Incerdently was anyone able to find a nipple on the picture? -- geni

Arkady Rose wrote: Why does the tone of inquiry from this side of the issue so often turn mocking and taunting like this? Does this help?

Heres a simple question - We've given the cons of nudity on Wikipedia, do you have any reasonable pros, apart from making Wikiporn?

You evaded my question. Whether or not the exposed nipples, vaginas or whatever does not have to be downloaded by users, sufficient cons have been given by those against the nudity. No pros, I believe, have been given for it.

On 4/15/05, Tom Haws <hawstom(a)sprintmail.com> wrote: I'd say this is an excellenct question. It is true that the NPOV nature of Wikipedia means that our content will sometimes offend people. That seems inevitable. But I am dismayed by the complete lack of social sensitivity that I often see displayed in the course of defending the inclusion of content that may be offensive to some. If your cultural background is different from that of others -- even to the point where you believe their culture to be stupid, or backwards, or disfunctional -- that does not make it right for you to be openly mocking or dismissive or disrespectful. Cultural differnces are a reality in this world, and we're working on a multi-lingual and multi-cultural project here. I suspect that if someone posted to this list being scornful or mocking of, say, Muslim culture, they would get slapped down hard, and likely be banned from the list if they persisted. Is my suspicion wrong? Yet we're very tolerant of this sort of culture bashing when it comes to conservative Christian culture. You don't have to agree with someone's culture to respect that culture and members of it. Let's all try to show a little more respect for each other. --Rich Holton [[W:en:User:Rholton]]

On 4/15/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: Actually, Tony, you seem to have missed my point completely. There is a very real difference between criticizing a thing -- even something that some people consider sacred -- and being scornful or mocking of people, individually or as a culture. So, if you want to test my theory personally (note that I am not asking you to, nor do I want you to) you would have to change your message to mock Christians (as Christians) and Muslims (as Muslims), or their respective cultures. And you would have to do it in a context where you are not simply being contrary. Please don't take this as some sort of challenge. I'm not interested in your being insulting of people just to see who gets pissed. After all, that would seem to be quite troll-like. --Rich Holton [[W:en:User:Rholton]]

On 4/15/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: Tony, You are right. I made some assumptions that I should not have, introduced things that did not belong, and expressed my main point very poorly. It was certainly a mistake for me to bring Islam into the conversation. My intent was to provide a comparative example that might help others to understand my point. However, as I say, that was a mistake. It was also a mistake for me to bring Christianity in the conversation. As you rightly point out, religion was not part of the conversation. I do think that the western "breast taboo" has its roots in (especially Elizabethan) Christianity, but I should not have assumed that religion was involved here. (Just as an aside, I don't believe that the Christian faith requires a taboo on exposed female breasts. However, it is one expression of Christian faith as it is practiced in much of the west -- certainly in the US.) Leave out Christian or Islam culture, and think about a "conservative world view" -- although don't take "conservative" as a political orientation, but as a sort of moral world view that is shared by a great number of people of virtually all political leanings. Part of that "conservative world view" is sensitivity to exposed female breasts in public and especially in front of older children (kids under 2 or 3 often don't count). My original point (better expressed) was (and is) that there have been cases of a mocking attitude directed toward people who share that conservative world view. Arkacy Rose's comment was an example. Some of these obviously don't qualify as personal attacks -- they're not directed at a particular person. However, they often have much the same effect when you're in coversation with someone who shares that world view. Mocking people for their world view is not constructive. It does not further the goals of Wikipedia or Wikimedia. However,I am not trying to make an example of Arkady Rose. Rather, my hope and intent is to reduce the level of incivility in these discussions. We should all be able to disagree with one another, even give and accept correction, without resorting to disrespect and incivility. -- Rich Holton [[W:en:User:Rholton]]

Richard Holton wrote: I understand the point you were trying to make Richard but mocking people's world view actually has a hugely constructive history. Many a revolution would never had happened if this form of polemic had not being employed. Christiaan

Ray Saintonge (saintonge(a)telus.net) [050417 08:11]: Yeah, but then there's some incredulity at how far one can be expected to bend over backwards. x: (suggestion that is not only nonsensical but defies technical possibility) y: "That's ridiculous." x: "YOU BASTARDS ARE ALWAYS MAKING FUN OF US! HAVE RESPECT!" It's a tricky one. - d.

On 4/16/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: What harm can be cause by personal attacks, which we have a policy against? -- Rich Holton [[W:en:User:Rholton]]

On 4/16/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: Your distinction, in this case, is false. Ridicule can be just as easily addressed to people as to ideas. In fact, ridicule, even against an idea, is specifically designed to have an impact on the adherents of that idea. It behaves very much like a personal attack (as I mentioned early). Criticism can be distinguished from ridicule by its basis in logical argument and by its respect for others. I am criticizing your criticism of my post. Neither of us has engaged in ridicule. I hope you can see the difference. -- Rich Holton [[W:en:User:Rholton]]

Richard Holton wrote: Having a policy on personal attacks is not what defines the harm. Rather, the policy exists because of the harm. Certainly kings and emperors leave themselves open to ridicule, but there are very few kings and emperors in the world and far more of the rest of us. Ridicule is an integral part of military propaganda. It was used in World War 2, the Korean War and the Vietnam War to characterize orientals whether they believed in their countries' war policies or not. It is used in schoolyard bullying as a form a psychological abuse when a child is somehow different from the norm. For revolutionaries it tells me that they are more interested in personal power than in an ethical change to what ails a society. Ec

Ray Saintonge wrote: That's quite a revealing conflation of mocking and throwing bombs if I might say so. I'm reading The Vote: How It was Won and How It Was Undermined, by Paul Foot, at the moment. It's a long history of "moral force" reformers (most from the comfortable middle class) undermining the reformers and revolutionaries who could have got the job done centuries ago. We came across exactly the same situation on the human shield action to Iraq. We had a bunch of comfortable middle class Brits with us who made every effort to undermine the action and further their own resume (and pockets in one case). One even pronounced the slogan "Truth Justice Peace" too "hardcore" and pushed for it to be removed from the buses. When in Turkey some argued that we shouldn't criticise the Turkish government because it wasn't our government and therefore might cause "offence"!! The millions of people around the world who came out onto the streets to protest the invasion of Iraq on February 15th, 2003 were again afflicted by this horrible disease; had they been ready to riot and confront our rotten politicians with violence (the only language they know) then I don't doubt for a second that the invasion of Iraq would never had gone ahead. I prefer the revolutionary who gets the job done and doesn't foreclose on any strategy on any basis other than that of effectiveness; I've learnt from experience to despise the so-called "revolutionary" or "reformer" who does otherwise, they're barrier to emancipation and always will be, and they're certainly not revolutionaries. Christiaan