Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I have placed an RfC in the article regarding images. My goal is to have the article (like all Misplaced Pages articles) remain stable for a period of time. That takes a genuine consensus, which can then be used to prevent others from changing the article every time they differ.
I know you feeling strongly about the subject, and that you find the images in the article offensive. But that is no excuse for disrupting the article in the manner that you have, nor claiming bad faith on the part of other editors who are as sincere and dedicated as you are to the quality of Misplaced Pages. Someone with your years of experience within Misplaced Pages should have been more familiar with how to build consensus by now. Consensus does not involve insulting other editors whom you disagree with, ignoring the opinions of editors who you disagree with or forcing a change in an article when you have one more ''vote'' for your position than an opposing one. I am asking you to be civil and actually work towards a real consensus, rather than coercing others. A discussion about such things can be brief when everyone agrees. When they do not, as is the case in the Bukkake article, it can takes weeks or even months. If you take the time to follow the process properly, and build a genuine consensus, then the end result is that the article will remain stable and we will not have to argue about the images every two weeks ad nauseum. Myself and others who monitor the sexuality and sexology articles can then rely on the precedent set by the consensus to keep it from being changed every ten minutes. ] (]) 17:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to change the article back to what it has looked like for months or years, then we can have the discussion within the RfC, and then we will all abide by the consensus generated from that. If you can't let that happen properly, I will need to ask others to sanction you. ] (]) 17:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:Let's just note that you changed the article back 4 times, each time against clear talk page consensus (8 to 1 against you in the end). An 8:1 talk page consensus, including several admins, is a sufficient basis for removing a redundant image, even without an RfC. Apart from that, full marks for the "civil" attempt at mud throwing; it could always be that some sticks, eh? :) --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 17:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
== Heh ==
Heh, welcome to ''my'' world. I do appreciate the occasional friendly face, and I'll miss you when you've given up and moved on. Don't know what's wrong with me. Some attraction to lost causes, I guess. ] (]) 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:I'm not going anywhere. :) Feel free to ping me any time if you want a third opinion. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 17:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
== "This movie isn't about cream cheese!" - mother in old "Durbingle the Goat Boy" comic strip, regarding Philadelphia ==
== "This movie isn't about cream cheese!" - mother in old "Durbingle the Goat Boy" comic strip, regarding Philadelphia ==
"This movie isn't about cream cheese!" - mother in old "Durbingle the Goat Boy" comic strip, regarding Philadelphia
That is unfortunate indeed.
On the one hand, Misplaced Pages isn't censored, and there are instances where sexually explicit text, images, sound, or video may be appropriate per policy and guidelines, and beneficial to the article. And in such instances I think they should be there...
On the other hand (I have two free, since I am not a one-handed typist) I think they should be there... at least for adults who want them and knowingly consent that they may be shocked by something, if not for all. Misplaced Pages is a shock site encyclopedia in many respects. Sexually explicit content might not be limited to articles where the title subject is something which would necessarily imply anything sexual (and Special:Random certainly gives none whatsoever). If there are reliable sources that established "X in pornography" is a notable subject, etc. per policies and guidelines, where X is something not inherently pornographic or sexual or erotic or anything like, and X may even unfortunately be something popular with populations that disapprove of pornography for religious reasons, or populations that cannot legally be shown pornography, or sexually abused people who may find it traumatic, or other sensitive viewers, I'm not sure what means in accordance with policy and guidelines that Misplaced Pages has of keeping that subject and related images out of article X. Likewise, Misplaced Pages has no means of guaranteeing that any page regarding anything might for just a second or for a prolonged period of time have pornography (or hate speech, or whatever) added to it as an act of vandalism. Given that this is the case, it would be seemingly be prudent for Misplaced Pages to more actively consider more ways of largely or entirely preventing vandalism or unwanted (or illegal?) exposure to sexually explicit content from happening.
At a bare minimum, one would think it would be reasonable for users visiting the site to make a self-attested statement of age and be required to turn on images, rather than turn them off (not that either of those address everything, given that age can be lied about, and adult content may appear in text and audio). IMDb and eBay, for example, both do age agreements and require consent to access adult content. Better that Misplaced Pages come up with workable solutions than say in the future the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers requiring all websites with sexually explicit content be placed in the .XXX domain and that internet service providers be required to always get validation of users' ages, and so on. Not to say that something like that will necessarily happen, though the history of film, TV, and videogames as well as some of the positions taken in debates over things like Net neutrality don't make it seem terribly far-fetched, at least to me. But I suspect anything I could possibly think of to address any of these problems has been shot down in the past and is already characterized as notfree, censorship, policycreep, and as a perennial proposal.
Back on the first hand, Misplaced Pages defines itself as "the 💕 that anyone can edit." Anyone. If the sexually abused infant child of fundamentalist parents living somewhere where pornography is punishable by death somehow precociously made its way directly to e.g. Bukkake, Misplaced Pages freely gives that person the right to view the page and to edit it if they can somehow manage that as well. Or serial-killing necrophiliac zoophiles. Or immoral litterbugs. And we should be "open and welcoming" to them all, perhaps by assuming in good faith that no editor could possibly be these things, or be anything other than a good-tempered, law-abiding adult who knowingly consents to the possibility that they might see or hear anything here at any time.
Back on the second hand, maybe that's something of a slippery slope straw man or something, although the black letter definition's scope is plainly that unlimited. So perhaps it's an imperfect definition; it might be a little overbroad, possibly? Well, Misplaced Pages isWP:NOTDONE (odd that's an essay and not a pillar, otherwise WP could freeze all editing and new article creation, but I guess "Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone can edit and distribute" encompasses it). So, anyone might want to consider editing the definition sometime. But only if there can be said to be a consensus. Arglebargle. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I have long argued that Misplaced Pages should have a system similar to Google and Flickr, requiring an age-related (Flickr) opt-in to see adult content. The 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content (3 parts) came to similar conclusions; current status is here. If that were implemented, that would be half the problem solved. My view on the Bukkake article specifically is: one of the drawings is okay (and I'll work on that graphic so we can swap them again), but two was too much. As for Pearl_necklace_(sexuality), I dunno.
Basically, my thoughts on the matter of appropriate illustration are summarised here: (this is the only section of the essay I wrote; for the rest, the essay is perhaps just slightly conservative than I would be, although I will defend the author's right to express this point of view) and here.
The other thing is, all the pornography articles have very high viewing figures. It's important to get the text right. Let's do some more work on the Bukkake article; the Moore chapters look promising. Cheers, --JN46622:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
A problem with proposing with requiring an age-related opt-in to see adult content is that adult content can appear in text, audio, images or video on any page at any time (except presumably for the small percentage that have no edit tabs, like the disclaimer pages). Misplaced Pages:Advice for parents does a poor job of explaining this, I think, and isn't all that prominent a page on the site. Yes, " in relevant areas throughout the site, you will find possibly distressing content and pictures showing subjects like sexual activity or profanity in context" contains some things that are true, but it is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Such content may appear in irrelevant areas (including the page with this claim!), and it may or may not be in context in either of those kinds of areas. It acknowledges the appearance in irrelevant areas to a degree: "Pages which are normally appropriate for children to use may be vandalized with rude words or content which may be offensive." The words might be more than rude though, and the problem with text is not limited to individual words, but may be offensive clauses, sentences, paragraphs, or entire articles. "Content" does encompass all that, and the images, audio and video, but it doesn't fully spell that out in a candid instructive way. "Vandalism is normally noticed and removed within a few minutes, if not seconds (via the recent changes function); but sometimes it can remain unnoticed for days, and even if not, someone will have to see it before it can be removed, and this could be anyone." Misplaced Pages's source for vandalism statistics and reversions for every single page is what, exactly? It is known that vandalism can remain unnoticed for months or years too, but it doesn't admit that. There is at least a disclaimer link on the home page, not that it's very prominent.
If I randomly cut together each scene of every movie that had ever been made, and started projecting it, I could say only parts of it have XXX content, and that the XXX content is a small percentage of the whole film, but I couldn't say when the XXX scenes might appear, nor could I admit minors. I could put disclaimers somewhere people might see it, if they came in a certain way. But then still admitting everybody knowing that some of them are children and some of them haven't read the disclaimers isn't particularly responsible. Having an age-related opt-in for adult content would only serve a purpose if it were required for the whole site.
The essay ASTONISH doesn't really address all the significant ways a viewer might be shocked. Misplaced Pages may have articles or sections of articles on things a person never would have expected an encyclopedia would. The explicit content is not addressed on Misplaced Pages's home page. Search autocompletion gives page titles but not descriptions or ratings. A person looking up something the meaning of which they don't know may find something radically different than their expectations. Someone following a link in from somewhere else wouldn't see a warning on the home page even if there was one. Listing all the significant ways probably might go on for some time and might be impractical. One can summarize some things by saying that vandalism means a viewer can be misguided, shocked, surprised, overwhelmingly confused, deeply offended, or traumatized by any page at any moment. Unrestricted editing means the constant possibility of astonishment. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your editions to the lead despite of your grammar and style could be better than mine. Nothing against you nor against your efforts (thanks!), but I found some inaccuarcies in your edition, that I will discuss here before changing the lead. ¿Ok? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The SPK's illness concept is not a concept of mental illness, if you read all its documentation you will easily find that SPK emphatically reject a distinction between so called mental' and 'physical' illnesses. They even empghatically said: illness as being one although divided by medical-means into illneses.
In the SPK you and even the police could find books from Marx, Engels, Hegel, even about guerrilla, and even from the psychiater Wilhelm Reich, but not even one book or text about anti-psyichiatry and that issue was never discussed in the SPK. The allegedely relation between SPK and 'antipsychiatry movement' has been emphatically rejected also by the SPK. SPK even attacks the anti-psyichiatry movement as a reformist medical-movement, leaded by doctors who remained being doctors and part of the iatro-capitalism.
SPK emphatically and expresively refers to Illness against iatro-capitalism. It is a basic part of their ideology and its illness concept, as they consider the fundamental identity/contradiction being precisely Illness against capitalism. Replacing the word capitalism with "diseased society" misrepresents SPK ideology. And also you will find that SPK repeatedly claims to be a pro illness collective as being the core of its revolutionary concept, so I think it should not be supressed.
You're right about the point with illness not being restricted to mental illness. That was my mistake, and should be corrected. --JN46617:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I accept that the SPK does not and did not associate itself with the anti-psychiatry movement; so I agree that phrase ("A part of the anti-psychiatry movement...") should be removed. What is true is that they received some support from members of the anti-psychiatry movement, notably Foucault; I think that is okay to state. Would you agree? --JN46617:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a reference to an "ill society" on the spk website (in a piece by Sartre, however, rather than Huber). Parker has a reference to an "insane world" here; would you say that the summary is inaccurate? I don't mind limiting it to capitalism, if that is what the SPK themselves said; but didn't the other elements Parker mentions play into it as well? --JN46617:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
So, fixing my blunders (thanks for pointing them out!), would this be okay as a lead?
The Socialist Patients' Collective (in German ''Sozialistisches Patientenkollektiv, or SPK) was a patients' collective founded in Heidelberg in February 1970, by Wolfgang Huber, a doctor at the Heidelberg Psychiatric Clinic; it emerged from the Patients' Front which had existed since 1965.
The SPK considered mental and physical illness to be caused by the capitalist system, and viewed it as an appropriate response to such a system; and it saw doctors as the system's ruling class. Its declared aim was, and remains, to "turn illness into a weapon", a vision that attracted support from intellectuals and anti-psychiatrists like Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault. Under pressure from German law enforcement over alleged terrorist links, the SPK declared its self-dissolution in July 1971, "as a strategic withdrawal"; Huber and his wife were arrested and jailed. Since then, the SPK has continued its activities as the Patients' Front, today the PF/SPK(H).
About Foucault: what I know and is documented is certainly J.P. Sartre supported and encouraged decisevely SPK, and he participated and encouraged the counter-investigations on the SPK-trials, and he even wrote a support preface to one of the SPK books, indeed a very important book containing the core of SPK concepts. I also know and it is documented that Foucault and others, signed a press declaration when some SPK patients were imprissoned, but except that, he did nothing else; but it is also documented that some years later, Foucault did nothing but remained sat when some PF patients were attacked in a medical congress were PF patients made public for the first time one of its fundamental texts (Iatrocracy on a world wide scale ). -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you agree if we do not stigmatize Sartre as beeing a "leftist intellectual"? but perhaps you would find a better anecdote to know that Sartre was so "crazy" (for whom?) that not only he did supported SPK practice and concepts, but he also did rejected a Nobel price!!! But I am not suggesting to include that label in this article. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem with dropping the leftist descriptor. :) Sartre is quite well known enough and has his own biography; deleted above. That there was support from Foucault, at least at one time, is mentioned here; as his is a well-known name, I think it might be worth including, even if Sartre's support was somewhat more substantial than Foucault's. --JN46618:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
