User talk:Limeheadnyc/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 23:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Tony, I just wanted to say thanks for your efforts at the clitoris page. It seems like you're often the only one there with any common sense. I'm getting a bit jaded with the process, because I suspect many of the antis are simply trolling and not in search of any actual compromise or conflict resolution. I try to keep voicing my pro-photo position just so it doesn't get lost in the ridiculous milieu, and that position would be lost without you. Timbo 03:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. Compliments of the season! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

If you don't mind me asking, I'd appriciate your support at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker. Thanks. — マイケル ₪ 04:41, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Hey マイケル, I'm terribly sorry I didn't get to support you; I was on holiday until today. The RfC seems to be deleted, but if I can help anywhere else, feel free to drop me a note. Thanks, Timbo 03:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carson and pussy

Hiya, IB3K here. here's that article about the sadly apocryphal Carson interview. Both Zsa Zsa Gabor and Johnny deny the interview ever took place. Iceberg3k 12:25, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autofellatio images

Hi, I noticed that selfsuck.jpg was removed from Autofellatio and replaced with the old picture. Now the original picture's listing on IfD had been removed and the image is still there. Does that mean it survived IfD or is it about to be deleted? Also could you please vote on selfsuck? I think it would be handy to have around as a backup, and I think it would be difficult to argue that it's more indecent than autofellatio.jpg. Given the subject, it might be good to have a spare handy just in case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Sometimes I'll sign and sometimes I won't...--MONGO 12:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)MONGO

[edit] Please stop reverting on TFD

If you'll notice, in my last edit to the page I created a separate entry for the template. Vacuum c 14:41, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)


I've done some digging to find out what, in fact, happened. Here's how I understand what's going on with this headache.

  1. Raul654 adds Template:Enduring single-issue dispute to TfD [1] (01:49, 21 Jan 2005).
  2. Frazzydee adds Template:Content dispute to the Template:Enduring single-issue dispute section [2] (21:51, 22 Jan 2005) because "it's virtually identical to the first, except uglier. It's saying almost the exact same thing, but if anybody feels that it warrants a seperate entry, go ahead and move it there. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)"
    • At that point, the votes for Template:Enduring single-issue dispute were as follows:
    • A nonsensical semi-permanent dispute tag. →Raul654 05:49, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. The goal is to fix the article, not load it up with ugly tags. Rhobite 05:53, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. The dispute isn't going away any time soon: in the mean time, people ought to know what's going on, like any dispute tag. (Note: the article in question is clitoris, and the issue is whether the "vulva image" should be there.) —Ashley Y 05:55, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Netoholic @ 06:13, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
    • Delete, if there's an NPOV issue, stick an NPOV tag on it. Incidentally, the enduring single issue at Clitoris appears to be whether or not to have an enduring single issue tag on it. Odd, that. --fvw* 03:09, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
    • Keep. Vacuum tc 15:08, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete -Frazzydee|✍ 15:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete --Jirate 15:27, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
    • Delete. — Dan | Talk 17:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Timbo ( t a l k ) 17:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm just about as positive as I've ever been about anything that these votes would not change for Template:Content dispute. They have the same content. But keep reading on.
  3. A number of votes follow.
  4. Vacuum removes Template:Content Dispute from TfD [3] (15:27, 24 Jan 2005) with the misleading edit summary: "the templates are different. undo grouping." In fact, Vacuum removed the template from VfD entirely.
  5. Vacuum then removes the {{tfd}} tag [4] from Template:Content Dispute (15:30, 24 Jan 2005).
  6. After my reversion of TfD, Vacuum reverts again [5] (15:38, 24 Jan 2005) with the same logic. I revert for the second time because it's an instance of an author removing his/her work from TfD before voting completes.
  7. Vacuum finally moves his/her template to another section [6] (16:51, 28 Jan 2005).
  8. Netoholic votes delete [7] (18:27, 28 Jan 2005).
  9. I reinstate the grouping [8] (23:53, 28 Jan 2005) because the templates are, in fact, almost exactly the same. I forget, however, to delete the separate section for Template:Content dispute.
  10. Vacuum took out the grouping and added a second separate section for Template:Content dispute [9] (15:36, 29 Jan 2005).
  11. MikeX voted delete [10] (15:53, 29 Jan 2005) and then deleted the duplicate section [11] (15:55, 29 Jan 2005).
  12. Frazzydee, added yet another section [12] for Template:Content dispute (16:46, 29 Jan 2005).
  13. Vacuum votes keep in this duplicate section [13] (17:05, 29 Jan 2005).
  14. Vacuum then deletes [14] the duplicate section, along with Frazzydee's vote and comments (18:15, 29 Jan 2005).
  15. I just voted to delete and added Frazzydee's deleted vote and comments to the section [15] (22:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC).

So there you have it. Instead of being deleted now, we'll have to wait another week to remove Template:Content dispute. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Image:WikiThanks.pngThanks for watching the stuff over at WP:TFD. I'm shock that vacuum deleted the entire section, including my vote. Thumbs up for catching that! Anyways, I just wanted to say wikithanks for guarding that, see you around! -Frazzydee|✍ 23:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yngwie

I agree with you that Yngwie is pretentious, cheesy, and I've heard from friends of friends in the business that he's quite mean and annoying. I think it was Ty Tabor (of King's X fame) who was practicing in a rehearsal studio with his band next to Yngwie and his band one time in the early 90s. Yngwie wanders into Tabor's room (still playing, mind you, via wireless) and starts wailing to show how cool he is. Then he hands his guitar to Tabor, daring him to repeat what Yngwie just played. Tabor picks up the axe and fumbles with the scalloped fret board and super-light strings, finally saying something to the effect of "I can't, man." Yngwie lets out a haughty chuckle and walks back to his band, then proceeds to joke loudly about how lame Tabor is to the rest of his bandmates. Classic Yngwie - such a tool, yet he'll never know that he's anything less than a messiah.

Personality aside, though ... as well as cheesiness of his music ... I' definitely respect Yngwie for his discipline. It's been very sad for me to listen to the decline of the solo as an integral part of a song. I think there's a synthesis that needs to take place in order to make some great strides in the rock arena; that is, a synthesis between chops and vibe, for lack of better terms. Chops are, after all, possibilities. Capabilities. If you don't have the chops, you're severely limited in terms of your sonic capabilities. That's why so much nu-metal guitarring sounds manufactured, flat, and unoriginal. What happened a lot in the 80s, I think, is people focused so much on chops that they forgot their purpose. That's why there's so much pretention, such a "look what I can do" attitude.


I think Yngwies an ass who doesnt make good music (except his cover of Mr. Crowley with Tim Owens, that was good). If you dont make good music, I will never give a shit about how well you can sing or play your 'musical instrument' or ax as some metal fans call it.

And just because you walk into a room and play some random notes and ask someone to play what you just played by ear without any preparation doesnt mean you are good. You know the notes exactly and could of been rehearsing them for months. Doing that just means you got a hell of an inferiority complex. Or maybe just a narcissist.

Until Yngwie starts writing some good music I wont care about him. Ill stick with Iced Earth/Black Sabbath and when I'm stoned on DXM, Stratovarius.

And your little cliche about arguing about nu-metal guitaring being unoriginal and manufactured, I agree. I dont see the metal world sucumming to shit. There has always been horrable commercialized music disguising itsself as real talent. Nu-metal is just the crap that was diguised as good metal that came along after hair metal and grunge. Nothing new. Some assholes found a way to make guitaring harsh without requiring talent and exploited that.

So I close this because just like my last rant it was pointless and a waste of time. Though you are a huge improvement over the last Yngwie fan I argued with. You havent resorted to name calling or saying things like "You dont know shit about music." "Yngwie ownz Kirk Hammet."

--Arm

Whoa, dude. I didn't mean to argue with you. Haha, I was actually agreeing, or so I thought. My little anecdote was meant to illustrate how Yngwie is, in fact, a huge "ass." And I do agree that his cover of Mr. Crowley with Tim Owens was quite good, although his other music is quite cheesy. I fancy myself a musician, and I love metal, so I tend to ramble on about such things.
Perhaps I offended you about nu-metal? I don't mean to categorically belittle it. I love System of a Down, Deftones, and a bunch of other supposed nu-metal acts. Anyway, apologies for any misunderstanding. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nah no offense taken. And I hardly ever listen to nu-metal. Now once Yngwie starts writing some songs with a tune to them then maybe ill give him a listen. He can have Tim Owens since his high-pitched wailing is annoying and Jon Schaffer can find a better vocalist elsewhere. I like Matt Maggard Myself. --Arm

[edit] Tag

Frankly I'm sick of this whole damn edit war myself, however I think a tag acceptable for now...however, I think a compromise should be achived.--198 05:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Well I think the tag is pretty ugly, and I'm not sure what purpose it serves. There is a tag on top of the talk page.... Not good enough? Regards, TIMBO (T A L K) 05:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] iufid

Tony, I know you dislike his proposal. I do too. But listing his template for deletion is premature, and kind of trollish. Let the proposal die on its own, and then we can delete the components. I'm going to delist the template from WP:TFD, and I hope you'll agree to leave it be. You never know what can come of a proposal, and he seems to be working in good faith, so let's leave it be for a short while. Deleting this is only going to fuel animosity. -- Netoholic @ 20:22, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

I agree, it was probably premature and I got carried away. I'm copying this to Timbo's talk page, too, because he has already voted in support of the listing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps the listing was premature, but I hardly find it trollish. As far as good faith: perhaps he thinks he's working in good faith, but his flurry of POV creations might lead one to think otherwise. From a person who created Category:Possibly offensive images, IUFID seems like just another way to revamp wikipedia into my-pov-pedia. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, BTW! TIMBO (T A L K) 20:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cantus

...has gracefully conceded on his offensive image template, by changing his own vote to delete. He says that he is putting all of his efforts into Iufid. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well that's a relief. Thanks for the update. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Linking now" on Talk:Autofellatio

Sorry about removing that section. I was trying to make a comment, but got into like 3 edit conflicts, and somehow I removed it after Davenbelle added it. >_< It's back in place now, but I just wanted to explain what happened with my edits. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-10 05:41 Z

Haha no problem, I figured as much. I got into a bunch of edit conflicts at the same time. Cheers, TIMBO (T A L K) 05:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Timbo, could you watch Cantus on the talk page? He keeps trying to insert a notice to the effect that his poll nullifies the poll on whether to have a deadline. I keep removing it. I would appreciate it if you could help to keep that false and misleading statement off the page as it could affect the perceptions of voters. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Tony. I think you're more knowledgeable than I of Wikipedia's policies/procedures etc., so I was wondering where you think a lasting decision could come from. Consensus/supermajority seems like something to shoot for, but there is the likely possibility (as mentioned on the talk page) that we won't ever have that. Edit warring until people get tired of it seems inadequate, although perhaps it'll have to do. Cheers, TIMBO (T A L K) 19:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the end the resolution will come when people who oppose either one or both of the current options unite and accept a new one. I don't think it's sensible to think of the period after an unsuccessful survey as a period of edit wars--in fact nobody who engages in protracted edit warring will win any respect if it's clear that their favored option does not have consensus.
I foresee a few imaginative edits along the lines of different adapted versions of the current picture as a thumbnail with a link to the current picture, unbowdlerized, beneath it. I expressed distaste for the idea of pixellizing the glans, but I would be prepared to swallow my dislike in the interests of obtaining a consensus.
If there was a fairly popular version like this (which would of course end up being reverted by die-hards on either side) then I'd propose it for another poll in the hope that we'd find common ground with those link-ists who object specifically to the glans (or some larger area of the penis, perhaps) being displayed.
The idea is to present graded options (more or less of the "obscene" areas displayed without pixellization, whether to display the testes without pixellization, the shaft, etc) and permit people to vote for more than one option. This would be staged as a "beauty contest" to have only one winner and to be successful only if the winner gets the votes of over 70%.
Well this is my view of the way ahead. What do you think? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm I'll have to think about that. On the one hand, I'd hate to have any kind of pixellating because I think it looks unprofessional, and in this case it could reduce the educational content of the picture. I'd have to see a specific pic though. On the other hand, I think working toward consensus is important, and these are certainly alternatives whose community support might be enough to resolve the disputes for the time being.
Maybe we could reduce the size of the image a bit? Not ridiculously small, but small enough so that a penis-phobe won't go berserk when they see it.
In any case, I think the different options are a good idea. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: KiwiLyrics

Hello, and thanks for the comment. Copyrights are an issue at KiwiLyrics...We will take down any content if the copyright owner requests it be done, but a lot of artists don't mind or even encourage lyrics sites to post their songs. - user:defunkt 09:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autofellatio link

Trying to see if we can get that link back. Feel free to give it a go and we'll see who supports and who opposes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The image at clitoris

Thanks for your message. You are more or less right about Jimbo's action at autofellatio, I think, but he was quite clear that he didn't approve of the image and thought it should be removed until there was a compromise. I've asked for the same, Timbo. We could link the image until the problem is resolved.

I don't agree that the minority must concede, Timbo. I think NPOV means, clearly, that all views must be included, not that the majority must prevail. We have been over this enough times. You haven't yet convinced me that "consensus" means "the majority wins" and I'm not at all convinced that was the intention of Wikipedia, nor do I want to see that principle prevail. I believe fiercely in inclusivity in this project. I do not agree that polls are a good means to create a consensus. Quite the opposite. They destroy any attempt to find one. The polls confirmed that there is a majority for keeping the image, Timbo, but you ought not to ignore that they also showed that there is some dissent. You would be kidding yourself if you did not think there was.

From my POV, I don't see the big deal in linking the image. You can still view it if you wish to, but those that do not know that there will be images that are illegal in many places and, at the very least, considered objectionable in others, will not be upset. Why is it such a bad thing that we should show some concern not to upset readers? It doesn't mean we agree with them. I have been quite clear, Timbo, that I am not a prude, am not offended by the images in question and do not have any desire to have a censored Wikipedia. But the hardliners have opposed all means even to allow the page to be displayed without the picture, any warning and any way to prevent upset. It seems to me that they are determined to push their POV and feel justified because they have a majority.

But look, Timbo, a majority of people on this planet believe there is a God of some kind. Would we want our page on God to suggest that it's a fact there is one? Wikipedia does not simply reflect the majority, white, liberal view. I'm proud that it doesn't. I will continue to argue that it shouldn't. Dr Zen 08:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I am proactive, Timbo. I am talking to you. I am willing to discuss the whole issue. The edits keep the issue alive. They're no big deal to revert. I don't insult anyone.

But I will not be running any polls. I know who has the majority. But I also know that there is dissent. Dr Zen 08:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Sadly, compromise isn't possible with those who will not compromise and consensus is impossible with those who don't want it. It's fruitless talking with you, Timbo, because you are so convinced of your rightness and so aware that you have the numbers (here) that you will not consider that there even are other views you should accommodate. Dr Zen 21:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for polls, a quarter voted for a disclaimer. That's a lot of dissent. the link vote was for a link to a different diagram not to the photo, but even so, 13% voted against that. Not comparable. The next attempt at a poll collapsed because the hardliners could not find a wording that worked for them. Others have expressed dissent elsewhere. A lot of the dissent has been very fierce. I'm astonished that you feel that because the dissenters are a minority, they must simply be ignored.

We went a long way to creating consensus on a images on/off fork but that collapsed, largely because Tony Sidaway refused to allow a warning, which would render the fork useless, of course. This was a considerable compromise on both sides and is still worth exploring.


We discussed the link and had a quasi poll about that. There was nothing like accord on the issue. The discussion broke down because a hardliner called those who want to accommodate all our readers the "jack ass faction".

I'll quote myself, Timbo: "The point of Wikipedia is that the "majority" takes care of the "minority", that all views are represented. Well, it's the point of my Wikipedia." This is the point you and I need to discuss. You need to convince me that either Wikipedia's majority should not take care of its minority, or that the minority is sufficiently insignificant that it need not be considered.Dr Zen 22:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am taking your point, Timbo. I'm glad that you at least, despite your firm stand, believe that compromise is not impossible. I am not "edit warring" on my own though. It takes two sides to make a war. We had a compromise solution that most of the people discussing the page were happy to have in place temporarily, but people who were not involved in discussions opposed it. I guess I feel that the "war" began there.

It is going to be the case on Wikipedia that if there are two sides that are implacably opposed on any issue, and they will not enter negotiations in good faith, they will each be left with a course of editing the article to make it better by their own lights, and that will inevitably mean an edit war. You know that I feel that suggesting that the article is "stable" if no one edit wars over it is not particularly good faith. The opposition has not gone away just because it is not editing the page! Of course, it doesn't progress the discussion to remove the image. I'm not stupid. But if the "other side" will not discuss a compromise, because they form a majority -- something I simply do not think is within the spirit of Wikipedia, even if it has become more and more the de facto means of operation here -- what is left to a dissenter? The other parties in the edit war, Timbo, I should remind you, have not even been involved in the discussions, or when they have, have shown no willingness at all to consider compromise. There can only be a dialogue when both sides are talking! Otherwise, yes, it's just the same old stuff over and over.

I do believe a compromise should be possible. Personally, I feel linking the image should be explored, or having the option to turn the images off as Cool Hand Luke suggested. I think the opposition to this is particularly unfounded. We all agreed that the default would be images on (although of course they would need to be visible only on scrolling down). We differed over the wording but I don't think that was irresolvable. I know some implacably opposed any compromise, Timbo, but surely, if those who are willing find one, and then put it on the page, those who are not are exposed as POV pushers?

As far as placement in the article is concerned, this can only really be a solution if it is indicated that there is a picture! I think a link does this best of all. The picture is there. It is available to be seen. But it doesn't confront children or those offended by that kind of thing.

The discussion about whether children should be confronted by this kind of thing, which many of the opponents of compromise reiterate, is not actually germane to our discussion. Yes, I agree that it's a bad thing that some people think vulvas are offensive, but the point is that they do. NPOV says include all views. That means include all views including the ones you don't personally agree with. I've mentioned enough times that my personal view is that there is nothing wrong with the picture.

What would be useful, Timbo, would be for you to address first of all the issue of whether you are genuinely prepared to include the other views to your own? I firmly believe you are. I do not believe some of the others are at all, but you at least seem willing to try to find a way.

Next, it would be useful to discuss alternatives in terms of how they include all views and not how the majority might make concessions. This has been the problem in discussing this, I think. People say "linking is censorship and I'm against censorship" and I say "no, it's not censorship because, look, the picture is still there, it's simply caring for the sensitivities, however misguided, of some of our readers". We should be looking at how those views are reconciled (I think they can be) rather than how they can be more firmly entrenched.

Finally, anyone trying to find a compromise has to shit or get off the pot. You have to be able to say, there is no compromise possible (I think this is very rarely the case in Wikipedia because disputes are usually over expressions of views and there is usually a middle course that nods to both), or that this is a compromise that is acceptable to both sides, we'll make it, and then allow the hardliners to stand outside of, if not a consensus, then at least a compromise that has involved considered discussion. Dr Zen 00:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Again

Hi again Tim, I really do think that picture is a pornographic, I will admit on the clitoris article I was over-reacting but I don't feel that way in this case.--198 03:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I recognise that you do not feel that linking is possible because you think it conveys a negative message. I tend to agree with Samboy, who suggested that the message it conveys is quite neutral: "We know some are offended." and not negative: "We think vulvas can be offensive."

In any case, I am suggesting that we do legitimate that POV. Suggesting that it should not be recognised is exactly what I feel makes you a hardliner! We ought to try to include all POVs, not simply the one we personally endorse.

Recognition of the value of the other POV in no way endorses it. By saying, yes, we know some people feel this way, we in no way agree that they are right to. This is exactly my position. I feel the POV that I am wanting included is entirely unhealthy and close to unacceptable.

But I would want holocaust denial included in an article on the holocaust, Timbo, even though I find it totally unacceptable, because I believe that the principle of NPOV is what sets us apart (and I'm going to return to it when I discuss what is "encyclopaedic").

As for inclusion/disinclusion, I do see your point that you feel linking out of the page is not including the image. I don't agree, because the material is there and is available to readers, but I understand the POV. I thought that the page fork would be the best solution to that problem. I really can't understand the objections to it as anything other than "we get our way and you can just fuck off", although I do understand the concerns over how to word a link.

But Timbo, this is why I say the first point that must be passed is an agreement that the views contrary to yours should be recognised. If we can agree that we should be inclusive then we are discussing how on each point, not whether. This is where the heatedness has come from, I think, on the talkpage. The anti-imagists, if you like, are frustrated because they don't feel the pros are willing to even begin to compromise and have taken the attitude that anything they give is a (grudging) concession. This is very much fuelled by comments like "the article is stable, why should be bother talking about it?". Well, the issue was not actually resolved and didn't go away! But once we've agreed we want to include all, how is easier.

On the question of encyclopaedic merit, Timbo, I think you have simply abstracted the dispute. Those who oppose the image don't think it has "encyclopaedic merit" because they do not believe it should be in an encyclopaedia. You want to define "encyclopaedic" entirely functionally, and I understand that desire, but it ignores other ways of defining "encyclopaedic" (the exact same problem happens in VfD, where those who want to trim Wikipedia claim that what they want cut is not "encyclopaedic" because their definition of "encyclopaedia" is not "contains all knowledge" but "contains what I think an encyclopaedia should contain"). IOW, Timbo, I don't see the point of bickering over what encyclopaedias should or shouldn't contain as a route to resolving the issue.

What I do think is that a roadmap that looks like this is a way forward:

1/ Are you willing to recognise views you do not yourself hold and try to include them? Do you agree that this is in fact what NPOV means in a broader sense? 2/ If yes, are you willing to explore ways to make this happen in regards to this page? (IOW, are you willing to compromise because you accept point one, not because you feel the other side has any particular merit? Once I had asked myself this question, I realised I could not dogmatically support a photo and claim to be supporting the NPOV policy at the same time.) 3/ What ways are open? I suggest the possibilities are: a link, a fork, a small picture at the bottom of the article with a strongly worded disclaimer. You may have others in mind, and they could be put on the table. 4/ What are the objections of each side to each way of resolving the POVs? 5/ Can the objections be answered reasonably in the spirit of trying to find a compromise? 6/ Voila!

As it happens, I feel that at least a group of editors were discussing ways (without having accepted that they should compromise), and that came to nothing. I think it came to nothing because of a lack of commitment from both sides to pass the first couple of hurdles.

Just to discuss for a moment your point about spiders, Tim. If this were Britannica, we would not be having this discussion. There would be no clitoris pic and the spider pic would be there. But this isn't. It's not a regular encyclopaedia.

I think that if we can reasonably assume that a picture of a spider will offend or upset readers, we should link it too. What is lost by it? The picture is still there but now arachnophobes need not fear the article! Everyone is included.

When you say the pictures add to the article, well, they add for some but not for others. They don't add anything for you. They wouldn't add anything for my friend S, who cannot look at pictures of, well snakes actually, not spiders without feeling physically ill.

And yes, here is where the misunderstanding is, precisely. Your POV is that the spider photos don't need taking down on your account. But Wikipedia is about all accounts and what is right for all. No? Dr Zen 02:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


You made a very interesting point. I think an equally strong one would be to say "what if someone said the word 'Jew' was objectionable?"

I think that if we are going to pursue that line of discussion, I should say that I think the objector can be asked to cite their sources, just as they can for any other issue. Is "Jew" objectionable to many? Can he/she show many objecting? You see my point. I don't think there is any real case that the view we're discussing is not held legitimately by many of our readers, and some of our editors.

It is very difficult, though, because we wouldn't want to be in the business of saying "this view is legitimate, this one not". NPOV does not allow that. It's not about judgment, is it?

That's why I say point one on any roadmap has to be "should the views in question be recognised?" If the view is that the clitoris picture should entirely be excluded, we have a problem that is very difficult to resolve. We might agree that both views are legitimate, and that one has the advantage of being held by the majority of editors (although I doubt it is held by the majority of the intended audience, which, if I quote Jimbo correctly, is the whole world) and yet, if neither will compromise, one view must be ignored.

In the case of the white supremacists, you need to return to the principle. Should they be offended and upset because of the views they hold? (Well yes, at every turn they should, but you take my point here.) If the answer is yes, what ground is there? If we are reduced to saying, because I don't like their view, we're really working in a POV way.

I'll await your further response, when you've slept on it ;-) before saying anything else.

What does interest me, though, is whether you feel that your objection to a link would necessarily hold against a fork? Dr Zen 05:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)