I second this. I'd love to see this debate re-opened. Kate Winslet, for example, has 10,000+ images available of her, why do we need to choose the nude one? This is more ridiculous than [[Autofellatio]]. It really is somebodys wet dream.

On 4/13/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner(a)mail.wikimedia.org> wrote: Really, one does have to ask though - why has this screen capture in particular been chosen to adore [[Titanic (1997 movie)]]? I suggest to anyone who thinks that it is just a coincidence, that they need a reality check. In fairness, would a screengrab of the actual ship from the movie not be more appropriate? (Then again, considering the plot... :-) I do just think that in this specific instance (bigger pictures aside), it is unnecessary to have an image which infringes on some readers' sensitivities. Why cause offence even to a minority when it is trivial to avoid doing so without comprimising the article (or perhaps even improving it)? It does seem fairly immature to choose that one screenshot for the article about the whole movie. Zoney -- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

But there's still the difference of "expectation". You can't go to an article about private parts and expect to see no pictures. The Titanic article is a whole different story, though I think some people are really overreacting about this. What about the famous "King of the World"-scene. Shouldn't that make for a nice image to add to the article? --Mgm On 4/13/05, Tom Haws <hawstom(a)sprintmail.com> wrote:

On 4/14/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: I haven't seen it yet and now you've spoiled the ending! -- Andy Roberts http://blog.ultralab.net/~blogger/andy/ http://www.ukcider.co.uk

Alphax wrote: Ahhh! I think I'm beginning to understand. It's about the tragedy of sinking breasts that comes with aging. :-) Ec

Zoney said: See the plot outline in the article--or even better, just get the DVD and watch it again. The significance of that particular scene will become clear. For some reason the director chose to have Ms Winslet's character undraped at that point, which is why she is undraped in the screenshot. The article already has the movie poster which features the bow of the ship, but it could probably do with a few more stills, including the spectacular sinking.

Tom Haws said: Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen.

Sj said: I don't think so. A man who can't even bring himself to type the word clitorisis truly creating for himself a great gulf of communication.

Tony Sidaway wrote: What would make it difficult for me to bring myself to type "clitorisis" is the simple fact that it's a misspelling. I have considered pushing the POV that the proper plural should be "clitorides". :-) Ec

Cut'n'paste from Google language tools: "About which one cannot speak, over it one must be silent."

On 4/14/05, Tom Haws <hawstom(a)sprintmail.com> wrote: I found this page (from another wiki) to be useful in understanding the quote. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LittleWittgensteinQuote --Rich Holton [[W:en:User:Rholton]]

My pleasure! What Tony was referring to was your use of a rhethorical trick. But since you seem to be unaware of it, it's not quite right to label it a trick and instead let us call it a mistake. Basically you were employing a variant of "The affecteds perspective" and "underreporting" (excuse my terminology, English is not my naitive language). Your argumentation was that you yourself belongs to a large group of people who is negatively affected by the words "nude" and "picture" in the subject-line of mailing-list discussions. It is a great way to argue for something, because it diverts attention from the subject and makes the discussion personal. It makes it very hard for me to try and argue that you are wrong because you have taken the role as one that is "affected." The same thing happens if you are arguing sexual assault issues against a rape victim - she will have a huge advantage because she is "affected." Same thing with arguing housing issues with homeless people etc. For the rest of the audience: Think of how you would have read Tom Haws message if he had not said he himself was affected, and just referred to those affected by "nude" and "picture" subject lines as "they." As I said, it is a great way to imply that you are speaking for a large group of people when in reality, you are only speaking for yourself. The only effective way to really counter that argument is to be a member of the group of people you try to present. And it will be hard since you stated that "many others like me ... also have various reasons to be discouraged from participating in debates about the same images." Well, I'm a son, a brother, a boyfriend, a Christian, an engineer and many other roles in which I am loathe to be associated with the subjects of these debates, but that hasn't stopped me from participating so obviously I cannot pretend to speak of being a member of the group you are representing. The other trick I was speaking of was your use of "underreporting." Not many have reported an inability to participate in wiki-en debates because of bad subject lines, why? Underreporting! Since noone has objected they must be afraid... Sorry to sound harsh, it is not my intention. I'm sure what I have called rhethorical tricks are just honest mistakes that we all do when arguing sometimes. It is just good to be aware of them. -- mvh Björn

Sean Barrett said: Roughly correct. "Whereof we cannot speak, we must forever remain silent." I felt that it was an apt encapsulation of the dilemma faced by a man who has opinions on subjects whose names he cannot bring himself even to type.

Ray Saintonge (saintonge(a)telus.net) [050414 05:39]: As Geni's summary of the user's edits showed (to me, anyway), the user who contributed said picture was almost certainly engaging in that popular Internet sport known as "trolling," and, as such, isn't on the side of anyone here. Solution: take it out of the article. If there's an uproar demanding it be reinstated, a discussion on the talk page probably ending in a poll is the likely result. Problem solved. - d.

Richard Holton (richholton(a)gmail.com) [050414 10:50]: The ArbCom has noted that *holding* a strong POV is not prima facie evidence of *POV-pushing* per se. I have some *very* strong opinions, and I do write about the subjects. But NPOV is the rule here, and if you hold a strong opinion you have to use your knowledge of your POV within that. Even a call to arms is not prima facie evidence of POV pushing per se. Though it will result in edits that may result from it being scrutinised *very* closely. On the blogsforterri blog entry mentioned above, I'd like particularly to draw your attention to comments left by DimeStore. In particular this one, which I think is material worth adapting for an NPOV tutorial: Here's some important information for updating Wikipedia: 1) You cannot just edit the page on Terri Schiavo, as it has been classified as a controversial topic. This means you have to justify the changes on the discussion board first, or they'll just be replaced. It's been split into a few topics so they're easy to find and dispute. 2) There's a standing policy against putting speculation in the articles because it causes big messes. So when you make an edit you need to include a source or references. 3) There's also a strong disapproval of flaming on the board, so be careful with your language. Accusing others of being "pro-death" or inflammatory statements about the people involved, which I've seen a few times here, will only damage our position. 4) Again, please don't just edit the page or flame. This particular article has already had massive disputes with one user (NCDave) who was banned after doing all of the above. He would edit the article again and again after insulting everyone and was later found to be fabricating evidence. He represented us badly, and we need to show them that we're rational and we know what we're talking about. *Pushing* a POV is unacceptable. Accurately *representing* a POV is another thing. Lots of points also to jdavidb on that thread, who said much the same things: NPOV is the only treaty that makes this kind of discussion workable. It is the only way vastly different sides can agree on what should be in the article. If you will not commit to NPOV, you will not help. - d.