come here or may not come here and why they may edit or may not edit. The inclusion of a few hardcore images may not even factor significantly into anyone's decision. According to that survey only 3% checked the box for "other reasons" for not editing and there is no indication this had anything to do with it at all. Any statistician will tell you that online surveys are not terribly reliable to begin with anyway, so trying to use them as a measurement for who is coming here is flawed, much like this entire essay.--Crossmr (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course our demographics do not have to be the same as those of society at large. They likely never will be, although in some ways it would be desirable. However, we do reflect published sources and their "demographics", as it were. If our demographics lead us to make choices that differ from the mainstream choices of reliable sources, then that is something we need to look at; it's a WP:NPOV and WP:OR issue. Remember that WP:NPOV is defined by published sources, not some abstract sense of neutrality. --JN466 00:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Average contributor and who takes part in any discussion are not necessarily the same thing. If you question the neutrality of any article feel free to bring it up on the article's talk page. You're looking for a problem without any evidence that one exists other than biased studies that still don't indicate that the symptom you've chosen has anything to do with the problem you've imagined.--Crossmr (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic value?

The essay says now:

• On the other hand, in return for the extremely small encyclopedic value imparted by these images, we have that...

This essay expresses an opinion -fine- but this is another opinion introduced as fact to support the agenda of the essay. That these images have "extremely small encyclopedic value" not only is an axiom without any argument in its support (let alone proof); but it has no bearing of most of the other arguments (one could argue that even if they're valuable, it's better to get rid of them or, viceversa, one could argue that even if they are of little value they are however fine and useful), and it is extremly debatable in itself. Perhaps it could be the subject of another essay, but all the encyclopedic value thing seems just bad rhetoric. (Also the following sentence The point is, these are not vital articles. They are marginal articles makes a distinction between vital articles and marginal articles that makes no sense -nobody said that WP should be made only of the WP:VITAL). I think the argument could be 1)rephrased better, without necessarily neutering it: for example one could argue that they are superfluous rather than of small encyclopedic value etc. and 2)it would be better to provide an argument instead than axiomatic assertions of this kind. --Cyclopia^talk 21:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

[7] - okay, I can live with that. Incidentally, just as an aside, pornography articles are some of the most widely accessed articles in Wikipedia. Even an article on a subgenre like Creampie (sexual act), for example, gets significantly more daily views than the article on Hilary Rodham Clinton. [8][9]; the Creampie article is ranked 2,029, Clinton's is at 4,228 in our list of most viewed pages. It is actually important that we have good and well-researched content at these pages. The argument that these pages have low encyclopedic value is debatable, but is also defensible, depending on your definition of "encyclopedic". (That is a point you could make in your essay.) It is a fact that most published encyclopedias do not have an article on Creampies, and there are really few sources about it (I know, because I researched and wrote that article). So from the point of view of reliable source coverage, we are catering to a fringe topic there. --JN466 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's quite self-contradictory that on one hand it is a fringe topic but on the other it is more read than the article on Hillary Clinton. Don't get me wrong: I understand you talk "from the point of view of RS coverage", but this statistics contradicts what the essay says about those being "marginal articles", because for the users it seems they feature in the top 0.1% of accessed articles. This emphasizes that we're not talking of superfluos rubbish but of something that it is much expected to be covered. --Cyclopia^talk 23:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many topics without RS coverage that we could write about and which would get lots of page views, but notability is established by sources. --JN466 23:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we're talking of notability; non-notable articles get deleted. What we're talking about is what is an arbitrary distinction between "important" and "unimportant" articles. Since the topics at hand look notable, your pageviews argument seems interesting in making the case for these articles being indeed "important" (even if I personally refuse it as a reasonable distinction for content) --Cyclopia^talk 01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these articles are important, for the reasons stated. Cyclopia, rather than arguing here, please write your own essay. I am sure it will be cogently argued. I will read it with interest, and I will not come editing it to change its fundamental premise and arguments. Please do the same for Herostratus and me here. --JN466 01:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, the point is not changing premises and arguments. The point is stating as true things that are false. Opinion -fine. Misleading or false statements -not fine (at least not in Wikipedia: space; you're free to say whatever you like, more or less in your user space). And also remember WP:OWN: until this essay is out of userspace, editors herein can freely discuss its "fundamental premise and arguments". --Cyclopia^talk 01:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Beyond and reputation

hardcore pornography images go beyond images of common sexual behaviour if what is depicted in hardcore pornography photos per your definition which includes "penetration", is not common for you, then you're doing it wrong, plain and simple. It might be different then common images here, but not common behaviour.

in regards to These few images are among the most contentious materials hosted on Wikipedia, degrade Wikipedia's reputation, create a political vulnerability for Wikipedia, and drive away customers (including women; Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help). these kinds of witch hunts like the one little crusade Jimbo ran on commons also degrades the reputation of the project and drives away "customers". I prefer to see them as readers, or editors. I guess I don't monetize every set of eyes like some people around here. As for who is reading the encyclopedia, I don't recall having to set my gender anywhere to read it or create an account so you honestly have no idea who is doing anything here.

In the war between the sexes, Wikipedia should not be taking sides.Yes, they certainly shouldn't. And censoring the encyclopedia to apparently try to make women feel more comfortable because you have some imagined fantasy where it's fact that women don't come here because a few articles have "hardcore pornography" images on them certainly wouldn't have anything to do with that would it?--Crossmr (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the women I know are sex positive, and aren't offended by the kinds of images that are being discussed. Driving away customers or alienating women is not our charter or concern. As Jimbo wales has said, Wikipedia is not a repository for pornography." A sexually explicit image that is on topic in an a given article is not pornography. We will not find any useful purpose to this article until we start using the proper terms. I think we all know that we are not going censor all sexually explicit images from Wikipedia carte blanche. As always, this needs to be taken on an article by article basis, and each image properly judged as it is introduced to an article as to whetehr the image adds value to the article or not. Whether it is sexually explicit or not explicit is not a factor in that. Whether it accurately illustrates the topic of the article or not, and whether it is the best image available for that illustration are valid criteria.

When it comes to women, certainly you realize that the main point of feminism is to give women the right to control their own bodies and their own lives. Do you think feminists want us to "look out for them" and remove what we (men) think may be objectionable content that might offend their delicate dispositions? {sarcasm} Each editor should for speak for themself, and not try to censor what they don't like on the pretense that they are "protecting" others. Atom (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Misogynistic section

I have attempted to make the misogyny section a little more reasonable. As you note, Wikipedia shouldn't take a position in the war between the sexes. The old wording did exactly that! I hope this change is more agreeable to you. Gigs (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gigs, Gigs, Gigs. You blanked the section and voted to userfy the essay. I'm having a hard time accepting you as a friend of the essay who is only interested in making it more cogent and persuasive. Let me ask you a question: are you in general agreement with the thrust of this essay, or not? And if not, why are you editing it?

You blanked the section earlier on the grounds that it was "polemical" (as well as "not really really related to the Wikipedia", which is ridiculous). Well of course it's polemical. The only questions are, is it good polemics, and does it use fair arguments. It does use fair arguments - this is not to say it's necessarily true, but that it's reasonable to say it's true, see the work of Gail Dines etc etc. As to whether it's good or not: your proposed changes weaken the thrust of the argument and muddy the terms, so they are no improvement.

We are not talking about "pornographic genres" in general, just about a specific subset. I am not talking about softcore pornography or pornography in general, and if we water down the text to give that impression, we are opening the section to objections like "Well, what's wrong with Playboy? I think the human body is beautiful" and so forth. But we are not talking about the beauty of the human body, we are talking about images of women being abused (in some cases, and the essay does say "many" and not "all"). We need to be as precise as possible in our terms.

We don't need to water it down with weasel words such as "Many consider" the images to be misogynistic etc. They are misogynistic, in the opinion of this essay. That's something that cannot be proven or disproven, and the reader can either accept that or not. But the essay is entitled to make its point forcefully. Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus: you are doing great work here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I do consider myself a friend of this essay. I would love to see all of these images off of Wikipedia as much as you do. But, as I mentioned earlier, I think the over-generalization on the misogynist point hurts the persuasiveness of the essay. Critical thinkers (which I like to think most Wikipedia editors are) have an innate aversion to things which they perceive as over-generalization and appeals to emotion. They then tend to disregard other, perfectly valid points. If your intent is to appeal to emotion, then great, but I think you are going to turn off a lot of people who would otherwise be inclined to join your cause. This is just my feeling, and I may be wrong, so I'm not going to forcefully change it myself. However, I do hope that you consider what I have written. Either way, I thank you for your hard work on the essay. Jrobinjapan (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. Let's cogitate on it some more, and maybe some other readers will have suggestions. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus, I agree with large parts of this essay. My recommendation to userfy was based on your reluctance to let anyone else edit it. If the essay were titled "images in obscure misogynistic porn subgenre articles" then it would be clear. (I'm not actually recommending such a mouthful as a title). But that's not what you've titled it. You've asserted that our coverage of hardcore porn is "mostly about obscure sub-genres of pornography", and then you go on to claim that those sub-genres are misogynistic. By extension you are calling "most" of our coverage of hard core porn misogynistic.

You claim to paint with a narrow brush, and you literally do if the reader ignores the title, carefully reads the non-bold intro, and rejects your assertion that most of our coverage is of obscure misogynistic subgenres. That's a lot to ask, don't you think? If you want this to be an essay about misogynistic sub-genres, then lets make that more clear. Gigs (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have a complete list of what articles are just about pornography and which are about real sexual activities (which may also be seen in pornography). I don't have this list because sorting these out, which I'm trying to do, is very time-consuming. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If an image documents a real sexual activity in an encyclopedia, it is inherently not pornography, as it's purpose is Scientific, Literary, Artistic or Political in nature. If its only value lies in it being sexually explicit, or salacious, and has no value from the other aspects, then it is pornography. Regardless of the term, in any given article an image needs to be on topic, and illustrate that topic (or sub-topic) well. The editorial decision to include a sexually explicit image in such an article needs to be made based on the quality of the article, not based on religious or political reasons, nor whether it may offend some readers. If, by your personal terminology, anything sexually explicit is pornography, then we in Wikipedia do allow that material within Wikipedia, but only in very limited circumstances. Presumably if an image was off topic (suc as an image of a penis in the Dick Cheney article, or did not represent the topic well (such as an image of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the Great Apes article), or was gratuitously misogynistic, when a better image was available, then editors would use their editorial judgment to omit said image. The decision has to be made at that level. Censoring an image only based on the one characteristic that it is sexually explicit cannot be done without knowing the context of how it may be used. Atom (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems about "misogyny" argument

It seems that the section on the "misogyny" also is poor. It says for example:

• [...] since the pornographic genres they illustrate are misogynistic and degrading to women.

This is

1. Culturally biased. What seems misogynistic to some woman could be perfectly fine or even positive to another (e.g. a facial is considered a pleasurable sex act by some women and demeaning by other)
2. Untrue for many images. I doubt that autofellatio or cock and ball torture, despite being among the most controversial cases of "hardcore" sexual images can be seen as "misogynistic": they feature only males. Perhaps are they "misandrystic"?

I think this should be seriously rewritten. Suggestions welcome. --Cyclopia^talk 21:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) I don't think it is culturally biased; it is a very widely held view. Most women who take part in the making of facial videos for example do not do so because they enjoy it, but because they are poor (hence so much porn production in Eastern Europe, e.g. Budapest, because women there will subject to degrading acts on camera for a couple of hundred dollars). There is trafficking involved. The realities of porn production may be quite different from what you imagine. --JN466 23:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Ehm, people do facials in their own bedrooms, not only in front of cameras. I know that porn production often involves trafficking or degradation; but this doesn't mean that the sexual acts are degrading per se. A sexual act is neutral in itself; it is the context and the intentions of the partners that make it pleasurable or miserable.
2. What about male-only sexual practices (or practices that could be viewed as demeaning males, e.g. BDSM female domination?) --Cyclopia^talk 01:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This essay specifically addresses articles about hardcore pornography subjects, and it states so in its opening sentence. It is not about articles discussing voluntary and private sexual behaviour. --JN466 03:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just about anything done per the definition of "hardcore pornography" in this essay can and is also done between consenting adults in private who enjoy it.--Crossmr (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. To divide the two things is close to nonsense. --Cyclopia^talk 15:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Trafficking, while I would not claim it doesn't happen, is mostly non existent. There are plenty who are willing to be prostitutes. As an aside, it is bizarre to claim that just because the subject of the photo would not do it were it not for the money that it is in some way wrong. And even that makes no difference as to whether the images are empowering, degrading, or somwhere between the two. Egg Centric 19:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Mostly nonexistent"? Really? I think you're confusing it with the old "white slavery" scares, because human trafficking is a HUGE problem in parts of Asia and Africa. The illegal sex trade in Southeast Asia is scary if you've read anything about it. The US has also had an increasing problem with young girls being forced into prostitution in various ways. Just because it's fairly rare among white people doesn't mean it's "mostly nonexistent". Edit: Some more light reading on all those just itching to become prostitutes: Forced_prostitution, Prostitution of children, [10], [11], [12] Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes to an extent I am confusing it :) Egg Centric 22:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll address argument #2 first. You have somewhat of a misrepresentation of the quote, Cyclopedia. Since the full quote is: "Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women, and this is by intentional design, since the pornographic genres they illustrate are misogynistic and degrading to women." The meaning is clearly that many of the images are misogynistic, because the genres THOSE images represent are misogynistic. Not all hardcore images; those that are of misogynistic acts.

As for point #1, while you may disagree, the association of certain acts with mysogynism is extremely prevalent. A google book search for "misogyny" and "pornography" turns up a large number of hits. We know that some of these acts are intentionally painful and/or crude towards women, which is very often going to be interpreted as misogynistic, even if some disagree. It's just ridiculous and biased in another direction to try and discount this viewpoint just because "some people" might not feel that the acts are misogynistic. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Point #2 taken: the sentence is ambiguous because it seemed to me to imply that all hc pornography is misogynistic, but if it instead refers only to a subset, fine.

About point #1: I do not dare to deny that there is a lot of literature about misogyny in porn, and I do not deny either that it could be like that. What I mean is that interpreting sex acts as intrinsically misogynistic is an arbitrary interpretation. For sure there is a lot of factual misogynistic aspects in the pornography industry, and also it can be right that porn genres could be misogynistic (e.g. rape fantasy stuff), but the sex acts themselves (and thus their depictions) cannot be. Thanks for the reflections however. --Cyclopia^talk 23:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you're point, but I think you're over-philosophizing this. The point of the argument is, certain images will be widely perceived as misogynistic/degrading to women, because the acts are widely perceived as misogynistic/degrading, in turn, which is because the acts are often intentionally misogynistic/degrading. I think it's unnecessary to go dancing around this whole chain of logic, though. It's an essay, which is intentionally an argument for a particular viewpoint. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

support

I support the essay's general direction, with little quibble. We do legitimately have a concern for the diversity of our readership and editing pool. We write articles to reach people, sometimes everyone but usually with an emphasis on some people more than others. An article about widgets is likely written for people interested in widgets more than for people with scant or no interest in widgets. What topics interest readers is often a reflection of their demographics, addresses, and other characteristics, and readers' success or failure in finding what they're interested in influences whether they return, and thus what topics we choose to write about affects the composition and size of our readership. An article of mine was deleted because—and this is my interpretation of conflicting statements—it was too strongly illuminative of women's power, especially in its title. The recent public discussion about the paucity of women Wikipedians came just in time for me. A workplace a few years ago had a life-size poster of a woman in a bikini posted in a men's workroom. It disappeared by the next day. Likely, corporate policy forced its take-down as a result of law against sexual harassment due to hostile environment, which drives women out of workplaces or, when not out, to lesser efficacy at work. This Wikipedia essay reflects a similar need, probably not a legal need but a need to build and retain a more diverse range of readers, editors, and admins. It's not the only thing to do; more steps are needed; but what it proposes is helpful. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

While I'm much more concerned about male behavior towards women on Wikipedia than pornographic images per se, I think the real issue is to make sure that the ever increasing number of women here are made aware of some of the worst abuses so they can go into the articles, remove WP:UNDUE, unencyclopedic/gratuitous and otherwise inappropriate material, and support keeping it out. Posting links to relevant articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism and asking for a review is one way to go. (And don't you dare take those pictures out of the Human penis article!! And why doesn't if have any penises of color??) CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is turning into an active discussion about some issues in general. Which is fine. So, although its off-topic from this page (but so is much of the above, which is fine), take a look at Snowballing (sexual practice). It's not an article about pornography but rather (according to the article) a "human sexual practice", so its not covered by this essay. But close enough.

Now, its possible that the article shouldn't exist (there are no good sources showing this as a notable practice in any population), but that's debatable. Maybe it shouldn't include an image, but that's debatable. But if it is going to include an image, why does it show two women? Such sketchy sources as there are indicate this as an activity among, and only among, gay males or heterosexual couples. So the image is, all other considerations aside, not even accurate.

So why is this image used in this article? I think most of us can figure that out, can't we.

An RfC on removing this image is currently running at 7-2 in favor of using it.

However, to the credit of the Wikipedia community, none of the RfC comments supporting use of this image are "What's your problem? I'd hit it!" So let us be grateful for small graces. Herostratus (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you're assuming further bad faith which is what this entire essay seems to be about. I haven't really seen you provide any actual solid evidence that women are being driven away from wikipedia in droves because of a few "hardcore" images in articles, nor any evidence to support any of the claims you've made. You are borderline running afoul of WP:CANVAS by bringing up a running RfC here. It's not on-topic as you've admitted. I do notice you continuing to cast aspersions with your assumptions of bad faith with your rhetorical question about why you assume the image is there. This is about the third blatant time I've seen you do this and frankly if you can't make a point without making little digging insults and casting aspersions it's probably time for you to hang it up.--Crossmr (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Crossmr. Herostratus looks like he's simply unable to assume good faith. --Cyclopia^talk 13:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Where's the assumption of bad faith? Herostratus (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So why is this image used in this article? I think most of us can figure that out, can't we. You're making negative assumptions about the users here, constantly trying to label them and their edits with disparaging terms.--Crossmr (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view, it is a common that someone who is offended by sexually explicit images assumes that others, especially women are offended by sexually explicit images. Or that production of "pornography" is done without the consent of women, or if they did consent, it is because they were cooerced in some way (finacially for instance.) I am certainly not an advocate of pornography, but I am an advocate of letting people have freedom of choice. Atom (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and it is equally common that the people who think pornography is inoffensive and natural assume that the people who say they are offended by pornography, and find it demeaning, and think it inappropriate for an educational work, secretly agree with them that it's inoffensive and natural.

It's called psychological projection: It is extremely difficult to fathom an emotional response that you have not personally experienced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

support following changes

To make a comment that's a bit more on target, I also don't think pornography is anything close to the biggest reason aren't editing wikipedia, if only because most women won't bother to go to the articles that have offensive photos. So at the very least you must modify it to say something like images that may offend women who happen to see them should they chance across those articles. And of course, not all women will be offended by all images if they are relevant to the article; just the ones that clearly are there for WP:Undue/gratuitous titulating reasons.

The real issue is getting women more assertive, more comfortable with making changes and deleting things they don't like - and dealing with the incivility of some males about it - be it attacks on controversial women, articles with inaccurate information regarding welfare state programs or wars (be it pro or con), or WP:Undue sections trashing ad nauseum men or women for, say, some legitimate criticism of the state of Israel. (Just to mention the type of controversial NPOV editing I keep getting attacked for.)

So to say that some women find are offended by theses graphics is fine; to say that we should encourage and support them speaking out on wikipedia against what makes them uncomfortable is fine. Changing the balance of power in many articles is certainly one of my goals.

However, to say all "hardcore pornography" images should be deleted is a personal opinion that should be IN BOLD in that template and even in the first sentence of this essay. What is soft vs. hardcore can be subjective, especially in the "middle ranges." I think some reference to reliable sources in the essays is of value, recognizing that even WP:RS are going to have wildly different opinions. Overall the focus should be not removing all such images, but removing the most WP:Undue/gratuitous ones - if you want the essay to have any credibility or effectiveness. Also, strong religious, feminist and other reasons people are opposed to what they perceive as pornography should be mentioned for context; and civil liberties/libertarian views on freedom also should. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The following may be helpful per above: Sexism#Pornography, Feminist views on pornography, Male gaze. Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

i assume you mean they are better essays or information? I read above: Herostratus that said that this essay only applies to misogynistic pornographic sub-genres that do not occur in real life. If there are sufficient WP:RS, a fantasy sexual practice (and I'm sure the couple articles mentioned are more than fantasies) can be as or more notable than a real one. So the question is, what images go along with it. Again, the important thing is to note that women (or Christians or feminists) may have a very different perspective and that they may/should as readers/editors affect the consensus on which and how many graphics to use. Just saying delete everything or delete notable fantasy stuff, will lead to a vote of delete the essay. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Carol has said here. I'd like us to do some work on these points once the signal-to-noise ratio on this page has improved a bit. Just as a point of clarification, what I understand Herostratus to mean by "misogynistic pornographic sub-genres that do not occur in real life" are sexual practices that are commonly shown in pornography, but do not show up as significant forms of sexual behaviour in surveys and the like.

The point about reliable sources is that we should not be more (or less) liberal than our sources in our illustrations. --JN466 22:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Changing the balance of power in many articles is certainly one of my goals.Sounds to me like you want to use wikipedia is a battleground, which its not. While it's true that some people may try to own an article, like say this essay as an example, I've never tried to identify the other person as anything other than another editor unless they've made a point of bringing up their gender or something else to identify them by. Any article that is appropriately edited per WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV shouldn't have any "power issues" and if you're concern is more with shifting power than editing to our core polices and guidelines then I have to question why you are even here.--Crossmr (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that his real intent is to remove images in any artcle where there is explitic sexuality involved. That is essentially his definition of pornography. As for "occur in real life" I think that he may believe that, for instance, Bukkake, and Creampie are only fantasy and do not actually occur normally.

As for how women might feel about the article, The opinions of women span the spectrum at least as much as the opinions of men. Implying that women would be averse to article with explicit sexuality in them (just because they are women) is silly. Many sex positive women produce their own pornography, and they certainly would find no offense with explicit sexuality, where appropriate, within Wikipedia. On the other end of the spectrum are up-tight conservative Christian types that would be shocked that the pregnancy article shows a woman naked. We don't censor on Wikipedia. Whether an editor, or a reader is surprised or offended by an image in an article is not a factor. Whether an image is appropriate for the article based on the topic and the other content, an editorial quality decision, is more pertinent. My bet is that if 51% of the editors on Wikipedia were women, we would probably have more images in articles that were explicit. Atom (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a fascinating assertion. Did you, by any chance, consider comparing the genders of the people involved in this discussion with their apparent views? It might help you find out whether your hypothesis has any connection to reality. As your first data point, I would not promote or increase pornographic images in articles. The other two women who have commented on this page are CarolMooreDC. It should not take you very long to find the correlation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable level

What is this supposed to mean? There are practices documented by Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin at a significant level (More than 1% of sample say) which we would not wish to illustrate, and some we would be forbidden to. Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

Forbidden??? Give an example. Sexual mutilation of non-consenting young children? Photo of circumcision. Prostitution of prepubescent girl? Photo from the movie "Pretty Baby". Mass murder? WWII photos. Give an example. I'll bet there is some image from reality or art that we could use. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

From art, maybe. I am aware that the censorship laws in the US are still less restrictive than the UK or Canada. Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

What change would you propose? Widen the essay's scope? (Note that there is currently a discussion on the Bukkake talk page whether bukkake occurs at a notable level outside pornography.) --JN466 19:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

While it is just an essay, using vague terms like "notable" does not help. And I think it is beside the point, my disinclination to see a picture of something is not based on how common an occurrence it is, nor is the notability or the practice outside pornography. For example the practices in Operation Spanner, were exceedingly uncommon, but they are still notable. Certain forms of body modification ditto. That is not to say we should illustrate them with stills from pornography , which would be copyvios anyway. I am rather neutral on the main debate, since it seems to centre around posturing and ideology - mostly the images in question have been drawings which were neither offensive nor necessary. Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

Mandatory hardcore pornography images

This essay contains what God told me to tell you:

Wikipedia must include images of hardcore pornography. (You think God made it so a vagina and breasts were about the first things most everybody experiences after the womb for nothing? Take a hint.)

Articles about hardcore pornography subjects must contain images which are hardcore pornography as that is obviously the clearest way of explaining that subject. Anything else just begins a process of mystification which makes the subject ever so much more interesting and thus immorally makes more desireable. We are here to explain and not to provoke interest by making something into a mysterious interesting taboo to be giggled at in the shadows.

Because: sex is the most powerful of life's behavior patterns having, in fact, created almost all life forms.

These few images drive viewers to Wikipedia where they will find themselves sucked into Neutral Knowledge that will enhance all mankind.

A picture is worth a thousand words, and young viewers with slight vocabularies will especially need these images.

Category:Humor - WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This essay is only about "misogynistic hardcore images of obscure pornographic sub-genres that don't occur in normal private sex". The scope is misleadingly small, and renders what it's saying pretty much irrelevant, except to 3 or 4 articles max. Gigs (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what activity hasn't occured in normal private sex. Seriously though, maybe the editor could give examples of what articles he intends to censor? From his perspective, images in the breast article could be pornographic. Atom (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The primary concern seems to be Bukkake. Gigs (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

Without a reliable source for what is and what isn't "misogynistic hardcore images of obscure pornographic sub-genres that don't occur in normal private sex", it is possible that this essay concerns zero images on Wikipedia. How is gay men cumming on a gay man "misogynistic"? How is a fictional narrative, illustrated with Hollywood props (i.e. NOT real cum) with actresses typically paid way more than the males, "misogynistic"? If assertions were proof, we would not need juries. Personally, I find bukkake just weird ... and no more arousing than many other weird things some others find arousing (like smearing other stuff on the skin from ketchup to shit or licking boots or the praying mantis eating the mate's head (hey, don't blame me that God invented cannibalistic sex)). Our job is to explain. Some things that need explaining are so weird that only an image will adequately communicate. At age five, I could have used an actual photograph of a human birth, as no explanation provided me seemed remotely possible. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is interesting. The main purpose of the Bukkake article in the first place was to document Misogyny, as the act has historically been intended to be many men humiliating a woman. Others came into the article who were offended that it was racially prejudiced against Japanese people, even though the act preceded the fil Genre which orgiginated in Japan. Because of the nature of the act, and especially the language barrier with Japanese, it can't be well documented, which has forced material out of the article. Other editors came along and tried to turn the focus of the article to be the film genre, rather than the act itself, which I turned back. The thought being that it is not something (and was not something) that actually happens in real life, but is exclusively a fictional act portrayed in films. I guess the purpose being that if it was not a real sexual act, that it was not notable as part of sexuality, but as part of pornography, and so any image should be excluded. The irony is that an article that should be about documenting how men subjugated and humiliated women in the past (documenting misogny) has had that part stripped from the article, and now being called misogynistic because the recent film genre focuses on the historical misognystic act.

In my view, we should realize that by whatever name it is called the act existd in history, exists now (in real life and in fictional films) and is a remnant of Misogny. We DO wish to document misogny, but we should not propogate misogny. In any event as an encycopedia, documenting thet act as best we can is appropriate. As for images in the article. Generally I am a strong advocate of a good lede image, as it can evoke, at a glance the topic of an article for most readers. In this particular case we have people offended by an image of what appears to be misogny, and wanting to remove images of that because they do not wish to propogate misogny. Should we remove images in articles regarding Holocaust victims? The article should focus on the act as history, rather than as a film genre. Althoguh documenting film genre's is pertinent in Wikipedia, it is not my interest, nor will I go to any great effort to propogate or document pornography. If someone else wishes to do that, more power to them.

The main thing people debating this topic should recognize is that "pornography" and "sexual explicit images" are not identical. Yes, Sexually explicit images can be pornography. And, a sexually explicit image that has great Scientific, Literary, Artistic, Political, Educational or hHstorical value could be used by someone as pornography (in another context). But, if an image is useful in the contexts I just mentioned, it is inherently (in those contexts) not pornpgraphy. As every image is completely dependent on the context on which it is used, every article has to have editorial discretion in determining if a given image offers the article Scientific, Literary, Artistic or Political value in the narrow and specific use/context of that article. That means there can be NO broad, hard and fast rule to eliminate an image in advance. Without the context, an image can not be labeled as pornography. labelling an image as pornography only on the basis that it is viewed by one or some as "sexually explicit" is not, in and of itself, sufficient.Atom (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been asserted that the idea that Bukkake is a continuation of an ancient Japanese ritual of humiliation is an urban myth dreamed up by a bukkake porn site owner, which found its way onto Wikipedia. There is an absence of reliable sources on Japanese culture stating anything about such a historical practice; at least no reliable source to that effect has been presented. All the sources cited by the article use the term as a pornographic genre. At the moment there is good consensus on the Bukkake talk page to have one image illustrating this type of pornographic scene, but not two largely identical ones. That is a compromise I sign up to; the drawing is artistically well done, and is the sort of drawing a sexology manual might use. I would not support the inclusion of a still colour photograph or a CC-licensed video clip from a bukkake video in the Bukkake article. I don't think the community would either, NOTCENSORED notwithstanding. --JN466 18:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The theory that it is an urban myth is undocumented and unprovable. The theory that it is a cultural practice exists, but has not been sufficient for inclusion into the article at this point. I would support a real photo of the real act, but not a clip from a porno video. For it to be acceptable, it would have to be directly on topic. There are many other articles within the sexology and sexuality area that have real images, rather than line drawn images. Also, as there is an RfC outstanding on the Bukkake article, there is at this point no consensus on the images whatsoever. You pushing your view aggresively and listing several other people who have said only tsngentially related things about the images could hardly be called consensus. Atom (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on this essay

Having just come across this essay, I broadly agree with its argument: that hardcore pornographic images should generally not appear on Wikipedia. (I would say '...except where they are absolutely required for encyclopaedic purposes, and even then we should use the minimum necessary'; but I think that exception would cover very few images, and quite possibly none at all. I'm struggling at the moment to think of a hardcore porn image that would be absolutely necessary for encyclopaedic purposes, but I can't rule out the fact that one might exist.)

However, I don't think this essay actually makes its point very well. The first point - that there is a considerable cost to Wikipedia of hosting these images - is a strong one. The second point, that young people should not be exposed to these images, is a pretty strong one as well (though no doubt they could find them easily elsewhere on the Internet if they want to; but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should include them). The weak point, I think, is the third one - that 'Many of these images are misogynistic and degrading to women'. That's firstly, a statement of opinion rather than fact - there are some who might disagree, and ultimately the description of an image as 'degrading to women' is a matter of personal opinion - and secondly, not a very good argument.

Wikipedia contains plenty of images already that are (arguably) degrading to certain groups, and intentionally so. For example, these images are intended to be degrading to black Americans [13],[14] (Lynching contains more potentially offensive images I won't link here.) These images are intended to be degrading to Jews: [15],[16]. These images are intended to be degrading to Japanese people:[17],[18]. This image is intended to be degrading to Irish people:[19]. This image is intended to be degrading to gay people:[20]. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy contains some highly controversial images which were intended to be degrading to Muslims, and are still on Wikipedia despite considerable objections to them. This image is intended to be degrading to women, the very subject of this essay:[21]. Taliban treatment of women also contains some images which depict the degradation of women.

Those images are all accepted on Wikipedia because they have educational and informative value when used in an encyclopaedic context. As I said, I'm sceptical that any hardcore pornography images could be justified on that basis; but those images at least show that the fact an image is degrading to a certain group (or widely considered to be) is not sufficient reason, by itself, to remove it from Wikipedia. When it comes to hardcore porn images, the difficulties they present for Wikipedia, and the problems with children viewing them, are the real issues; their possibly 'degrading' nature is a red herring. Robofish (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Some thoughts:

• I am struck by the fact that almost all the examples of degrading images you link to are historical images from times gone by. The recent anti-gay image, on the other hand, shows placards; it does not show a naked gay man being brutalised. Imagine a cartoon drawing of a gay man being tortured or beaten up used to illustrate an article on anti-gay sentiment; would we host that?
• I think the second and third points are linked; our pages are viewed by millions of male teenagers (the pornography pages especially!), and teenagers' sexual fantasies these days are formed to no small extent by the Internet.
• As for whether it is a matter of opinion, the cited footnote does provide evidence that this misogynistic element is recognised and aspired to within the relevant sections of the pornography industry itself; it's something feminists and pornographers agree on.
• There are currently lots of discussions about the gender gap in the press and on the mailing lists, and how to close it. Women editors (and female readers who might become editors) naturally see degrading images of women in Wikipedia quite differently from male editors, especially where their inclusion has an appearance of being gratuitous. I don't think the degrading nature of some of these images is an irrelevance in this context. --JN466 19:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely we would (do) show pictures of someone being beaten or someone who was killed. See Rodney King and Manadel al-Jamadi.
• Teens with rampant hormones are unlikely to come here for visual stimulation. And claiming that the distinction between an illustrated page and an unillustrated one is such that it will "form their sexual fantasies" if illustrated is to do a disservice to those readers.
• The "relevant section" of the porn industry is so-called "gonzo" porn. Despite Gail Dines theses in Pornland being that gonzo porn is ubiquitous and changes the sexuality of those growing up with it, she also remarks that "men today are more responsive and thoughtful". Regardless of the misogyny of all or part of the porn industry, writing about it, with appropriate illustrations, does not make Wikipedia misogynistic any more than writing about it it makes Gail Dines misogynistic.
• The phrase you use is "appearance of being gratuitous" - I think this is well put. In general, however, we do not actually have a problem with people wanting to use stills form hard core porn. What we actually have are long running disputes over some line and fill drawings on a couple of pages.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

• • "What we actually have are long running disputes over some line and fill drawings on a couple of pages": You're essentially correct there; I'm not even sure these line drawings would necessarily fall under this essay. The best I can do for a porn still right now is File:Giga_omorashi.jpg; this is from a Japanese film production whose gimmick appears to be forcing women to pee themselves. Again, I'm not sure if that qualifies as hardcore; but as sexual behaviour goes, it's one that is unlikely to occur in this precise configuration off-camera (to a notable extent).
  • The point about the gay bashing example was that we wouldn't create a drawing illustrating how to bash a gay person; that's different from showing an image of a real-life victim of a beating. Not important here though. Cheers, --JN466 19:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)