Talk:Man/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Please make the nude man image larger, it's totally encyclopedic and educational

Wikipedia is not censored for children. The image of the nude man should be the largest and most prominent image in the article, since, hey, the article's about men, right? Anyone who searches the web for "man" or "men" is probably visiting this article because they want to know what a man looks like naked. I mean, they should probably visit an article specifically dedicated to that, like Sex differences in humans or Body shape, but why not put a bunch of pictures of naked men in every article tangentially related to men just in case? Anyway, it's only fair. Wikipedia's pedophile editors would fight to put a picture of a naked child in the article on children, so why shouldn't Wikipedia's exhibitionists get a chance to flaunt their stuff, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.58.79 (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not abuse wikipedians. This is your one and only warning. Cease and desist. If you continue defiling any wikipedians, you'll be blocked! Got that? I've notified administrators of your ip.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to point out in response to the discussion about nudity as the natural state (or not) of Man that Homo Sapiens have been around about 200,000 years as a completely genetically distinct species, and most science says we have been wearing clothes for about 100,000 years. Ergo, Man has been completely naked for about half of his existence (gendered language due to the page in question), and is one of several valid and important "natural states of Man," including clothed (preferably in a variety of clothes, not western-centric)- the collage seems like a compromise already. Being skinned is not an important biological, historical, and anthropological state of Poodles, so the comparison is invalid. I apologize if I am posting incorrectly, I typically don't involve myself on the Talk pages, but felt the need to voice my opinion. If this counts as a vote (not a registered user) I vote to keep the image. -Sean 23:48est, 27 October 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.148.94 (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I have to disagree with you. According to modern evolutionary anthropology, over 98 percent of humans have lived within the past few thousand years--well after the postulated advent of clothing (see the graph at population growth). So what you are essentially saying is that a photograph of an undressed 21st century European should be the lead image to represent the comparatively small handful of primeval savages that used to get around naked. I don't see much force in this. The most it could achieve for supporters of nudity here is the inclusion of an artist's impression of one of these men--but even that would be beneath the dignity of a professional encyclopaedia on a general page such as this, as discussed in detail further up (hence see this policy) Regards, SAT85 (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The principal and incontrovertible distinguishing feature of a biological human male, that which makes them a biological human male instead of a human female, a human intersex or human male trans person, or indeed a cuckoo clock, is the difference in anatomical features. The Pioneer Plaque features human nudity, print encyclopaedias feature human nudity. Clothing is affectational, a human male without it is still a human male. If you find nudity and penises so terrifying or so unsuitable for children ever to set eyes upon lest they be corrupted, that is your own problem, not that of an encyclopaedia. Representation of fact is what matters on Wikipedia, and it a critical and relevant fact that human males tend to have a penis. The picture should absolutely be kept or replaced with another picture of a nude human male. 90.194.162.200 (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

NW being a dunce and forgetting about this section, posted above

Out of curiosity, why are most of the men in that picture Caucasian? NW (Talk) 02:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Actually it seems most aren't, although they are over represented. There seems to be naked white guy, australian aborigine, 2 native americans, 2 africans, einstein(causcasian), a Sami(kinda caucasian), errol flynn(caucasian), mao, and the no name guy with the kid. I'd like to see a pacific islander, an indian subcontinent, and a middle eastern if possible. We could lose a few of the doubled ones and accomplish that. Heiro 03:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I say we keep Einstein, lose Flynn, keep Chief Joseph and lose Thorpe, add possibly Gandhi and a few others. It might be good to add a Mapuche or other indigenous South American, so as to represent all inhabited continents. Heiro 03:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that the vast majority of images in that collage are of white men? Other ethnic groups, such as Indians, Latin Americans, Southeast Asians, Middle Easterners, etc. seem to be ignored entirely. The entire collage shows Wikipedia's systemic bias in one easy picture. That ought to be fixed. NW (Talk) 03:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

See my suggestions to your earlier post above. Maybe we could keep it in one space? Heiro 03:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It will no doubt help to point out to those unaware that the Man on the left of the second row is an Australian Aboriginal playing Australian football. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above in response to NWs earlier comment. Also 2 Native Americans, an African American, and African, a Sami, and an Asian. Caucasians are definitely over represented and it should be corrected. I'd like to see a Pacific Islander, someone from the Indian subcontinent, and a Middle Easterner if possible. It might be good to add a Mapuche or other indigenous South American, so as to represent all inhabited continents.Heiro 03:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As another aside, the fact that 3 of 11 are "football players" is a tab over represented too don't you think? Heiro 04:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think twelve would be a nice round number. How about something like this: (1) one (native?) North American, (2) one South American, (4) two Africans, (5) one Middle Easterner, (6-7) two Caucasians, (8-10) three Asians, one of whom should be Indian and another of whom should be Chinese, and (11-12) whatever major ethnic or geographic group I missed or underrepresented. Not exactly perfect, but better than we have right now. Either that, or we could have a generic picture like File:Symbol mars.svg or File:Da Vinci Vitruve Luc Viatour.jpg in the lead, and scatter the rest of the images throughout the article. NW (Talk) 04:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)As for possible images (self-restricted to famous people): (1) We can keep Chief Joseph for now, (2) Benito Juarez or Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, (3-4) Paul Kagame and Usain Bolt, (5) Gamal Abdel Nasser, (6-7) Albert Einstein and Abraham Lincoln, (8-10) Gandhi, Mao Zedong, and Bhumibol Adulyadej? There are thousands of more options; I tried to pick ones with relatively good pictures that are significant politically or historically, or are culturally significant today. Of course, now that I think about it, we should probably include one person under ten and one under twenty, just to balance it out with the more elderly chosen (such as Gandhi, for example). NW (Talk) 04:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• 2 Africans-one Subsaharan and one Pygmy or San or another ethnic group?
• 2-a North and South American native
• 2 Caucasians-say Mediterranian and Nordic?
• 1 Middle Eastern
• 3 Asian-Indian subcontinent, ethnic Chineese and Thai/Indonesian?
• 1 South Pacific Islander/Polynesian
• 1 Australian Aboriginal

A few suggestions. Might be best to avoid "famous people". Comments? Heiro 04:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure on avoiding famous people. If we do want to include non-famous people though, everyone in the infobox should be nonfamous and not just some. NW (Talk) 04:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding all one age range, avoiding all people who are part of western culture, avoiding all people who are "authorised" males in their culture, avoiding all day wear or all formal wear. The unity of the collage emerges through the variety. We're not here to assert that maleness in general is one instance (like white nude guys with conservative hair cuts). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I vote for all not famous if possible, just men in ordinary costumes for their region. Heiro 04:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not tolerate agenda pushing

It has been suggested that the controversial image could be replaced with a (clearer) diagram: no, it has to be a photo. What about adjusting the placement to avoid the bizarrely inaccurate emphasis on nudity? No, it has to be right up the top, on the left. Why not at least replace it with a picture of a bare-skinned native, which would eliminate the sleaziness of an undressed Westerner? No, that would never do. If anybody believes that this has something to do with concern for the advancement of learning, please make an urgent visit to WP:Credulity. This is nudist POV-pushing, pure and simple, and it is prohibited by policy. SAT85 (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You're begging the question again, by starting with the assumption that nudity is "sleazy" and that there is a "bizarrely inaccurate emphasis". You cannot support the conclusions you are trying to reach by using those conclusions as assumptions, as that is circular - and you have not achieved a consensus to support either of your "sleazy" or your "bizarrely inaccurate" assertions. Also, accusing others of "nudist POV-pushing" is straining the limits of WP:AGF, and I'd suggest it is not helping your case - if you wish to convince people you are right, you should stick to arguing the facts and stop trying to tarnish your opponents with derogatory labeling. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no circularity, since the conclusion is not that the photo is sleazy, but that there is an agenda at work here. And if you reject the view that an undressed European is bound to look sleazier than an African tribesman (a lonely stance, I would think), just insert "perceived" or even "alleged" before "sleaziness" and the point is the same: there is no reason besides pro-nudism to insist on the European. I do not intend to tarnish supporters of the picture (and I wasn't exactly referring to you anyway), but it is an important fact that there is POV-pushing underway, and that that is contrary to policy.SAT85 (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

But there can be no agenda to insert anything "sleazy" until we conclude there is anything sleazy, can there? And of course there is a POV difference, yes - that's what we are trying to resolve. And you will not resolve it by simply slagging off your opponents as "POV pushers", because that can work equally both ways -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's not play word games here. As I said, I really think the point about comparative sleaziness is obvious to most readers. But the argument can be prosecuted just as well without it, for the few to whom it is not: there is no encyclopaedic reason to demand an undressed Westerner instead of a naked savage. And when I talk about POV-pushing pejoratively, I mean the pursuit of an agenda unrelated to the promotion of learning. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are starting by assuming that which we are trying to resolve, by simply asserting that the "comparative sleaziness is obvious to most readers", and that is once again circular. What we need to do is is determine the consensus opinion about "sleaziness" by discussion, not just insist that it is fact, and you have simply not achieved that - and no amount of repeating your own personal opinion is going to change that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I really do think I have explained my position on this particular point: there is no reason except pro-nudism to demand an undressed Westerner instead of a naked tribesman. SAT85 (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(I'm abiding by CrohnieGal's request, below, now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC) )

No problems. SAT85 (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

SAT85, could you explain your comment above? You wrote And if you reject the view that an undressed European is bound to look sleazier than an African tribesman (a lonely stance, I would think). And then there is no reason except pro-nudism to demand an undressed Westerner instead of a naked tribesman. As though an unclothed white male is somehow more nude than an unclothed "tribesman". You seem to be saying that there's something about the unclothed white male body that you find sleazy, that you do not feel when you look at a picture of an unclothed African/tribesman/"savage" (all your words). Not only that but you go on to say that it's obvious. Well, it is not obvious to me, so you're going to have to explain if you want what you perceive as obvious to be obvious to everybody. —Soap— 18:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty basic: a nude photograph of somebody from a civilised culture inevitably conveys a sense of dropped jocks--denuded, undressed, exposed, de-clothed are the relevant words, rather than simply naked. It is a silly and unnecessary impression for an encyclopaedia article. That is not to suggest that photos of natives would be appropriate here, either--just less overtly "sleazy" and fatuous. SAT85 (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And please do not unilaterally remove the {{censor}} banner without consensus. The article currently does contain an image that clearly does offend some people, and so the warning is entirely appropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus is against the use of disclaimers; see WP:NODISCLAIMER: While ideas like this have been continually proposed, the consensus is that they should not be used. In fact, all articles already have a disclaimer, linked at the bottom of this page and every page on Wikipedia. Additional disclaimers in encyclopedia articles should generally be removed, and disclaimer templates should be removed and deleted. I don't necessarily concur with this approach as a rule, but I really don't see the point of warning disgusted viewers after they have already seen the picture, unless you wish to discourage them from making a row about it here. SAT85 (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus against the use of disclaimers in articles, not to avoid warning banners in Talk pages (and there's apparently no WP:NODISCLAIMER article). If you check Template:Censor you'll see the statement "This template should only be used on talk pages for articles prone to editors censoring objectionable content from them and not merely controversial topics", so if you disagree that that is the case here, you should try to gain a consensus to remove it and not just make a unilateral decision. Anyway, I think you're just getting a bit petty now in removing it, so I won't discuss it further - I honestly think the way forward here is to follow the next stage in the WP:DR process, because you are not going to get your way here by unilateral action. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you've both had your say so lets see if anyone else comes here from AN/i to give an opinion. You are just making it more difficult to read this talk page with this back and forth commentary. Thank you for your understanding, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have come here from AN/i and I have no particular agenda on this matter. However, I would tend to expect an article on 'man' to include a naked image, as it seems self-evident that this is the best way of showing the complete male anatomy, which is key to understanding man. This was the thinking behind the naked figures on the Pioneer plaque and it makes sense to me. I do agree that the montage is flawed for a number of reasons, only one of which is that the full-length, very posed, unclothed man looks out of place amongst the clothed, unposed, head-and-shoulder shots. However, in my view, that is not a reason to remove it unless and until a better montage can be put together.--Korruski^Talk 15:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Korruski. The article actually contains a statue and a sketch already. An explicit photograph is thus unnecessary. See WP:PROFANE, which states that widely offensive material should be replaced if a suitable alternative is available. Best regards, SAT85 (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi SAT85. Fair enough. However, personally, I would dispute that a full-length naked male, unaroused and in a non-sexual situation is either 'offensive' or 'explicit'. The sketch and the statue are both pieces of art and less useful in illustrating the male physique than a live photo. In general, I would say that a photo should take preference over other media for illustrative purposes.--Korruski^Talk 15:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The reaction created on this page, in particular the scores of earlier comments (which somebody has just removed into the archives), seem to suggest that the image is considered inappropriate on Man by many users, so I think that WP:PROFANE is called for and the two nude illustrations further down should be considered sufficient. And my view is that for anatomical illustrations diagrams are invariably clearer, which is why they are typically used in textbooks. SAT85 (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the reasons why wikipedia discourages disclaimers, such as They are redundant with the Disclaimer linked at the bottom of every page (applies here), and By the time you read them, it's too late — the article has already loaded (definitely applies here). As I said in the edit summary, I eventually removed it because it gave the inappropriate impression that the controversial image is officially sanctioned while failing to be of any use to unsuspecting viewers. But I agree that this issue is only a small one, which is why I find your vehemence a bit surprising. SAT85 (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your arguement isn't correct. I agree with Korruski. I just think the montage needs to be reworked so it's laid out better with better images chosen. Why are you so strong on your opinions here? Am I missing something? --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a question for SAT85: You've said repeatedly that the image in question is "obscene", as if this is some kind of established fact. In your view are all depictions of the male body with sexual anatomy exposed obscene? Is Vitruvian Man obscene? Is Michelangelo's David obscene? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, It's time to bring over here a post of mine from the other place where this is being discussed.... Obviously we all come from different backgrounds. I think it's worth describing my perspective. High school science teacher. A regular occurrence is a visit to our city's museum, a great place with 1000s of kids visiting every day. It has wonderful, life sized, naked, accurate models of humans of all ages which all the kids see, close up. It's just the culture where I come from. To do as SAT85 is suggesting and hide this image in this article is just kinda weird to me. The kids in my town would wonder why, as I do. In fact, to want to hide the non-sexualised naked body, presented for informational purposes, is in some ways obscene to me. While I accept that there are other views, I think that the knowledge that an encyclopaedia will likely contain nudity should be enough for those who want to avoid it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you’re talking about the Melbourne Museum, that is described by Australia’s most popular newspaper columnist as being guilty of ‘political bias, sloppiness and falsification of history. Flaws which help to explain why few visit this neo-Marxist mausoleum’. Perhaps we have reason to believe that the display of such nude models there is, like the imagery in question here, a recent innovation that would still be offensive to the majority in any former colonial city, and that current museum policy is not the best example of Australian – let alone world-wide – cultural norms. Again, like the imagery here and at woman, the fact that groups of people are compelled to view these things does not necessarily mean they approve of them. Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Updating the collage per suggestions

Consensus is definitely settled in favor of permitting a nude image. Here's an image of a non-white adult male nude, with pubic hair:

Ein erwachsener Mann

We'll never know, but something tells me that, had we started with this image, the complaints would not have been that there's racial bias because we used a white guy, but because we used a person of color. And I'm guessing he wouldn't like to be called a "savage," as happened above. I am supplying the req'd image, but I think the clinical photo, used in many medical and bio articles, is the better choice.

For the others: Scandinavian politician replaced with another caucasian, this one famous for being a victim of homophobia; Einstein replaced by Pacific Islander (heir apparent of Tonga; however, we do lose a Jewish figure); Mao replaced by Puyi; his image is less-known, but we're still ticking off the same box on the ethnic scorecard; it also covers the soldier's role and it's a 3/4 view; Chief Joseph replaced by Tagore from the Indian subcontinent; we already have one Native American, and it's a full-length view. African American athlete (plenty of athletes) replaced by gold mask -- there was a call for sculpture. Left the father and son -- paternity is a legit role, and the guy looks mixed-race (to me, anyhow). Errol Flynn lost out to a Samurai.

We are of course never going to please everybody; the whole idea of the collage came about because there were extended arguments about the inability of any single images to capture the variety of the concept. DavidOaks

PS: I have done something wrong in slotting in the new images, but I've been over it a number of times and can't figure out what the trouble is....why they're not all displaying...DavidOaks (talk)

Hi DavidOaks, I hope you don't mind me removing the picture of the 'native', especially since it's not being used anyway. Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I do mind. The image is the subject of a discussion here. Please do not modify other's talk page contributions, and please do not remove content that is neither inappropriate nor clearly stale. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment here. Those in favour of these superfluous photographs keep insisting that, e.g., they are "not inappropriate". What is the basis for this claim, besides the opinion of six or seven people who hang out on the AN/i section of an online encyclopaedia (no dig intended)? There seems to be an implicit concession that if, like child porn, they really were inappropriate here, then they would need to be removed (even taking WP:CENSOR into account. SAT85 (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, now some of them are showing up...maybe it's a loading problem local to me. Looking at the black man's nude photo again, I have some doubts about whether this is an image of someone who belongs to a culture where this sort of nudity is normal; there's no data with the file, and I have misgivings about those tats, which look much like what the local college students are sporting. If that is the case, the clinical picture is much to be preferred, precisely because it IS a clinical, i.e., context-free image, while this one is probably liable to SATs charge of non-representative behavior (western males appearing nude in the open -- not entirely unheard-of in Germany tho...FKK).DavidOaks (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The FKK movement pushes an agenda, and an extreme one at that. If the views of those here opposed to gratuitous nudity can be brushed aside as 'religious POV', what about the views of those supporting the FKK movement? Be careful of double standards. Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, strange, same here. Earlier I could only see three of them, but now I'm getting more - though not all. And I can't see anything wrong with the code. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Same here. Weird. I like the Samurai and Tagore in that list. But we do not need two football players, even if one plays the sissy version and the other RealMan(tm) AssieBall. I'd trade one for either Chief Joseph or Einstein. I'd trade TutAnc for the other. If we need a sculpture, what about File:Homeros MFA Munich 51.jpg? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is a server issue, I've been having the same problem all over the place today, on Commons too, so the issue may stem from there. Heiro 01:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops -- matthew shepherd photo was fair use, not allowed....so we'll need to find something else for that (while we're trying to figure out the display issue). DavidOaks (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Man

File:Man and son.jpg

The "savage" response is an unfortunate reader response. As far as my own reader response: I see a guy who's part of Western Culture somehow because of the style of his tattoos, and he seems to be in a cultivated field. I like the neutrality of his pose and posture. The extension of the arms in the naked white guy is a little atypical. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

AN/I notice

I think we need some independent guidance here, so I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Man. I've tried to word it neutrally, and hopefully someone will be able to advise on the best course of action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw this notice and though I'm not an administrator I thought my comment may be of some help. I am not offended at all by the human body but I have to say that the image looks out of place in that collage. What is the need for it there? There is a statue down in the article. I just don't think the image is needed in the collage unless someone has a reason I missed in the above comments. Sorry, just my opinion, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep the image, block the trolls. There is nothing disgusting, controversial, sleazy, or inappropriate about an unclothed human. If you want an article about the human male, it is necessary to see it in its natural state. Anything else would be pushing the view that an unclothed human is morally objectionable. -Atmoz (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep the pic, censor the opposition. Invests new meaning into the word irony. SAT85 (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with CrohnieGal. There's nothing wrong with a nude image; it enhances the understanding of the reader. Unfortunately, that particular nude image, and especially its placement in the collage, come off as offputting because of the odd contrast. I'd suggest either using the full-size image outside the collage, or replacing it with another nude image that doesn't contrast with the other material in the collage (difficulty: I already know we don't have such an image). — Gavia immer (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. So much fuss about one skinny white kid... and no one notices a fair use photo File:Douglas nicholls.jpg and a bogus-licensed Mao next to it? East of Borschov 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The image in question is neutral and would be legal in pretty much any jurisdiction. I agree it's a bit difficult to fit into the collage, which could be adjusted to reduce the glaring contrast difference. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside perspective: Saw this thread on ANI. The image is useful and has a purpose, and the article would NOT be improved if it was removed. The picture illustrates in a clinical, NPOV way that a men are visibly different from women, in that they generally have flatter chests, more muscular builds, and, more specifically, a penis. Note that the Woman article includes a picture of a naked woman. The Boy article has a picture of naked boys (non-clinical; they are swimming). The Girl article does not contain nudity. If anything, the picture is blurry and is not of good quality. Could a sketch or drawing of a nude male be a compromise? Still, the "does removing it improve the article" argument is going to be hard to overcome for the exclusionist camp. It seems to me that those wanting to get rid of the picture in this article would most likely be in favor of removing all nudity from Wikipedia. I am sure there is a forum for that discussion somewhere. If so, perhaps someone could link to it. The Eskimo (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Also coming in from ANI, I say remove the entire photo collage as it looks crappy and subjective (nude white guy included). Why only one asian guy? Why 7 or 8 white guys? Why 2 footballers? Why some norwegian guy I have never heard of? etc, etc. Just use michelangelo's drawing or statue (and the venus statue for woman). The nude picture does not convey any information that those two do give and I see no reason for it to stay in when such excellent alternatives are available. Wikipedia is not censored, but there is no reason to include nude guys just for the sake of doing it. Yoenit (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My two cents. I also came here from ANI. There are probably some improvements that could be made to the collage, but leave the nude pic in. Cf. the photo collage at woman. ZOMG THE CHILDREN!!!!! is not policy. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There's already a section of the page about biology, no need for more nude images. I don't believe anyone would genuinely find understanding from the image; one would more likely think THAT GUY'S NAKED :O. Also agree with User:Yoenit, the whole discussion just seems like people want a chance to use WP:CENSOR for the sake of it. WP:ZOMGTHECHILDREN!!!!! TheRasIsBack! 22:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the adult male of the human race. This definition is made because the anatomy of a adult human male differs from human females and adolescents, as well as from the anatomy of other species. Thus anatomy, and an illustration of it, is a very important part of the topic. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Saddhiyama. This view is actually already catered for in three separate images further down the page. The discussion here is specifically about the photograph. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Which doesn't change my point. Why remove the photograph and not one of the three separate images further down the page? After all, as documentation, the photograph is far superior to any artists interpretation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

False. The 22-year old model has no pubic hair, which is not a very good indicator of what most males look like at that age. TheRasIsBack! 12:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Michaelangelos David has unnatural long arms and huge gorilla paws, Da Vincis Man has 4 arms and legs (and the anatomy drawing has no pubic hair either). However if that is your objection, I am sure we would be able to find a photograph of a man that includes pubic hair. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Da Vincis Man has 4 arms and legs"--pardon the cliche, but LOL! This one takes the cake. SAT85 (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Somewhat akin to arguing that the picture of the naked man should not be included, because it does not show his pubic hair. TheRas already argued that his reasons for wanting to remove the picture was that children will "think THAT GUY'S NAKED :O". So his nitpicking argument about pubic hair is obviously a strawman, and your reply tells me that I have been succesfull in illustrating this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that the picture should be removed, but that the picture should be an accurate representation of a man. If you were able to find a suitable image that includes pubic hair (and possibly underarm hair), I would have no objections.

I see. I apologise for having misunderstood you then. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

collage

The question of whether nude images should be removed or minimized has reached consensus. Now, about the collage -- how to improve it? Actually, I think leading with the nude image is good, and while many have said that the contrast between a full and nude figure and the rest clothed figures is jarring, I think that's a strength -- the first image is biological, showing what's universal, and those that follow show variations, both ethnic/phenotypic and cultural. That is, the contrast seems to me a plus. But then, I composed the collage, and I am reporting my intention at the time. Maybe it doesn't have the intended effect. I'd cautiously suggest that whatever changes are made here should be done in tandem with the collage at woman, which I also did, and for the same purpose of putting an end to a very long debate (and I think it's really interesting that male white nudity is controversial, the nudity of women and non-white men apparently much less so). I was very invested in the discussion when it was about whether censorship would be allowed to prevail; from this point, it's purely about what's the best illustration of this article. DavidOaks (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the changes made here should be done in tandem with those done at woman, and at humans for that matter, since most of the arguments here also apply to those two articles. In fact, the chief argument for the inclusion of explicit nudity here would not apply to humans at all - namely, that man has to be naked in order to be clearly distinguished from woman! Also, you cannot rationally use the inclusion of nudity at woman as an argument for keeping nudity here if you are the man who inserted it - and fiercely guarded it ever since - in both articles. The consensus seems to be that the nude photograph is unnecessary - it could at least be replaced by a sketch. This is obviously not my preference, and also completely unnecessary in my opinion, but it would be a compromise of sorts. Ben Dawid (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no "explicit" nudity here - just someone without any clothes on. It isn't even a matter of censorship, or not censorship. There's nothing that trips the US legal code. Arguments can be advanced as to whether this image is better than that image, whether the montage works (I don't think it does with that glowing white guy myself), whether a work of art is better than a photo, but let us not start saying that a picture of a chap standing there without his kecks is "explicit". Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

<<Explicit adj 1 precisely and clearly expressed, leaving nothing to implication; fully stated. 2 leaving little to the imagination; graphically detailed. 3 openly expressed without reservations; unreserved. [C17: from L explicitus unfolded]>> (Collins English Dictionary). That is why full colour, full frontal nudity is normally described as 'explicit'. Regarding legal codes, in real life even 'flashing' in public is highly illegal, let alone walking around in a state of entire undress...But we've been through these sorts of arguments before, higher up on the page. Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Also see Explicit, 1b, in the Shorter Oxford: "Describing or portraying the naked body or intimate sexual activity." Note that nobody is suggesting that nude images (e.g. diagrams) should never be used anywhere, just that they should not be used where unnecessary. SAT85 (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I also came here from ANI and think the nude male photo is fine, belongs here as an illustration of the article subject and is completely neutral, i.e. not sexual in nature. I also think this is possibly the dumbest dispute I've witnessed on Wikipedia outside of some of the cartoon character/anime/transformers/bands-fanboy type stuff. Seriously, someone is objecting over that picture? Several somebodys? With sock puppetry and SPAs? WP:NOTCENSORED definitely applies. We dont need anymore of this. Heiro

The problem is that you have this one white guy and no other races represented. Maybe he could be juxtaposed with Long Dong Silver, with the caption, "So much for 'white supremacy'!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I came here from ANI. A nude male photograph is fine. Can we use a photograph of someone other than a white person though? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's so sad to see the view that naked somehow means sleazy and sex to some people. Very unhealthy, IMHO. The textbooks I use to teach Science in schools have several such images. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor who said he/she put the collage together both here and at Woman so I went to see what the collage at Woman looked like. That collage is a lot better in my opinion than this one. Is it possible to set the collage up on this page closer to what you did at that page? What I mean is that you have a naked woman but you also have in the collage statues, a woman with child, and so on. It looks a lot cleaner to me than this one does. If that's not possible than maybe moving the naked man down, enlarging it a little, and putting it where the statue is. Of course the statue needs to be made smaller (it should be made smaller anyways since it's to big and is overwhelming the section. Listen, this arguement has been going on for way too long. From what I can see there is a consensus for the picture to remain but reworked because the montage doesn't look good the way it's set up (sorry no offense at all intended to the editor who put in the work to do the montage.) Most of the editors that I saw that was against the image have been blocked, so there is obviously trolling of some sort going on at this page. The image is not in any way, shape or form disgusting. The article is about Man so it seem right to have an image of one just like the other articles mentioned by other here. I think it's time to call it a consensus and allow the work to start on the article. If an editor reverts the image out, it should be returned with the subject line stating that there is a consensus for it. If that doesn't work than calling an administrator over to tend to the editor who is removing the image against the communities will should be done. I say enough is enough. Who agrees? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Quite happy to see a rearrangement of the collage, but please don't ask me to do it. That would be a mistake. As mentioned above, I teach Science, not Art! ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, CrohnieGal. I agree with some of what you say, but I am a bit nonplussed as to why you think David should be replaced with the photograph, especially in the light of WP:PROFANE (about replacing more controversial material with an alternative where possible). Is there some anatomical feature you feel it conveys that is not present in the statue, sketch and diagram further down? Regards, SAT85 (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, the proportions of the statue are anatomically incorrect - see David (Michelangelo). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of all three of them taken together. Obviously no single image is capable of representing exactly all of the diverse physical types of the human male, but the three illustrations there seem to depict man's superficial anatomy more than adequately. SAT85 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. It's a big call referring to WP:PROFANE. It requires us to somehow decide what would be considered obscene by a "typical Wikipedia reader". That mystical entity is "defined by the cultural beliefs of the majority of the web site readers that are literate in an article's language." Given the diversity of views already expressed here, i have no idea how we would do that. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Indecent exposure is illegal in pretty much every civilised nation for the obvious reason that most people in them (and by extension, typical wikipedia users) consider public nudity to be--indecent. Now, if you hold this widespread view, you will clearly feel that photographs of private anatomy should be displayed in public only where absolutely essential--which means not here, given that a sketch would be equally informative (and note that there is no nudity at all in corresponding Britannica pages). Thus, as reflected in the initial reaction to the image, ordinary readers are likely to find the photo gratuitous, which calls for WP:PROFANE. SAT85 (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who lives a very long way away, I cannot accept Britannica, an encyclopaedia designed for a conservative American market, as representative of "...the cultural beliefs of the majority of the web site readers that are literate in an article's language." And this isn't public nudity anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no basis for the claim that Britannnica, which was first published in Scotland and enjoys a very substantial reputation worldwide, is designed merely for a "conservative American market". Britannica's editorial team actually have to sell their encyclopaedia, meaning that foisting stuff on people contrary to generally accepted standards of decency would be a bad idea. And like you, I live a long, long way from America. SAT85 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would it matter what Britannnica would do in this situation? The last time I checked I edited on Wikpedia not Britannnica. Here the consensus has been not to censor subjects such as this, where it can be demonstrated that the illustration is useful, and where a consensus of informed editors who arent SPAs and sockpuppets have come to a policy driven reasoned conclusion. You have yet to show a valid Wikipedia policy for not including this image. Do so, please, or drop it. This is starting to feel like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Heiro 01:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

All discussed above. Britannica's standards are relevant because (i) they give us a fair indication of what Western cultural norms are here, and (ii) they call for wikipedia's policy that articles should reflect what one would expect to find in a professional encyclopaedia. Moreover, at least twenty or thirty readers have taken the time to express their disapproval here, so I really cannot discern any valid basis for your sweeping claim about sock puppets. And please don't conflate standards of decency (which in principle we all hold to) with censorship. SAT85 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

But, we are not wondering what to do in this situation, we are relying on established Wikipedia policy and consensus. Heiro 03:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see the commentary on this page. SAT85 (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've read plenty of the commentary on this over long, ridiculous page, where time after time after time after time after muther effin time editors have patiently explained to you why this image does not violate policy for inclusion here, as they have repeatedly pointed you to relevant policy pages such as WP:NOTCENSORED, as some editors get frustrated and leave and new ones like myself show up and point you to the same policy pages, and you repeat over and over that you just dont like it and Britannica wouldn't do it and its violating your delicate feelings and WP:THINKOFTHECHILLUNS.Heiro 04:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no point in suggesting that those many of us who find the photo fatuous and uncalled for are merely Victorian prudes who feel threatened at the sight of uncovered flesh. Please focus on the issues. SAT85 (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a major, major difference between a photo and walking down the streets nude. Meanwhile, since you were absent for a year and have suddenly become a single-purpose account on this one issue, I'm fairly well convinced that you're engaged in trolling; i.e. making the same arguments over and over again, just to keep something going. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please reread my previous post, where I explained the connection. And as long as the photograph remains, so too do the reasons for removing it, so I suggest you take the time to address them instead of bandying about these accusations of trolling. SAT85 (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments are largely bogus. For example, a photo has nothing to do with "indecent exposure" laws. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is why we have to repeat ourselves, bugs: I cited the exposure laws to show that public nudity is considered indecent in modern civilised societies, not to prove that the picture constitutes a breach. For the significance of this I again respectfully refer you to my initial post. SAT85 (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've read enough of your comments on this matter to recognize that most of them are off the mark - starting with your initial ridiculous comment that the photo is "obscene". Maybe by the standards of 1900, but not now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The comparison simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. A man displaying his penis outside a school would likely go to jail, yet I recall that there were biology textbooks in my school that had detailed pictures of male and female genitalia. The key is context, and the fact is that things that might not be appropriate in public are perfectly acceptable (even necessary) in a reference textbook, or an encyclopedia (whether on or off-line). Trying to apply social norms from 'real-life' to what happens on the internet is simply ludicrous. Infact, even trying to apply social norms from one real-life location (a playground) to another (a gym locker room, for example) is patently impossible.--Korruski^Talk 15:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Very true - a playground is public, a locker room is not. That is precisely why people don't take their clothes off in the playground, but they do in the locker room. And those who do not wish to be surprised by nude strangers in public generally also object to the public and gratuitious display of explicit, full frontal photographs. (By the way, textbook diagrams are completely different, but still unnecessary on this page). Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Bogus argument that would only hold water if wikipedia were being displayed on the big screen at Times Square. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is far more analagous to a text book illustration than walking past a schoolyard nekkid IRL. A growing consensus of users have stated they view the image as helping the article, plus WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Come up with a relevant policy, or anything besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Heiro 01:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, the policy that covers this area is WP:PROFANE. Let me repeat the rationale here, since it does not seem to be cutting through: (i) material offensive to the typical user should be deleted where an alternative is at hand; (ii) as ben dawid just explained, people who are disgusted by indecent exposure will find the public display of non-essential explicit photographs objectionable (i.e., most ordinary readers, as per exposure laws); (iii) an alternative is available--a diagram, a statue, and a sketch; (iv) therefore, the photo must be removed. SAT85 (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you havent read that page, where the first thing it says is "Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. However, words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." The link was there, but I bolded a few things to call your attention to them. Typical Wikipedia readers keep coming here and telling you the image is perfectly fine, while you keep spouting the same things over and over, please read this page, I'll link it for you again WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Heiro 02:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the relevant bit: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.". Why not use any of the three depictions currently in the article? I think you are trying to argue that "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner" means "images that can be considered offensive should be included if they are treated in an encyclopedic manner" Not so. SAT85 (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, I was saying that majority of wikipedians don't seem to find the image offensive(at least the majority who have taken the time to comment here) and the subject is being treated in a very professional, encyclopedic fashion( i.e. its not Long Dong Silver or John Holmes swinging their rods or hands on johnson, etc.). The picture is not being included for gratiutious nudity or perversion, it is a relevant picture for the article. Plus, WP:Profane is trumped by WP:NOTCENSORED.Heiro 04:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that people who hang around on AN/i necessarily represent typical readers. Most users who came straight through the Man page itself, particulary before the disclaimer was added to discourage them from commenting, have argued for deletion (and in fact still the majority, I think). So why not use any of the three depictions currently in the article? And again, WP:CENSOR doesn't obviate standards of decency. SAT85 (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Whose "standards of decency"? Saudi Arabia's? Your argument is outdated by 50 to 100 years. But you already know that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

SAT85, whose "standards of decency" are you referring to? Standards of decency are set by consensus here, as they are in every society. So far the society here at Wikipedia has seen this as not profane and not violating its sen se of decency. You don't get to unilaterally decide what our "standard of decency" is. Heiro 04:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is that standards of decency are not to be confused with censorship--whether we can agree on the former is another matter, but the public exposure laws elaborated on above and Britannica's policy in Homo Sapiens give us a fairly good clue as to the standards of typical Westerners. So again, why not put paid to this endless back-and-forth by using the perfectly sufficient nude illustrations currently in Man? Is there some anatomical feature you feel they lack? SAT85 (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your "standards of decency" argument is irrelevant. Try a factual argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as no. SAT85 (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As numerous editors have already stated, the public exposure laws has no relevance in this case.--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"standards of typical Westerners"? I think the only standard that would matter here is the usual one, consensus among editors informed by relevant policies and guidelines. We take a strong stand against censorship. There is nothing lascivious or pornographic about a picture of a naked man. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're addressing SPA85 and not me. There is no issue whatsoever with the photo itself. The user's continual moebius-strip arguments are absolutely bogus. The only issue is how or if to use this photo within this particular article, i.e. whether it adds value to the article. For those readers who don't know what a nude male looks like, it might. It's unfortunate that the photo is not better quality, but when you require free content, you take what you can get. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I believe WP:PROFANE is a guideline, not a policy, and WP:Censor is a policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And what Nuujinn just said. Heiro 02:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course I would expect a picture of a man at the Wikipedia article on that topic. The current image is perfectly adequate for illustrating the concept. It does look out of place in the collage, so I would support enlarging it to standard thumb proportions and moving it to the "Biology and gender" section. Sorry, but I have no understanding for people who claim this clinical image is obscene, and less for people who claim nudity is "unnatural". For most of the human existence, nearly all humans have been nude most of the time. Today there are humans that are nude all of the time, and (nearly?) everybody is nude part of the time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

SAT85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ben Dawid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the 70s there was some minor brouhaha over this plaque being sent into interstellar space:File:PPlaqueB.png It's nice to see how much more enlightened we've gotten in the interim.

The definitive comment on this matter might be this, authored by I-don't-recall: "If humans were meant to be naked, they'd be born that way." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Censorship of the opposition?

Can I ask why the Not Censored template was placed at the top of this discussion page during a heated debate about the inclusion of full frontal nudity here? Why not WP:PROFANE instead? And also, why was the whole discussion archived within a fortnight of the latest posting? Surely in 2010 we can have a mature discussion and reach a sensible conclusion, taking into account what the average reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. Thanks, Ben Dawid (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Because WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy and WP:PROFANE is not. Heiro 05:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The consensus of the discussion at WP:ANI was pretty clear - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive647#Man. It seems likely that anyone who won't let it drop now and who carries on with the same argument ad nauseum will generate a new AN/I report, and we will probably end up with sanctions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Re. the discussion reposted below: you seem to have just removed a comment I made (25 Oct), accepting an apology for a 'personal attack'. Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I boldly removed it the censor template. There is no reason for it to be there. I don't understand why the the RFC was removed so quickly either. All that might do is get the discussion reignited. It would have be better to have just deleted all the comments from the sock. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

One reason for it to be there is to remind a new editor who stumbles accross this page, and is concerned about the nudity, what WP policies are before they write angry comments on the talk page. I'd prefer it to be reinstated, personally.--Korruski^Talk 17:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Korruski. The template only gives one side of the story. There are also other policies to consider, and as you seem to suggest, placing it here during discussions may have prevented many opponents of the explicit imagery from voicing their opinions. Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument here was settled weeks ago, stop with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, drop the stick and back away from the dead friggin' horse already. Heiro 02:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As it was the main argument against the removal of the nude image, I think it is very appropriate to have a reminder of that on this page. So I would also support its reinstatement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reinstated it, lets not go debate over whether there was a debate. Two months of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT excessively clear its needed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

@Ben Dawid, btw I was being rather nice about calling it a debate, as It was WP:IDONTLIKE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT versus overwhelming policy based consensus that it was "OK". Its dead, lets stop beating a dead horse The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said I've never seen it used like that. Also, there is no reason to be rude to those who were against adding the nude image. The RFC and all the conversations after it was archived before it was fixed. Editors I believe agreed that the image looked out of place the way it is so who and when is it going to fixed? I came here only because of the ANI report but archiving and leaving things as they were is not the right thing. Archiving everything also shouldn't have been done because now any new editor coming here won't know about the RFC without going to the archive which is something editors usually don't do. So now on this page we have the notice that there is no censoring but nothing here to tell them why that is. I think whoever did the archiving should return the discussions back to this page and I still think the censor template needs to be removed. This is my opinion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A solution might be to have a link to the discussions in the template itself. Somewhat like is done on Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that the archiving was done rather hastily. Maybe some of the older discussions were old enough to be archived, and the page was getting very long - but just leaving the RfC would have been better, as the point of Talk pages is to keep a clearly visible record of recent discussion. As for the "Not censored" template, I note only that it was added during the recent disagreement - nobody apparently saw any need for it before then. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No the solution is to unarchive the RFC and the discussions after it. The template serves absolutely no purpose now since the RFC made the decision that the image was acceptable. What other use is that template now serving? I see it there to serve a point. If that's the reason than it needs to be removed like I did with it already. Another thing is that after the RFC was discussions about how to set up the images. That needs to be returned so that someone who is good at working it can do it, I'm not so I hope someone else is. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should unarchive from the RfC onwards - it might be best if someone who took no sides in the discussion did it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have anyone in mind? --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Any volunteer would do ;-) Just don't want to do it myself, as I took a side in the discussion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Request for Comment on the issue of naked images in this article

Note to editors in favour of nude photographs I have drawn attention to this earlier, but latecomers might find it helpful to have it brought forward here: wikipolicy states that content should not be at odds with what one would expect to find in a professional encyclopaedia (taking into account the electronic nature of Wikipedia, of course). This is a policy, not a guideline. If you have a look at Britannica or World Book, you'll note the complete omission of photographic nudity not just from corresponding articles, but from anatomical pages as well (where they would actually be inferior to diagrams anyway). The photo is thus in breach of policy and must be removed. Objections to this, such as "Britannica has no Man page" have been discussed further up. SAT85 (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC) But I know what to do--see the prior section WP:CENSOR, which treats the issue of offensive images directly and explicitly. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC) As has been stated numerous times now, this project goes by consensus. As far as I can see, SAT85 consensus is against you, please except it. Also, I am also unable to see all the images in the montage. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC) SAT85 - You do seem to know the policies well. Since I defused your attempt to use WP:OBSCENE, you're now grabbing at a different policy. I do acknowledge that we have an interesting philosophical conundrum. Many are quite happy to have the picture, in fact, WANT to have the picture in the article. But your position is that those with broader views should have your narrower views imposed on them. Of course, it can be argued that to publish the picture imposes on your sensibilities, without actually harming those others. I see it differently. As a kid of about 12, maybe around 1960, I was taken to tis weird "father-and-son" night. It was, shock/horror, sex education! They used schematic diagrams, such as you like, that really taught me nothing about what really goes on in sex. I was still left to discover that for myself. Ever since, I have wondered why some adults want to hide reality from kids, AND other adults. Having read all of this, I'm still wondering. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Hello HiLo, I agree it is rather a conundrum, considering the enormous difference in moral principles between some of us here (although I gather there is 'consensus' that an 'under-age' subject might be somehow wrong.) The problem is that whichever way the decision goes, one group will feel imposed upon. But I think it's a little unfair for the 'pro' group to complain about the image's removal, given that these types of pictures must be all over the net for those who wish to view them. Although I personally believe that all 'gratuitous' nudity is immoral - it relates to the 7th commandment (Exodus 20:14), and is indicative of our spiritual condition by nature, outside of Christ (Revelation 3:18) - I think that here people are simply objecting to the inclusion of an explicit photograph in an article where it would be entirely unexpected by most people. Shock sites are against Wikipolicy, and I really think the above-mentioned policy on what an editor might expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia is more relevant than a mere vote count here. But I suppose it all depends on what the admins decide. This sort of encyclopaedia is good fun, but should the 'consensus' lurch in favour of unbounded nudity it will be completely out of bounds for an awful lot of people...once the word gets around. What a shame. Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) I am honestly surprised that anyone could compare the image in the collage to a shock site. Again, I'll mention WP:CENSOR, which asserts that some of the information here will, by it's nature, be found offensive by some. As you say, images of naked people abound in the internet, and the one we're talking about is about as mild and non-offensive as one could be. It's arguable that the outline image used in the template at the top of this page is more explicit. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC) The word that Wikipedia contains nudity "got around" a long time ago - there are many images here that would cause far more offense to those who consider nudity immoral than this one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC) But I think you're both missing the point: ordinarily, I don't see those images, because I don't type in the required words. We all take measures to ensure we don't download anything we consider 'inappropriate'. That's just how the internet works - apart from shock sites. According to Wikipolicy, it should be the same here. And anyone expecting encyclopaedic-style articles here would be exceedingly surprised to find an explicit image under man. I certainly was! Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC) I wasn't. HiLo48 (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC) As defined by the developing consensus here, that image is far from explicit or shocking. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, we do not exclude relevant images and information just because they may offend the sensibilities of some. This is not a grand lurch forward in favour of "unbounded nudity". This is one, encyclopedically presented illustration on the subject of an article. As for an above editors exhortation of morality and JudeoChristian beliefs, we do not subscribe to any religious tenets for making guidelines, policies or editng decisions here. There are way too many people of different beliefs here to let any one group control the moral content of this site. All religious arguments will be disregarded as irrelevant to the matter at hand. If you want to edit from a conservative christian point of view, go check out Conservapedia, they'd love to have you. Heiro 14:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks mate, Conservapedia looks interesting, if rather American-centric! But I'm sure all you broad minded and tolerant people just love having another point of view on board here, too ;) Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC) (ec) All I can really say is that I wasn't surprised either - it's just the kind of article where I would expect to find an illustrative nude image. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC) My point is that an ordinary encyclopaedia would not have 'explicit' (see dictionary definitions above) imagery under such a mundane title, so that Wikipolicy needs to be implemented here. Isn't that correct? Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC) You are wrong in the premise, and wrong in applying the rule. Nearly nobody is "wondering". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Stephan, perhaps you could explain just how, in your view, the premise and application are wrong. Thanks, Ben Dawid (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC) The premise is wrong because, contrary to your assumption, "ordinary" encyclopedias do have images of nude people under "mundane titles" (IIRC, my 1952 one-volume Meyer has nude people under Hottentotten). Of course paper encyclopedias are structured differently from online encyclopedias, so you get less imagery overall, but that does not mean that they censor nudity where it is appropriate. You are wrong in applying the policy because you refer to a catch-all rule mostly concerned with article deletion, and qualified with "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article" - well, apparently no-one is wondering. You seem to think the image should be out, the vast majority, on the other hand, wants them in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks Stephan, for that explanation. To clarify my own point: from my experience, mainstream English-language encyclopaedias - old and new, print versions and those image-filled versions online and on CD - don't ordinarily include explicit full frontal photographs, even of nudist tribal people. Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC) The seventh commandment says absolutely nothing about nudity. That's a puritanical extrapolation. Conservapedia is indeed the place for those folks. We get complaints all the time about antique illustrations of Muhammad being used here. That's every bit as offensive to strict Muslims as is this subject. We don't kiss up to them, either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Hi, while not wishing to get involved in a long argument here, I'd just like to back up my initial comment. Since 'uncovering the nakedness' is a big step towards - plus an incitement to - adultery/fornication, Scripture consistently uses the expression as a euphemism for such. 'None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD' (Leviticus 18:6). Nudity is also a dreadful shame in itself (Genesis 9:21-27). But as I was saying, these things are also indicative of our spiritual condition: 'I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels. For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth; so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations' (Isaiah 61:10,11). Regards, Ben Dawid (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Wo unto you ResidentAnthropologist has been Turned to a Pillar of Salt for mocking the Fringy on Wiki BaseballBugs please create WP:THEBIBLESAYSSO essay. I am sure this is not the the first time this arguement has been put forth and your commentary would be priceless The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC) The whole concept is priceless. According to the assertions above, parents should change their infants' diapers in total darkness. Freakin' puritans. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC) I think we've definitely bumped into the Judaeo/Christian version of WP:FRINGE HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Yep. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Let me get this right: people like me who do not think it is appropriate to display nudity in articles like this one without a disclaimer or any other admonition are now at times deemed to be on the fringe? I have been reading some of these posts and I am acutely alarmed that people who want openness are trying to silence debate by assuming there is a consensus and then borking everyone who disagrees with them. It is so sad to see so much disdain for a valid and widely held position on nudity; Wikipedia calls for no censorship but that does not mean it should be without any etiquette that guides and directs the form and nature of content. I just hope that respect and patience can be instilled in this debate even though it has been raging on for so long.Zwischenglück (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC) You mean like the warning about depictions of the title character on the Muhammad page? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ "but that does not mean it should be without any etiquette that guides and directs the form and nature of content"? We have plenty of such policies and guidelines actually that do just that. And they are blue linked all thru this talkpage. I'll come and leave a few on your talkpage since you seem to be new, and so as not to be even more redundant than this whole discussion has become. Heiro 02:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Yes Zwischenglück, I do believe that "people like (you) who do not think it is appropriate to display nudity in articles like this one" are now on the fringe. It doesn't mean that I want to silence debate. I find discussions like this very interesting and revealing. But we need to somehow find a way through Wikipedia's multitude of occasionally conflicting policies, plus some absolute views being expressed, to decide what goes in the article. It ain't easy. Coming back to the issue of "FRINGE", are there many people around with more conservative views than yours? (Not meant as a loaded question. Just trying to clarify for both of us where you are on the spectrum.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Your contributions are refreshing in a way, in that you seem to grasp the core of the dispute, though I beg to differ on the point in hand--i.e., I would be honestly very surprised if opposition to nude photos here is not pretty mainstream. It would be an interesting exercise to remove the disclaimer above (which is obviously intended to deter contributions from people who find the photo objectionable here) and seek a consensus of the actual readership of Man, such as by inserting a request for opinions on the page itself (and recognising that the issue is over "standards of propriety", not "censorship"). That way we could hopefully get some sense of whether, like child pornography (though not to the same degree, of course), photographic nudity on a general page like WP:Man would be viewed as inappropriate by the broader Wikipedia readership. SAT85 (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC) I don't like your tactic of drawing any comparison of the photo in question with child pornography. It's patently not. And it's NOT a matter of degree. There is an absolute difference. Child pornography is clearly not acceptable at all in Wikipedia, in law nor, I'm certain, to the vast majority of posters. It is irrelevant. Even bringing it into the conversation is playing a dirty game and distracting from an effective discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC) No offense intended; you probably missed the discussion of this issue above. I am just pointing out that some things would be viewed by absolutely all of us as inappropriate on Wikipedia, even taking WP:CENSOR into account. My apologies if that was poorly worded. Perhaps the legless-tabbies-on-the-Cats-page example might have been better. SAT85 (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC) I am not going to fully reveal my views because I think that is irrelevant to the discussion but I will say that your position seems more on the fringe than mine. Think about all the major news corporations out there like ITV or ARD that are not as extreme as you are in fully accepting and condoning nudity. You are right about the existence of a spectrum when it comes to tolerance for nudity; however, I want to stress that most institutions/people are somewhere between where the Taliban are and where you are on this issue.Zwischenglück (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Some good points here. SAT85 (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Ha ha. Fair enough to mention the Taliban. But I don't think they are major contributors to or users of WIkipedia. Yes, the major news corporations do present a more conservative view than mine, but I think that's a matter of audience. It's clearly not the same as Wikipedia's. And they must cater for nearly the most conservative part of that audience. They have ratings to consider - a commercial imperative. Wikipedia does not have that pressure. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Some better points here, SPA85. Heiro 03:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC) SAT85, please stop POV pushing and disrupting wikipedia. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC) I vote for removing the picture(s) of nudity immediately. If a photograph is not patently necessary to be in an article and if it offends a substantial number of readers, there is no reason to keep it in except in order to appease special interest groups who want to use Wikipedia to desensitize everyone (who comes here) to nudity. From what I've read, the people who demand the inclusion of the photograph have not sufficiently demonstrated why it is more informative than a sketch and why it has to be in the highly prominent position it enjoys. I believe the opinions of many viewers and editors who are not hard-core contributors should have due weight against the consensus among regular Wikipedians that nudity isn't in any way vulgar or obscene. We need to be more onscious of what other people view as obscene. 29zlkj (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC) We're not voting, we make decisions by reaching consensus informed by policies. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC) I know we aren't voting; I'm merely showing where I stand. I think that the consensus should be resolved in my position's favour because I think we need to invoke WP:PROFANE . I did say that the photograph verily offends many readers so it should only be kept if it can be demonstrated that a non-sexually explicit substitute would be inferior in conveying the necessary information. Yet I don't think my point is going to be carefully considered since all the Wikipower lies with people who are categorically opposed to my position. 29zlkj (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC) WP:PROFANE does not support the removal of the picture. First, the images are considered neither vulgar nor obscene by the typical Wikipedia reader (as can bee seen both here and in the separate debate over at WP:ANI#Man and secondly, removing the image "would cause the article to be less informative [...]". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC) (ec)How is the picture in question vulgar or profane? Or is the general concept of naked person vulgar or profane? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC) God Himself created the human body, and these puritanical Christians are calling His creation "obscene". That's rich. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC) People who oppose this kind of a picture are of different cultures/backgrounds and have different reasons for why a picture of this sort is obscene so the question of why the photograph is obscene to many readers (of different background/cultures) would be hard to answer. However, the reasons for why it is obscene are not germane to the discussion; the very fact that it is obscene to many people who do not have Wikipower (which, I presume, can't be obtained unless you toe the ultra-libertarian/objectivist party line) is germane and is reason enough to replace it with a more informative and non-sexually explicit diagram. I hope that people here realize that there is a wide philosophy gap (in addition to many other demographic gaps) between the average beliefs of regular editors of Wikipedia and the average beliefs of all users of Wikipedia. 29zlkj (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Shame on you, for labeling one of God's creations "obscene". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC) You are welcome to edit here, and participate in discussions, but not to impose your beliefs on others. I'm afraid there's no such thing as Wikipower, unless you mean being part of the administration behind the site. We're all just volunteer editors. Why you regard the picture as obscene is relevant, I think, since you will have to explain why it is obscene in order to convince others that it could be taken as such--that's the way consensus is built. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Muslim readers probably consider the antique depictions of Muhammad to be "obscene" also, and their personal opinion on that matter is likewise irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC) To add to that, and because we are sharing knowledge, many Australian Aboriginal people believe that it is is totally unacceptable to display images of or state the name of deceased relatives. Wikipedia makes no attempt at all to cater for that belief. Why should Judaeo/Christian beliefs be treated any differently? HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Note on socks A number of the editors on this page are indeed socks of one guy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/We233ws. Just FYI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC and related sections unarchived per the above discussion. So the page doesn't get overwhelmed, I've collapsed them so those who want to see the history and consensus can do so without spamming the page for everyone else. I didn't include the ANI discussion (already linked above) or earlier image discussions from Archives 1 and 2, but anyone interested in this debate might also find those worth a read. Euryalus (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Entemology

The Entemology Section is in a major error. Citation #2 was written around 1919 and is factually inaccurate and in conflict with citation #3. (The reason for the factual inaccuracy of Citation #2 being was pushed was part of a cultural denigration of women. This was written during the time of women suffrage and was a way to say women were less equal then men.) Here is one citation http://home.comcast.net/~modean52/oeme_dictionaries.htm The original Olde English was that "Mann" was the race of Mankind, "He - Man" was Male and "Wo - Man" was female. At the time of KJV Bible, "Mann" was primarily used as; "the race of Mankind". During the intervening centuries the meaning slowly changed to our modern usage.BJHandley (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Editors needed to rework collage

The article is now unprotected, but the collage is still in need of an editor to rework it. If the editors who were working on this article would now return to fix it that would be appreciated. I do not know how to do the collage which is why I am asking for help. Also, is there still a need for the censor template? It seems to me that issue was taken care of above and that maybe it's time to remove it. Thanks in advance for any assistance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, the template does not need to be removed when the issue has been 'taken care of' (although I strongly suspect that it won't be long before the whole issue pops up again anyway). It is common WP practice to place the template on the talk page of any article that contains content that might be considered offensive by some people. Especially if that content has been the subject of frequent discussion. Please, let's leave the message in place so that it can do its job of politely reminding anyone who comes to this page that there is a WP policy that they might need to be aware of.--Korruski^Talk 15:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment about the censor template. I understand why some users want it, but I think it's worth noting that (i) Wikipedia discourages the use of disclaimers on ordinary pages for a few reasons, but all of them seem to apply here; (ii) in my view it is not relevant to last October's discussion, which turned on accuracy, aesthetics, and decency rather than censorship (and it is hard to argue that removing the photo on any grounds constitutes censorship when all of the information it provides is present in the three other depictions anyway); and (iii) it does seem wrong that people in favour of the template say openly that it should be there in order to discourage commentary from readers critical of the photo, and thus to skew consensus. Does anyone know of a policy that covers this sort of thing? Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi SAT85. (i)As someone mentioned to you when this was discussed previously, the policy on not using disclaimers applies to article pages, not to talk pages. It is also referring to 'unsuitable content' disclaimers, not to statements of WP policy (ii) I suspect that arguing to remove something on grounds of 'decency' is, indeed, censorship, so I cannot understand the distinction you are making. (iii) I am not saying that it should be there to discourage commentary and to skew consensus. It should be there to inform a reader who might find the photo offensive that there is already consensus on this issue, and it is covered by a firm and long-standing Wikipedia policy, and that they should be aware of that policy before they post comments arguing to remove the photo, or remove it without discussion. The alternative is that editors who are aware of Wikipedia policy have to spend a lot of time endlessly repeating the same points to editors who appear not to be.--Korruski^Talk 11:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the censor template has been explained as to why it is there, though I have to admit I didn't notice it myself until it was asked about here. That would tend to lead to the question of what good is it there if no one notices it? I would also like to point out that the template just says we don't censor information but will this template help explain to a new editor that it is there in regards to the nude image(s)? I don't think it will but I don't care if it's there or not. Now, something needs to be done about the collage because the way it is now the consensus also agreed it didn't look good. There was a discussion that was going on to use different images and how to set them up and so forth. How about that discussion starting again with editors who understand the coding to get it to work? I personally never did a collage or anything close to it so I am asking for help from others that do know how to fix the collage. Please if you know how to, would you (as many as are interested) help fix the collage now? Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)