Talk:Sexual objectification/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old, unsectioned comments

This needs to be extensively exapanded and reworked. There is a more general meaning, for example, and that should (perhaps) be the first one dealt with. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:59, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I removed the reference to masochism, as I personally know people (plural) that have this particular fetishism without any masochistic or submissive tendencies. Also, in people that have masochistic or submissive tendencies, it may also appear distinctly from those tendencies/interests. Note also that erotic humiliation is not intrinsic to masochism and submission, although it is a common feature. --193.217.126.54 07:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The section headed "Objectification" has an extremely odd emphasis. It ignores sexual objectification in everyday life, which I would suggest is the most important area of the topic; instead, it focuses on certain famous people in the U.S.A. who allegedly "fall in such category" (perhaps meaning, "whose public persona seems to invite sexual objectification" from unspecified others). That removes all responsibility for objectification from those who do it, and puts it instead on those who are objectified. But if objectification is so harmless, and supposedly highly sought by many to whom it happens, why be silent about what it is and who is doing it? DSatz 18:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

"The way women are portrayed as sex objects by mass media is contributing to the double burden women are experiencing today in society."
I don't disagree with this statement, but it is clearly not NPOV. Many people would question its factuality. Suggestions? 131.252.241.248 12:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

There is also a POV (held by myself, among others) that "sexual objectification" is a nebulous concept and that none of the critics of "objectification" have offered a meaningful distinction between the concept of "sexual objectification" and sexual attraction in general. The article is imbalanced in that it treats feminist objections to sexual objectification as fact rather than a point of view and does not offer opposing viewpoints. Iamcuriousblue 17:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So where are your specific remedies for fixing this? If you cannot do a good edit, please remove the text which you feel certain biases the article, or place near text that verges on Original Research (see WP:NOR). An article cannot just remain in NPOV limbo indefinitely (now closing in on 5 months). Note that I'm NOT disagreeing with you - I think you have made good observations. :) Thanks. --NightMonkey 19:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing the tags. Article looks ridiculous as it is now. Either remove the text you think is "weasel" or npov, or add {{Fact}} as previous commenter mentioned. I don't see a benefit for all those tags for such a brief article with so little info in it. Look at feminist research for info on sexual objectification. Towsonu2003 19:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if you happen to think the tags "look ridiculous", they're there for a reason. It is not incumbent upon the editor tagging the article to re-edit said article, nor is there any rule in Wikipedia stating that tags need to be removed within a certain period of time. Tags can remain indefinitely if the article is not improved. Furthermore, your utterly facile reply "Look at feminist research for info on sexual objectification", as if that constituted a reply to criticisms raised.

There are several problems which strongly interfere with the neutrality of this article – 1) The concept of "sexual objectification" is treated as established sociological fact rather than a concept in feminist theory and 2) "Objectification" is a hugely contested concept, even within feminism – what constitutes objectification and whether it's morally problematic and under what circumstances is a point of huge disagreement, within and outside of feminism. This article doesn't even begin to cover that, simply accepting this concept and the moral condemnation of it at face value.

This makes this article POV. Sorry, the tags stay until the problems with the article are remedied. Iamcuriousblue 11:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The taggage is overkill, and "Sorry, the tags stay" and "I don't care" are not defenses. It should be easy to eliminate at least one of the neutrality tags, and the article is hardly a stub so expansion per se is not needed. Overall, the approaches NightMonkey proposes are more productive — in an article this short, identifying neutrality issues is hardly a long-term project.

That said, thank you for identifying specific concerns.

• While I can imagine "nebulous" usage of the term sexual objectification, I'm not seeing that problem in this article. Can you point out sentences where it's occurring?
• Can you add or link a meaningful distinction between the concept of "sexual objectification" and sexual attraction in general? This sounds pretty interesting. Keep in mind that both can be overlapping (and even mutually supportive), so identifying sexual attraction does not rule out objectification, and vice versa.
• Bonus if you can show (or link to) how the concept of "objectification" is contested, especially within feminism.

All in all, this is very promising. But please remove the tags. / edgarde 15:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not even begun to demonstrate that this article is unbiased, yet you insist on removing the NPOV tag. I find this article to be POV for the reasons stated above and am restoring the tag. The tag is accurate, the neutrality of this aritlce is contested, therefore the tag should stay until the issue is resolved. And I put the burden on you – demonstrate to me that "sexual objectification" is a concept that is fundamentally agreed upon by radical feminists, sex-positive feminists, and non-feminists alike. It isn't, and I don't think an article like this one that is biased strongly toward radical feminist views on sexual objectification can be remotely called NPOV. Iamcuriousblue 17:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've substantially reedited the article and removed the NPOV page. The article now points to objectification as a concept, rather than stating it matter-of-factly as a statement of objective sociological truth. Various perspectives on the concept of objectification are given.

The article still has problems with unsourced statements and I've tagged it as such. Iamcuriousblue 20:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Another note – I also tagged the "Fetishism" section for removal and merger with the larger article on fetishism. Its only peripherally related to the main subject of this article, and therefore carries undue weight within the article. Iamcuriousblue 20:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Fetishism

It has been suggested[1] the Fetishism section of this article be merge into Fetishism. Please discuss.

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Strongly support: The discussion of fetishism is entirely peripheral to the discussion of sexual objectification. While it might be argued that fetishism, is "objectifying", I can't think of anybody, even radical feminists (who generally object to both objectification and fetishism), who think that sexual fetishism plays a particularly strong role in the phenomenon of sexual objectification in general. I therefore think that this section carries undue weight in the context of the article. It should be cut out, and any aspect of that section that isn't already covered in the "Sexual fetishism" article should be merged into the latter article. Iamcuriousblue 17:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Seeing now that sexual objectification is a specific sexual fetish, I can now see what its doing in this article. It should therefore either be part of this article, or perhaps broken off into its own article, with a link from this article. Iamcuriousblue 23:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The merge tag may originate in a misreading. The fetishism described on this page is a fetish specificly for sexual objectification. This is commonly listed in BDSM resources (quick finds [2], [3]). Also, one may argue (tho I imagine the person who placed that tag does not wish to) that this sexual interest relates to or plays a role in other sexual objectification situations. / edgarde 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

• Abstain. I don't care. 99.254.94.100 (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• More to the point, the Fetishism page is not for sexual fetishes. Whoever placed that tag might have been thinking of Sexual fetishism. Or maybe they didn't read. / edgarde 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I was the one who placed the tag, and I now see why the section is there. (This is a really example of why sources should be cited whenever possible.) It should be clarified, then, that this is discussing a specific sexual fetish for "objectification", rather than some Wikipedia editor running at the keyboards and writing about various random things that they find "objectifying to women" or what have you. I'll give the links and re-edit the section so it more clearly reflects what the sources are talking about. Iamcuriousblue 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'll probably keep the tag on it for a little while longer, since I've started a discussion about this. Iamcuriousblue 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think reading that section, it's pretty clear what it's about.

If you want to write an new paragraph for the Sexual fetishism article, you should write it there instead of here. Re-writing it for your own Merge request is a bit roundabout. / edgarde 23:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, You need to either remove your Merge request, or update the correspoding merge tags by moving them from Fetishism to Sexual fetishism.  edgarde 23:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, also, if you're a sockpuppet for User:Peter G Werner, can you please edit this page as either him or you, but not as both? You can't claim to be a "legitimate" sockpuppet if both of you edit articles interchangably. This article's history has edits by both of you, which is a nuisance. / edgarde 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, try to be co-operative, and see what you get. I guess some people just have a giant chip on their shoulder. As for my edits 1) Wikipedia is an independent entity from London Fetish Wiki, so edits can be made here independent of that Wiki; 2) I don't think the previous version was at all as to how it was connected to this article, that's why I made the edits I did, 3) I didn't remove the merge tag because now that I've place the tag there, I though it would be best to keep it for a little while longer to see if anybody else had an opinion to air; beyond that, I could care less if the "merge" tag stays. As for my sockpuppet, its legitimate because I don't use the sockpuppet to give myself a second vote. Other uses are legitimate, even if you happen to find them a "nuissance". I suggest if you have as big of a problem with me as you seem to, that you take it to moderation. Or just chill the hell out – how about that? Iamcuriousblue 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't categorize my comments as a personal attack. My issue is the edits, and my reasons are given — if you didn't notice them above, I hope you'll take the time to go back and re-read that section. / edgarde 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Fetishism section re-write

I've restored the last version of Sexual objectification#Fetishism by 64.26.98.90. Iamcuriousblue's change had multiple problems in addition to the ones I mentioned above. / edgarde 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

information from wipipedia

Changes introduced by Iamcuriousblue were taken from another wiki, contradicting WP:RS. / edgarde 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

gratuitous header change

Gratuitous header changes should to be avoided because they break links to page anchors. Also, the retitle Objectification as a sexual fetish is unnecessarily redundant. If Iamcuriousblue wants this section merged into the other article, the header change is by definition unnecessary. / edgarde 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge tags removed

Planting merge tags without following the procedure in WP:MERGE is also a nuisance.

Iamcuriousblue insists on leaving these tags up without fixing them in the appropriate articles.

I have already once placed merge tags in Fetishism to support this Merge suggestion, but I won't repeatedly do this work for Iamcuriousblue. Now I'm just deleting them (from this article and from Fetishism[4]) as they are not properly implemented, not needed (per Iamcuriousblue'sown vote), and broken.

If anyone wishes to, in the spirit of being "co-operative", revive this Merge request, please follow the procedure in WP:MERGE so they do not need to be deleted again. / edgarde 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm concerned about the neutrality of this article. Much of the content seems heavily biased towards the objectification of women, and the brief discussion of men seems focused mainly on television shows instead of the attitudes prevalent in society itself. Furthermore, various parts of the article seem to contain misandry-like undertones and statements. --HarmonicFeather 02:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Much of it is focused on the objectification of women because it is a feminist concept... What were you expecting? Add {{Fact}} where you feel the statements need to be supported by citations. Towsonu2003 19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem, Edgarde!

You've reverted every single edit I've made to the "Fetishism" section based upon what I can only call "creative" interpretations of Wikipedia rules. You state that other Wiki's aren't a reliable source – fine. But then why do you insist on keeping text that is taken verbatim from that other Wiki. If its not a reliable source, it shouldn't be there at all. According to your interpretation, it seems, it can be there, but it cannot be edited at all. There is also no rule that says one cannot change section titles. Your reverts are arbitrary and I can only conclude that you are being difficult simply for the sake of being difficult. I am going to revert my edits back in – if you don't like it, I insist on taking this to arbitration. This is nonsense. Iamcuriousblue 17:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My problems with your edits are stated explicitly above. You're dismissing them out of hand, and characterizing my objections as a personal dispute, but it's not. And your insistence on leaving broken merge tags did not justify those being let stand.

The Arbitration Committee would refuse your request as it's premature. Would you like to go to mediation? / edgarde 18:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to take it to mediation, or I would like you to stop blocking every single edit of that section out of hand. Iamcuriousblue 18:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As before, reasons for changes are made explicit, this time in the edit history. Curiousblue: I would appreciate it if your reaction would not take the form of a personal attack. / edgarde 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology?

The following highly questionable statement was just added:

Evolutionary psychologists, anthropologists and other researchers identify sexual objectification by heterosexuals as a method of evaluating the reproductive fitness of a potential sexual partner.

Unless somebody adds some citations for this in the next few weeks, I'm taking this out. Which evolutionary psychologists and "other researchers" actually say this. Are they saying this about sexual attraction or sexual objectification? I realize the two concepts are poorly differentiated by many feminists who talk about ojectification, however, unless the evolutionary psychologists in question are directly talking about sexual objectification, this statement is out of place. Iamcuriousblue 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

photo

At the risk of stepping on toes again, I am concerned about the image that has been added. No one discussed adding it to the article.

• I don't think the image seems to represent objectification at all. Is there some reason to believe that the show was about objectification?
• I don't think that the image should be used until its legal status is determined. There are pictures of three women, and no clarification to whether the pciture is used with their permission.

I tried to remove the image until that can be clarified, but have been reverted. Could I get some other feedback on this? Atom 17:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no legal issues, since I am the photographer and took photographs of a show, of which the subjects were a part. Showing women vacuuming topless in their underwear as part of a fashion show clearly exemplifies sexual objectification; in fact, I don't know how it can be anymore clear. --DavidShankBone 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that gives you a right to your own personal copy of the photo's. You can't publish them. As for sexual, well, perhaps I am inured, but I see that all of the time. There is nothing sexual about a topless woman. If she had nipple clamps on, or another person were fingering her it might be sexual. Wouldn't "sexual objectification" imply that it had to be related to sex in some way? Are you implying that because the three are the same gender, that it is "gender" based? Also, objectification, that would be the act of representing an abstraction as a physical thing or a concrete representation of an abstract idea or principle. What objectification do you refer to? cleaning? housewife? I don't see how there is any objectification here. Perhaps one could make a case that the artist himself was trying to objectify these three women as housewives, or something. How is an example of (arguably) some kind of objectification, that cooincidentally happens to be the female gender an example of "Sexual Objectification"? Does the female gender inherently imply sexual? Or does topless imply sexual? Do them being models imply objectification? Does the fact that it is a photograph therefore make it objectification? If the photo were in some way "pornographic", I guess we could make a case that it might be sexual objectification. It looks like a photo of three topless women vavcuumin a floor to me. Nothing sexual about it.

I'm sorry to be obtuse, but I think it is less than clear to the average Wikipedia reader how this image applies to sexual objectificsation in any way. If we have to explain it to them, then it isn't a good photo to exemplify sexual objectification, now is it? Atom 18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel the photo is very unclear, nor do I feel this is an article that really needs a photo. Iamcuriousblue 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you feel the article does not need a photograph? --DavidShankBone 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel the picture is a good representation of the sexual objectification of women. The irony of women doing their traditional role while topless is readily apparent. It seems a perfect illustration of the topic, and I said as much in a recent WP:ANI discussion. Jeffpw 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but topless women vacuuming does illustrate sexual objectification. The copyright status is another issue. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Satyr, it's a commons picture that the contributer took himself. So I don't think there's a copyright problem. As to the model's needing to sign a release, I don't know, but I assume they are ok with it, as they posed in public with photographers present. The contributer is in the best position to answer that. Jeffpw 18:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue though is whether the photopgrapher has rights to publish his photo. The personal use of the photo is his right. But, the picture is at a modelling show of some kind, and both the people who produced the show, as well as the models themselves could have an issue with the creative work of the show, or the models images being used without permission. I assume that the models signed a release for the producers of the show, but that does not mean that anyone can use any picture of that creative work, or the people in it any way they choose. It is common to see a photo of models on a runway at a modelling show, but that is usually in the context of someone giving a review of the show, or of a models work, or of a particular fashion design. That is covered under fair use. A photographer using the same photo that they took for that review, along with others from the same show in a book, for instance, would result in them being sued. As we have no reason to believe that the producers of this show, or the models have given a release for use, I don't think we should assume that it is okay. Atom 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Then, there is the question of how the photo exemplifies sexual objectification. It doesn't.

• 
  or this,
• 
  or this.

Is a photo even useful for fully describing sexual objectification? It shows bit one aspect, and does not delve in to the deeper issues such as self esteem, power, control and depersonalization. Atom 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - Subkoff is a feminist herself, and in [ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/08/fashion/thursdaystyles/08FASHION.html?ex=1291698000&en=6b4f8d83eee0e670&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss] this New York Times article] on her, even has waged a war in the industry for women to receive more recognition and not to be discriminated against. In this particularly show, she has models playing with the stereotype of women should be pretty creatures, to be looked at, and to clean. The models are roped off. As a woman designing this exhibit, Subkoff's intent is clear. I don't think the image needs to be shocking and show the inherent degradation (though there's no reason more photos can't be put up). But this show makes the more subtle point of the destructiveness that seemingly-innocent notions can have; the image is not shocking, but its implications are.

There are no legal issues, this simply is not an issue. As a law student, I can go into the copyright issues, that this was a public event for a public fashion show, and photography was permitted; even if it wasn't that's a policy at public places, not a legal restriction. It simply is not an issue, and you should review the use of imags WP policy. No consents were necessary, and there is no legal basis for distinguishing between a casual photographer and a professional photographer writing a review. --DavidShankBone 19:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wish you well with law, perhaps this will give you grist for your intellectual property class? I did my first thesis on itellectual proprty in 1980. The law has changed alot since then, but not that much. You are right that it is a public event, and photographers are welcome. Indeed there is no distinction between professional or amatuer photographer when it comes to fair use of copytighted material. You are just as eligible to use the image as a review, criticism or paraody of the model, or of the creative exhibition you photographed. Use in a sexual objectification article is clearly a different issue. I still feel that you need permission to use their image beyond personal use, or fair use. But, I have to say, I like your creative explanation and description of the exhibition. It would have been fun to see in person. Atom 20:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the image David inserted as an excellent use of objectification. The use of the women vacuuming shows the depersonalization that Atom discusses, as well as the other three. Self-esteem in that women are often told their place is in the house, and that their bodies are their sum worth; control in that men historically have tried to chain women to the house. I find it a very intelligent photo, and think it works well here. As a quick aside, I love the pics you posted here, Atom! Sexy, fun images, all! I gather they are public domain, as it is against wiki policy to use fair use images outside of article namespace (see WP:FU, policy section, point 9 for details). I'm gonna plaster them all over my user page! Jeffpw 20:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, thanks for your insight and opinions. Some of it is a stretch for me, but perhaps others identify more with what you see in the photo. The pictures I used offered are, of course, from Wikipedia or the commons site. Click on them and check. Actually the image og Bianca is claimed to be fair use, but I argue that it is not. The photographer (Martin Perrault) offers them for use on wikipedia, but he needs to use cc-2, as David has done, and claiming his own work is fair use, when he is in fact not using them in that context (for review, criticism, or parody). If you think any of them are not being used here appropriately, please feel free to remove, and I will replace with another with a better geneaology. Atom 20:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with using many of the above proposed photos as examples of "objectification" is that it smacks of editorializing, and as such as flatly POV, not to mention original research if the interpretation of the photo as "objectifying to women" is your own personal interpretation not backed up by any extra-Wikipedia source. In the case of the Subkoff modeling show – did Subkoff specifically offer this as an example of "objectification of women" or as a critique of it? If so, that needs to be made clear in the caption. (The photo itself is just a bunch of semi-naked women running around with vacuum cleaners, the meaning of which is not clear without explanation – I don't think its a strong enough photo that its meaning is self-evident.) If not, you're offering up your own interpretation of the imagery as "objectifying", and that kind of editorializing doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. This is why I feel the alternative images offered by Atom are even more problematic. (If you feel bondage photography is "objectifying to women", your entitled to your point of view, but remember, that's your point of view).

This whole article has a very problematic history with being essentially the product of drive-by editorializing by both feminists and mens-rights activists. (Though I've attemted to tone down POV language to a large degree in my previous edits.) I would hope contributions of imagery won't be just more of the same kind of editorializing.

As for my comment that this article doesn't even need photographs, I stand by that. Objectification is a concept from social theory, not a concrete thing. The article on "Relations of production", for example, doesn't use images (other than in the Marx infobox), nor does it need imagery. I feel the same is true of this article. Iamcuriousblue 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, I don't think the photo that you chose reflects the sexual objectification of women. Many societies don't look at womens' breasts as being "sexual". Just because the women are bare breasted in the photo doesn't mean that they are being objectified. However, a person looking at the photo may be able to objectify the models in their mind. I don't think that there is anything sexual about the photo you chose. I would agree with Atom - there are other photos that would better represent the sexual objectification of women.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.218.231 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 January 2007

Photo or no photo

The issue seems to be that some editors feel no photo is "good enough" because as Atom clearly shows, there is no lack of images out there to demonstrate the article. Iamcuriousblue, since Wikipedia is young and many basic articles (such as buildings, which I've contributed a lot to) didn't have photographs. Lack of a photograph doesn't demonstrate that none is needed. I find that argument too high-brow. That some things simply can't be adequately represented in image form. Sexual objectification definitely can be, regardless.
Atom, you shouldn't mistake a debate or explanation of the photograph on the Talk page as evidence the average view won't "get it". I think with an article on women being seen for their physical attributes and not for their emotions or feelings, for a view then to see a photograph of women cordoned behind a velvet rope vacuuming in panties and heels, the leep is not too far.
I completely disagree with the notion this article shouldn't have photographs, especially since it harkens to so many cultural references and images. --DavidShankBone 22:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the photo becuase, as you said David, its from a femisist POV and "sexual objectification of women" is not only a feminist POV thus the photo is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.218.231 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 January 2007

The photo does not qualify for deletion, and the point-of-view is not apparent. And just because a photoraph doesn't demonstrate *all* aspects of a concept doesn't mean it does not belong, or very few articles would have images. --DavidShankBone 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you of your own words: "I disagree - Subkoff is a feminist herself..." So you have made it very clear that the photo is from a feminist POV. I understand you are very proud of your photo, but it really is not an accurate representation of the "sexual objectification of women". Thus, lets have a photo that IS an accurate representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.218.231 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 January 2007

David – I think you could settle a lot of this if you could just provide some reference to where Tara Subkoff says this imagery is a statment about the objectification of women. (The caption should be changed to reflect that.) That way, its a presentation of somebody's statement about objectification, not your opionion that the imagery is objectifying. Iamcuriousblue 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, it's pretty obvious. Regardless, the dress of the models, vacuuming in heels (one of many clues as to its intent) and roped off conceptualize the entirety of the article. Since when does an independent source need to verify a concept applies to an image in which several editors clearly understand it applies. Does every advertiser need to confirm their advertisement was intended to show a woman or man objectified to confirm that it does do that? --DavidShankBone 22:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Its pretty obvious" is still an interpretation – your interpretation. The problem that I'm trying to point to is that this isn't like a photograph of the Golden Gate Bridge or a tomato. You could post a photo of one of those things, and everybody would agree – "yes, that's the Golden Gate Bridge" or "that's a tomato". Sexual objectification, on the other hand, is a fuzzy and highly debated topic. (Why, for example, is a nude model with a vacuum cleaner in some way more objectifying than an image of a clothed image of a housewife with a vacuum cleaner? That is a real debate within feminism, BTW.) So you might say, "this is an image that objectifies women". Somebody may disagree. Then it starts becoming a matter of interpretation, and quickly gets into POV and original research issues. Iamcuriousblue 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope we can all agree that the article needs some visual content. From WP:WIAGA: 6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.(c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale. From Wikipedia:Featured article criteria: It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. So it seems like policy actively encourages images in the articles here. With this in mind, saying the article doesn't need any images makes no sense, to me. Please give it some thought, and feel free to look at the criteria yourselves. Jeffpw 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In most cases I am a strong advocate for a lede image that helps the reader to grasp, in a moment, a great many characteristics of the topic. I have seen how powerful this can be in many articles. Also, other photos with sections that help make the point of the section visually can work. In the long term, I prefer a good, solid, powerful image. The candidate images we have, in my opinion, do not make the point strongly. A really good image should give the reader an "AHA" moment that rings in their ears, if possible. I have looked through the commons site, and on to google pictures, and have not found that kind of image yet, for this article. I think that may be because the subject of this article is more abstract, and harder for people to grasp visually. A compromise might be to use a weaker image. I don't know that any of these qualifies for that. The christ image is to esoteric in nature, the Pamela Anderson image too ambiguous (is sexual attraction the same as objectification?) The religious image too religious (Objectification is the same as iconism?) I prefer to keep looking, myself. Atom 23:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 68.147.218.231

I've largely removed the edits by 68.147.218.231, which were POV, contributed little to the understanding of the subject, and were poorly written.

I've kept subsequent edits concerning the photograph and will wait for further discussion to settle before making any edits based on that. Iamcuriousblue 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Iamcuriousblue

I removed the term "feminists" from the first line of the article because not all people who share this view are feminists thus keeping that term in the article violates the Wikipedia "neutrality" rule. Also, I removed the term "sexist" referring to society because not all societies affected by the sexual objectification of women are sexist. Again, his violates the Wikipedia "neutrality" rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.218.231 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 January 2007

I don't object to you making changes, but you should know that neither of these violates the NPOV policy. The NPOV policy insures that alternative views ARE presented, not that they are not. As some feminists do support the view, saying so is not a violation of NPOV. Saying that ALL feminists support it would not be a violation of NPOV, but simply incorrect. If you quote a source that opines that, and cite the source, it could be okay to say so. It would be fair to quote another source that offers a conflicting perspective, with a cite, that would be NPOV. Atom 21:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

err, Atom, Iamcuriousblue did not make that post. It was made by an anonymous IP. I have thus removed the signature you inserted in your last post here. Jeffpw 21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I looked it up in the edit summary. Must have been confused. Atom 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Atom – are you 68.147.218.231? Because your last round of edits here on the talk page shows up under that signature. If you are 68.147.218.231, I find your statements about NPOV bizarre, since the edits made by 68.147.218.231 are extremely POV and my reversions of them were done in the interest of keeping this article at least somewhat NPOV. The statement about feminists should stand – critiques of "sexual objectification" clearly have their origin in feminist theory, even if others have taken up that critique. Furthermore, I find the statement that "Many people view the objectification of women as one of the main ways in which women are subordinated in society" to be very weasaly, avoiding any statement of who actually holds such views. My edits are only a slight improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. The statement about "sexist society" I think adds clarification in the context of stating that "sexual objectification" is a feminist idea – feminists view the "objectification of women" as oppressive in the context of sexist society or patriarchy. Iamcuriousblue 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not that unsigned IP. I haven't seen the edits you speak of, I will have to go take a look to see if I would agree or not. Although I have no problems with POV edits, as long as they are cited. (POV edits from differing views are what makes an article NPOV). If I make changes that radically differ from yours, they would have citations. Atom 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Atom – Because 68's edit was unsigned, it blended together with your statment. Iamcuriousblue 23:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If my statements are POV, then the entire section of the objectification of men is also POV thus needs to be deleted and revised. I simply copied what was written under the "objectication of men" section as it is relevant for both men and women. Also, "sxual objectification" is NOT only a feminist idea, but a general theory thus the article should not be only from a feminist POV, although that may be your POV, Iamcuriousblue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.218.231 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 January 2007

The idea of "sexual objectification" is not a "general theory" - it is specifically derived from feminist theory and should be presented as such – it is inaccurate to present it otherwise.

I agree that the "Objectification of men" section has huge problems, however, if that's your problem, you should have tried editing that section to make it more NPOV rather than making "Objectification of women" less NPOV. What you've done constitutes disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is specifically prohibited under Wikipedia guidelines. Your point is noted – I still think your edits should be reverted, but "Objectification of men" should similarly be trimmed back. Iamcuriousblue 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, Iamcuriousblue. However, I think using examples of objectification for both sexes helps illustrate the idea and concept of sexual objectification. Thus, I wouldn't want to delete it from either paragraph. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to educate and help people understand so, like photos or illustrations, examples are a great way to do this, so long as they are accurate :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.218.231 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 January 2007

I'm glad there's some kind of consensus emerging. However, I don't think highly of pointing to specific examples, since there's a huge amount of disagreement over what kind of images are "objectifying" or whether "sexual objectification" is a real thing at all. A few examples of some things that certain people have called "objectifying" might be in order (along with clear references as to who considers them "objectifying"), but laundry lists of "objectifying" imagery aren't going to be helpful. BTW, in one of my earlier edits, I did point out that radical feminists consider pornography to be an especially egregious form of objectification (another section notes similar attitudes on the part of social conservatives) – I don't think there's any need to add a list of things that constitute pornography. Oh, it would help if you'd sign your talk page statements, 68. Iamcuriousblue 23:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

68.147.218.231 has once again forced his or her POV edits on this article again. Rather than revert 68 and potentially be in violation of the three-revert rule, I've added an NPOV tag and opened the topic to discussion. I would ask that 68.147.218.231 have the guts to actually engage in discussion here and maybe even sign up under a username and stand by his or her edits rather than engage in anonymous editing.

As it stands, I think the edits by 68.147.218.231 are extremely POV and weasely, presenting the critique of the "objectification of women" as the point of view of "many people" rather than an aspect of feminist theory. These edits also introduce an element of anti-pornography editorializing into this article. IMO, these edits should be reverted or at least seriously modified.

In the spirit of the three-revert rule, I will wait 24 hours before editing again and take into account any discussion that's taken place here. In the meantime, I would ask 68.147.218.231 to actualy discuss his or her edits, rather than engage in anonymous reverting. Iamcuriousblue 22:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with having a block for 68.147.218.231 to edit this page since his or her only objective seems to be to stir the pot and not contribute anything positive. --DavidShankBone 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith unless 68 proves to be absolutely uncooperative toward other editors. Iamcuriousblue 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think 68 has reached that point.--DavidShankBone 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed all of my edits - have you not read them? See above... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.147.218.231 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

It would help if you started siging your statements (use four tildes, which automatically becomes a signiture and timestamp). Iamcuriousblue 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If this IP really is Atom, I think it should be reported to WP:ANI. Jeffpw 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is Atom – 68's not using a signiture has blended one of her comments into his. Iamcuriousblue 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, first, it is not me. We are actively discussing the issue, and that it not how I do things. I may disagree with you, but I work to always treat people honestly and fairly. It is against my ethical values to do otherwise. Second, I've never reverted enough to break the 3rr rule, and don't intend to start on something as trivial as this. Which brings up the topic of [[WP:3RR] I see two different people currently in violation of that. We are working on a consensus. The consensus needs to wait at least until we resolve whether it is a license violation or not. After that we can discuss whether editors feel whether the image is a valuable addition to the article, or not. In the mean time, it is convenient for it to be inthe article for the purposes of discussion, don't you think? I will actively work to prevent edit wars along with the others here. For what it is worth, the editor who seems to be in an edit war with DavidShankBone is in Calgary, Alberta. Atom 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tara Subkoff Imitation of Christ by David Shankbone edited-1.jpg

I see a revert war going on as to whether this image should be here. So lets form a consensus instead. I support this image as an example of a cultural representation of the topic of this article. Please leave your opinions here, and once a consensus is reached we can follow it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, nm I see a discussion is already happening. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose this or any other image, unless the image has been presented or criticized by some external source as "objectifying". The image should then carry the caption to the effect that this image has been refered to as an example of objectification of women/men by (source). This article needs less arbitrary imposition of editors' opinions of the subject, not more. Iamcuriousblue 23:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a valid point, it should be interpreted as being on this subject by a source and the source should be given credit for any opinion given. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - it doesn't take the source that iniates the objectification to confirm it is, in fact, objectification. Advertisers objectify all the time, but they certainly wouldn't admit that is their intent. The notion with the photograph is to conceptualize the text, and this image clearly shows women objectified.--DavidShankBone 00:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I refer back to my response to you under "Photo or no photo". So far, you've demonstrated only that in your opinion, the image in your photo shows the objectification of women. "Its obvious" and "advertisers objectify all the time" – again, your opinion. To me, that violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Now if you could say something to the effect that in this image Tara Subkoff is making a stement about objectification of women in advertising, then I'd have no problem with it. Then it would be just an example of somebody in the public realm making a statment about what they consider objectifying, and the caption could put it in that context. Iamcuriousblue 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with photographs is that it is always so subjective. Based on Davids description of the event that the photo came from, I can understand why he might look at the picture he took as a form of objectification. I stated my views regarding that elsewhere. I'm sure he sees it that way. As I said before, my concern is whether other people looking at the article will look at the picture, and then grok sexual objectification. Atom 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, insertion of an image by the photographer carries too much conflict of interest. I am the opinion that only rarely should photographers act add their own images to articles. We have a long list of images that are requested. Photographers can provide images for those. Also, a photographer can approach people who edit an article and ask them if they are interested in a particular image. I know there are some who disagree with me, but I still see a photographer carrying in too much emotion trying to influence how their images are used when editors should remain objective about which images are best for an article. Atom 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes no sense. That's akin to saying that editors should not make their own edits, but submit their words to others to see if it fits with what they want. It's also laborious, and makes it a chore to edit Wikipedia, which goes against the spirit of the whole project. --DavidShankBone 00:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd always say that a photographer adding their own image to an article is always a problem. However, photos need to be treated like any other edit, and if they add POV or original research issues or if they aren't topical, they need to be treated accordingly. A problematic photo doesn't merit inclusion any more than any other problematic edit. Iamcuriousblue 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't important that you agree, I am just stating an opinion. Ethics is one of the topics of interest to me, and conflict of interest is very important. I have seen time after time in Wikipedia where an editor puts so much emotional energy into pushing their own image, rather than being objective. With an editor who proposes a position, references can be cited (or not) and multiple people can give different (cited) views. With an image, you generally want one (lede image/illustrating a section), and other than aspects of the image that can be discussed as accurate or not, is is subjective, with no references to cite. The editors of an article need to take a balanced, objective approach to deciding what is best for the wqality of an article. An editor who presents his own artwork for use certainly has the appearance of conflict of interest, even when they can remain objective. Again, this is only my opinion, and I am not saying that you need to agree with me. Atom 00:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was important you and I agree. Everything you write above could have the same bearing on inserting your own words, words being artwork themselves. The image I put up is not meant to be seen as "artwork" but an image demonstrating an article. There are four editors who have voiced support for the image, and two editors (and one anonymous editor) who don't care for it. The problem may be that you do most of your editing on emotional/controversial topics, Atom. My images aren't limited to any one subject, and it is not often I have to spend so much time arguing on their behalf. The last time was Hugo Chavez and Falun Gong - both controversial. I could see where you would form those opinions when your edits mostly revolve around controversial topics - that's not a criticism, just an observation. Mine tend to be the pages of buildings or portaits of people. That said, I understand how a page like this might see images as controversial or inflammatory, but it does a disservice to readers to limit it for Lowest Common Denominator attempt to make them palatable by not showing images of different versions of objectification. --DavidShankBone 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with palatability and everything to do with POV, original research, and editorial judgment. I have no problem with "controversial" images or ideas in Wikipedia. I do have a big problem, however, with an editor injecting their own point of view on a controversy without reference and without balance. Its a problem whether its done with images or done with words. Iamcuriousblue 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where I've injected my own viewpoint. I think the image speaks for itself. That I'm spelling it out doesn't show viewpoint, but explanation.--DavidShankBone 01:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Its getting rather old going round and round about this with you. You say the image you propose represents the "objectification of women" and seem to think that its in some way objectively an objectfying image. I say calling the image "objectifying" is subjective and represents a point of view. You see the problem here? Arguing "its obvious" over and over again isn't going to make your argument any less subjective. Iamcuriousblue 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You complain about something at the same time you perpetuate it. The comment was addressed no to you, but to another editor, so there's no need to interject your same argument again, and if you feel the need to do so, there's no need to bemoan having to do so since the discussion wasn't targeted at you. But at the least, dont' complain about something you yourself are doing; takes two to tango. --DavidShankBone 02:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was me – I just signed it with the wrong sig. And I don't see what I'm "perpetuating". I've simply raised an argument you've chosen not to address. Iamcuriousblue 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what happened with your signature, but I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and I don't expect the image to be obvious to everyone; it's just not obvious to you. There is no convincing you, so I'm not addressing your arguments; you want no images - a viewpoint you alone assert. --DavidShankBone 02:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree that different perspectives (and so images) of objectification is a good idea, that is the basis for NPOV. As for the words versus artwork, words could be subjective, and often are, but to meet standards to stay in an article they have to be supported by citations. This puts a constraint on word editors that does not exist in an image. In an image, thre can be no citation, or objective reference. (Unless you cite an art expert who gives an opinion about some famous piece of art.) In this specific case, that is not likely, and so we face a variety of editors, all of us having subjective opinions about the image, and on of those with an emotional attachment to the work in addition. Atom 01:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the edit of changing "feminists" to "people" shows where that is not correct - an editor would not need to cite that "Many people view the objectification of women as one of the main ways in which women..." and not only feminists. That is the artwork in the language and the wording; it's literary, and has an influence, but is to a degree obvious to most readers to be the case. --DavidShankBone 01:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Atom with his statment "Frankly, insertion of an image by the photographer carries too much conflict of interest", simply because the reader doesn't know whether or not the image has been added to the article in the best interest of the article/Wiki, or if the photgrapher/editor is adding it to the article as a form of self promotion. With that said, I apreciate your openness, David, to consider other options for photos :) - 68

More objectifying images!

Since many of you folks are so keen to judge what kind of images are ojectifying, how about these:

• 
• 

Hey, "its obvious" to me that these are objectifying images. Why single out imagery from contemporary pornography and advertizing as being exemplars of "objectification", but give classical art a free pass? Getting a clue yet on how subjective such judgements are? Iamcuriousblue 01:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Sexual objectification

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• David Shankbone: The article details how women are objectified by society, and I placed a photograph from a much-reported fashion show by designer Tara Subkoff of women roped away vacuuming in only high heels and panties. Several users want the article to remain image-less, and several users think the photograph clearly demonstrates an example of women's objectification. --DavidShankBone 04:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comments
• I think the vaccuming picture is excellent for this article. I'm not sure there's any clearer photographic way to portray sexual objectification. .V. _[Talk|Email] 04:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

* As per a message left on my talk page, I'm going to meticulously read the legal concerns on this page tomorrow before I make my official statement regarding this issue. .V. _[Talk|Email] 05:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's a silly photo. It's not a photo of sexual objectification; it's a photo of a dramatization of sexual objectification. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have already commented extensively above. The Subkof image is not under consideration at the moment because its legal status is still being debated. It was just put into the article (without discussion or consensus) in the past day. We have discussed finding a consensus on using no image, or one of a variety of images, and still have the door open for additional images before we try to gain consensus. The editor who submitted the RfC did so after less than a day of discussing viewpoints. A number of normal editors to the article haven't even had a chance to respond yet. It is likely that we won't work out these issues for weeks or months before we agree on a consensus. Atom 04:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Isn't this redundant? We've already discussed this issue in lenght in the posts above. There are many cultures where bare breasts are not considered to be sexual thus this picture is not an accurate representation of "sexual objectification". There is really nothing sexual about this photo. 68.147.218.231 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)68

• (I agree that this survey is redundant.) I have also commented extensively above concerning the problems of adding an image to represent this article. The concept of "sexual objectification" is fairly abstract and does not lend itself well to a concrete image. Also, choice of imagery as "sexually objectifying" lends itself to POV and original research problems. I think this article has a lot of problems with POV disputes beyond just imagery however – I'll specifically note the anti-pornography editorializing that has been added to this article in the last day. Iamcuriousblue 06:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you continue referring to this article as "anti-pornography". There is no "anti - anything" in this article. Its a very objective POV regarding all examples of media where sexual objectification can be found. 68.147.218.231 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)68

Your singling out of various examples of differnt forms of pornography gives undue weight to pornography as a form of objectification of women. It was already mentioned in the prior edit that many radical feminists considered pornography to be a particularly egregious form of sexual objectification. You've chosen to make pornography the main focus of the "Objectification of women" section. That is POV editing on your part. In keeping with not violating the three-revert rule, I'm waiting 24 hours from my last edit to work on the section again, but I do think your edits to introduce a non-neutral POV into the article article and are in need or revision. Iamcuriousblue 19:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuing POV problems with this article

This article has huge POV problems and seems prone to continual major re-edits by people with strong feelings around the subject. The problem is compounded by the fact that there is really no good secondary source – a source discussing the development of the concept of sexual objectification – to use as a reference. Therefore, most editors seem to either fall back on their own pet POV about sexual objectification or fall back on one or two primary source that favor their own POV on the subject.

I had hoped to reach some semblance of consensus in earlier edits, but evidentially have not succeeded. Some points that I don't think some other editors are taking into consideration:

• Sexual objectification is a contested concept. There is considerable disagreement as to what constitutes objectification, whether it is harmful, or whether "sexual objectification" is even a real thing. Among those who accept the concept, there's also some disagreement as to whether objectification of men is as important an issue as the objectification of women.

• The idea of sexual objectification comes from feminist theory and is deeply intertwined with feminist ideas. (As far as I've been able to trace it, the idea of sexual objectification probably has its origins in Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex.) As such, the critique of sexual objectification represents a feminist point of view. It needs to be discussed like any other POV – neutrally and fairly, without advocacy or attack on that POV, and always in the context of who holds this point of view, rather than treating it as objective, uncontested fact.

• The idea of sexual objectification has been taken up in recent years by some social conservatives and men's-rights activists, as well as some social scientists (typically those with a feminist or social conservative orientation). This does not make the critique of sexual objectification any less POV, however.

• Within feminism there's not a whole lot of consensus around the issue of sexual objectification. Most feminists accept it at least to some degree as a concept; however, what constitutes sexual objectification, the degree of harm it causes, and how it should be dealt with are subjects of considerable disagreement within feminism. I'll note that radical feminists, post-modernist feminists, libertarian feminists, and sex-positive feminists have strikingly different views on the topic.

• The idea that pornography is any more objectifying than stereotypical non-sexual portrayals of women is an idea that's hotly debated, even within feminism.

• This should be obvious to anybody who's at all familiar with Wikipedia's neutrality principles, but it is not the job of Wikipedia to pick a side in any of the above debates and advocate for it, nor to judge which side is more "credible". This is exactly what many edits have amounted to, however.

Iamcuriousblue 07:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove images for now — seeking feedback

After my most recent edit the article, I feel that we should not put any image for the moment. I'd like to get the article all cleaned up first, and then discuss it again. At that point, adding two or three images, depending on the section information would probably work. I think the current image could be valuable for part of that. But – I'd like to get a stronger image for the lede. (one less subtle)

Does anyone object if I remove the current image for the time being? We are pretty much all talked out about it. I will wait to get some feedback so that there is no edit war. Atom 00:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I object. Consensus has not been established, and I, for one, think the image works well here. Jeffpw 09:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know your opinion, and mine, and others. If you like the image, you might consider voting in the poll for consensus mentioned earlier. The addition of the image was recent, the consensus needed is for whether it, or any image *should* be in the article, not for whether we should remove it or not. (Please recall the image was added a few days ago without previous discussion -- resulting in an edit war with several 3RR violations) Nevertheless, because you object I will wait to hear from other people who edit the article. (Do you edit the article, or are you just kibitzing?) Atom 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't "voted" in the other area, as I have given my thoughts on the issue in two different areas, now. And while I haven't edited this article, I haven't read anywhere in Wikipedia policies that I am thus excluded from commenting and offering my opinions (please see WP:OWN, since you may not be clear on that policy). Further, calling my comments here "kibitzing" borders on uncivil. Please see WP:CIV to review the policy about that. Jeffpw 15:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not trying to be offensive – My apologies. There is a section with a specific discussion, and an active poll as for consensus on having an image or not. David set that up, and comments made about peoples opinions elsewhere probably do indicate how they might feel, but are in a different context. They discuss the merits of that specific photo and our views. The section David set up says "There is a split in consensus about my photo. So which photos should we put up? I will agree to have my photo replaced with better ones. Which ones? This article needs images and we've seen there are no shortage of them. Let's discuss which images should be put up to replace mine." That is a very different context than a general discussion of the image he has placed in the article.

I don't think that I implied that your comments were not welcome. I think that I asked for you to vote and comment.

Regarding "kibitzing" it is a term often used when other editors, who aren't part of the editing process, jump into the middle of an issue and offer opinions. That doesn't characterize the value (positive or negative) of those opinions. Certainly Wikipedia policy does not prohibit that, and I did not suggest that it was prohibited. The comment was not directed at you personally, but at several people who have dropped by to offer opinions, but don't have any intention of contributing to the article itself. I understand what WP:CIV says, and I have been very civil with you. I'm not sure why one word would suggest to you otherwise. If my words are ill chosen, let me say it this way. "I welcome your participation in editing and improving this article. The opinions of people who choose to criticize, but aren't interested in improving things often carry less weight." I did not mean to insult you by asking you if you intended to just criticise, or also contribute. My implication is that I welcome your contribution to improving the article. Atom 17:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that this is the third section created on this talk page for discussion of whether to use images in this article. How many times do we need to reinvent the wheel and start a new discussion from scratch about use of images? A formal poll is what's called for; in fact, I thought there was one already underway. Iamcuriousblue 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll move the currently active section, the poll, to the bottom of the talk page. Theother sections are people commenting on what they think of the image. DavidShankBone proposed polling for consensus on the images shown, or no image. Currently the poll has three people for no image. Atom 18:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Which photo(s) should be used?

There is a split in consensus about my photo. So which photos should we put up? I will agree to have my photo replaced with better ones. Which ones? This article needs images and we've seen there are no shortage of them. Let's discuss which images should be put up to replace mine. --DavidShankBone 01:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
PROPOSALS THAT SHOW OBJECTIFIED WOMEN AND MEN:

• 
  Image1
• 
  Image2
• 
  Image3
• 
  Image6
• 
  Image7

Poll Status:

• No Image: Atomaton, Iamcuriousblue, 68.147.218.231
• Image1: DavidShankBone, Jeffpw, Mathmo
• Image2:
• Image3: Jeffpw
• Image4:
• Image5:
• Image6: DavidShankBone (+ No. 1), Jeffpw
• Image7: Mathmo (+ No. 1)
• Another image not yet provided:
• No vote yet: HighInBC, SatyrTN

David writes: "This article needs images" – I don't even particulary agree that this article needs images. And, by the way, I really do think the two paintings I posted above are as good (or as problematic) as any image proposed so far! Iamcuriousblue 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your viewpoint is noted, but you are the only one arguing for no images. Anybody else have a proposal? --DavidShankBone 02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, you want an "alternative" image. How about Ingres's Grande Odalique or Il Sodoma's portrait of Saint Sebastian? High resolution, well rendered, and old enough to be in the public domain. Can anybody here provide a coherent argument as to why modern nude/bondage photography is "sexually objectifying" and classical visual art isn't? And, no, I don't think that the fact that the latter is "high art" (whatever that means) makes it any less "objectifying". Iamcuriousblue 02:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Iamcuriousblue. I don't think this article needs images. 68.147.218.231 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)68

However, if concensus is that there should be an image, I vote for the two "classics". Also, if an image is included in this paragraph then images should be included in all paragaphs within this article. I don't support double standards. 68.147.218.231 02:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)68

Then you should produce one. It is not our responsibility to produce *all* images just because we produce one. Wikipedia is a community effort. The classics don't work because the article is about a modern concept, so they don't work. --DavidShankBone 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What???? Its a modern concept, so it doesn't apply to pre-modern imagery? Do you have any idea how bogus that argument is? Iamcuriousblue 02:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem keeping them as proposals. They look really funny - I've gotten a giggle out of it. --DavidShankBone 02:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently we have four users for the current image (DavidShankbone, Jeffpw, HighinBC, and SatyrTN), one user for a different image (Atom) and two users for no image (anonymous and Iamcuriousblue).--DavidShankBone 02:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Should David's vote count? Seeing as its his own photo and he would be biased as a result. My concern is that David is not looking out for the best interest of the article but is wanting to self promote his own image. Nothing personal, David, but I would not want to jepardize the credibility and acuracy of the article. 68.147.218.231 03:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)68

My other concern is that children will be visiting this site as it is an online encyclopedia. Do we really want to subject children to pornography when there are other images that could be just as effective in illustrating the concept of objectification? The article itself discusses the negative consequences of sexual objectification upon girls and young women. I personally don't want to further contribute to these negative consequences by adding a visual. It seems contradictory. 68.147.218.231 03:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)68

1) Wikipedia is not censored for minors, 2) we aren't all discussing "the negative consequences of sexual objectification upon girls and young women", since not everybody even agrees that that are such negative effects (I am one of those people who happens not to agree with this perspective that "sexual objectification" is particularly harmful), and attempts to slant this article in that direction (rather than simply stating that some people argue that such imagery/attitudes are harmful) represents imposition of a point of view on this article. That's why I added the POV tag after your repeated reverts to my earlier edits. Iamcuriousblue 04:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

An fyi Iamcuriousblue: no one cares whether or not you agree that "sexual objectification" is harmful. The point is that people such as Patrick Carnes (as cited in the article) think that it is and, although this may be news to you, Patrick Carnes has consideralbly more credibility than you :) Thus, as a concerned citizen of Wikipedia, I think other photos would better represent the article. 68.147.218.231 04:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)68

Oh, so Patrick Carnes is now the final word on the subject of objectification? Why does his opinion on the subject trump, say, Camille Paglia, who has some very different opinions on the subject of sexual objectification and pornography. I'll point out to you that its not Wikipedia's job to say that Patrick Carnes views on objectification are more correct than those of Camille Paglia, and I advise you to read up on WP:NPOV if you don't understand this. Iamcuriousblue 06:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we aren't really voting, as Wikipedia is run by consensus, not by majority rule. But, David will recuse himself if he thinks he has a conflict of interest. If he doesn't feel that way then he will vote. Voting is used sometimes to gauge whether there is consensus or not.

Also, we haven't resolved the legal issues on the first image, as David hasn't identified if he has the subjects permission or release yet. Also, some people feel that not having any image is the best choice. These things take time, and a number of other images could be offered as possibilities if we give people a chance to participate. Additionally, there may be room for more than one image. So, the feelings indicated above are not really a vote as to what image to use, just an expression of those users preferences. Atom 03:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, until he gets permission, I think the image should be removed until the legalities are resolved. Again, in the best interests of the article and Wiki. I don't know if they can be sued or not but it could potentially negate the credibility of the article. 68.147.218.231 03:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)68

There are no legal issues, as several editors have pointed out. I will make this issue a Request for Comment, taking current votes in mind. --DavidShankBone 04:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean, of course "There are no legal issues, as several editors have opined." You did not say that there are several editors who have opined that there may be legal issues. You are the photographer, and the one likely to be sued first. I think that you should clarify the issue (one way or the other) clearly, and get it put into Wikipedia policy (which apparently does not exist.) See faloona v hustler, below. As you are a law student, a quick read of the caselaw on the subject, and a few opinions of your peers and maybe a professor might be wise.

The wikipedia guidelines regarding images that a photographer are not very clear. Most of the attention is spent on copyrighted images, and free use of those images.

I found a link that looks useful. [5] A quote from that is "Often, litigation of model releases involves the publishers and producers of media in all its forms - advertisements, magazines, newspapers, films, television programs, and web sites, to name only a few. Anyone who deals in the likenesses of others should be informed of the laws behind model releases. "

And also: "Any person who knowingly uses another’s name, photograph, or likeness ... without such person's prior consent, or in the case of a minor, the consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof . . . ." - Faloona v Hustler Magazine, Inc., 607 F Supp 1341, (1985, ND Tex).

What exceptions are there to the general rule? A. Public Figures When is a person a public figure for purposes of the right of privacy? The issue is fact-specific and subject to determination on a case by case basis. Further, the answer may vary from one jurisdiction to the next. Applying a good sense of judgment and erring on the side of caution should protect a photographer / publisher in the event of a dispute. B. Newsworthy Events As in the public figure cases, there is no easy answer to the question: When are photographs newsworthy? While actors and politicians are ordinarily deemed to be newsworthy, others may be considered newsworthy as well. This determination should be based on the publisher's best judgment and evaluation of precedent.

The court in Forster v Manchester (1963) 410 Pa 192, found that a claimant in a personal injury case, while not a "public figure" or the subject of a "newsworthy event" in the classic sense, was subject to limitations on his right of privacy. The court stated that "such a claimant may not object to surveillance, including the taking of motion pictures, upon public thoroughfares where the claimant's activities could be observed by passersby."

This is paraphrased, please see the cite for the full context.

Here is another interesting reference:[6]

"The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks"

I'm just glad that I don't have to worry about being sued. Atom 04:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

--lol - I think the last thing models at a fashion show have on their mind is bringing a baseless lawsuit about being photographed. I logged the RfC. --DavidShankBone 04:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait until they see their picture in Wikipedia, then they might think about it.

I am curious as to why you put in an RfC. I thought we were discussing it quite civilly. Also, you bring up number for your image, and for others, when voting really isn;t the issue. The whole purpose of consensus is to have discussion so that others see your view. Also, we've been talking about it for a matter of hours, less than a day. Consensus for things often takes weeks or monts to develop. Why in such a hurry? It will take at least a few more weeks, even with a few people responding to the RfC. We should have saved the RfC for if we got to an impasse. Now with more people from the RfC is will likely take longer to reach consensus. Also, we still have to determine (which is not up to the editors in this article) if your image is even legitimate to use. Trying to force the issue will only result in eliminating your image as a possiblity, or the image being deleted after we make a decision. Atom 04:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Because we continue to make the same arguments. Because we are getting nowhere. Because we aren't going to change each other's viewpoints. Because you are raising ridiculous legal arguments that have no bearing on the matter at hand but only at your own lack of knowledge about the law. Raising this issue to the larger Wikipedia community at large wiil answer many of your issues. Getting more comments can only help. --DavidShankBone 04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you should perhaps consider reading WP:Consensus. That's exactly what we are supposed to do. (Discuss, politely change other peoples minds -- even if that takes a long time). Atom 05:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My vote is for no image. I can't think of a really good image that examplify's the issues in this article well. I hope other will consider changing their views towards that for the time being. Perhaps after we lose the interest of a few editors, we can rediscuss consensus again in the future? Atom 05:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We should wait for more input from other editors who participate in this article. Atom 05:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently we have four users for the current image (DavidShankbone, Jeffpw, HighinBC, and SatyrTN)--DavidShankBone 05:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I see no votes in this section from any of them. They participated in previous discussions in another context. That is why I suggested waiting for them to reply. Atom 05:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You said "Let's discuss which images should be put up to replace mine". Certainly you will vote won't you? Although I have suggested the potential for conflict of interest, since you are the photographer, I think that you should vote in the poll too. We want to get consensus. Atom 05:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - image - most articles benefit from image, and this one is no exception. Sexual objectification is a fairly modern concept, so a modern image is appropriate. Image #1 is apropos because the scene depicted was designed specifically to illustrate a point of view regarding sexual objectification. I think this image would make a positive contribution to the "Views on sexual objectification" section until such time that we might find a more suitable image to stand in its place. Rklawton 17:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note - and Image #6 would make an appropriate image for the section on fetishes. Rklawton 17:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page "unacceptable behavior"

For a full listing of what is unacceptable behavior go to Talk page unacceptable behavior. But in particular is this quote: "Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning." By removing photographs I want to propose for inclusion, you are editing my additions. --DavidShankBone 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

These are a proposal, we are trying to gain consensus. I did not offer those photos for the article. If *YOU* want to offer them for the article, then just say so instead of playing games. If you do offer them for the article, then I should point out, as others have, that several of them are not valid fair-use in this article.

Changing the rules in the middle of a consensus vote does not make sense. You submitted a proposal, now wait for people to vote on it! Adding or removing, or changing titles and such in the middle of a vote confuses everyone.

If you feel that doing these things is fair and reasonable, then please seek an RfC to get other opinion on your method.

Atom 21:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no rules here, Atom. The proposal asked for other submissions. I'm making the submissions, which I have a right to do. You retrieved images from the Commons; that doesn't give you a lock on whether they are included or not. The proposal above clearly asks for other submissions, and I'm making other submissions. Another editor could come in with a completely different photograph, trumping any of the proposals that have been made. There was no "filing deadline" imposed. You are making rules up as you go along. Yes, I will definitely involve admins if you remove photos I am suggesting as proposals. If you have issues with any of the proposals, then you are welcome to voice them. You are violating Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. --DavidShankBone 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being clear that you added the images because you wanted them included. Finally. I have never made any claim on the images, but just pointed out that they are not being offered by me. (as I showed them as examples of objectification) Primarily because I think that there needs to be no image until we find the right one. Also, several of the images are only valid for fair use.

Image:Bianca Red.jpg can't be used because it is copyrighted. Fair use would be if we were critiquing the work of Martin Perrault, or Bianca Beauchamp. (or for parody) Not close to the topics in this article.

Image:Elmer Batters Book.jpg also can;t be used because it is copyrighted. Fair use does not apply here for the same reasons.

Image:Spreizstange (Bondage).jpg is from the commons site, and is under GFDL, and so could be used in this article.

Image:Pamela-Anderson-040929.jpg is an image from commons. The claim is that it in the public domain. Whether that is true or not would be hard to tell. Until it is removed by someone else, it probably is okay to use.

If you could have offered some discussion about offering additional images, instead of throwing the images I used for example first, it would have made things much simpler. I still think that suggesting more images, after we have pretty much come to consensus on not having any image, just confuses things. Atom 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the two images that clearly are copyrighted without fair use, if you don't mind. Atom 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, Atom. 68.147.218.231 02:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Feminism

I would like to change the tone from a "feminist" POV to a neutral POV. We've discussed this earlier and I understand where Iamcuriousblue is coming from, but it isn't an accurate statement. Here's why: I personally believe that people can be objectified, yet I am not a feminist, by any way, shape or form, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So I would like to keep some of the "feminist" citations but the first line should include people other than feminists. Comments anyone? 68.147.218.231 02:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't coming from a "feminist POV". It simply discusses the concept of sexual objectification as a feminist point of view, which happens to be historically accurate. The concept of sexual objectification developed out of feminism; the fact that its been taken up (or some would say appropriated) by some social conservatives and non-feminist social scientists doesn't change the fact that its essentially a feminist concept. I'm open to noting that some non-feminists also view sexual objectification or the objectification of women as important, but I am definitely not for de-emphasizing the feminist basis for this concept – this would be entirely inaccurate. And I'm definitely not for treating "objectification" like it was an objective, proven social fact rather than a point of view associated with certain ideologies – such a statement would be hugely POV. Iamcuriousblue 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I added "Although some non-feminists also view sexual objectification or the objectification of women as one of the main ways in which women are subordinated in a sexist society, it is generally considered a feminist idealogy" to . 68.147.218.231 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think objectification itself is fairly well recognized through out cultures current and historical. Probably most scientists would agree that sexual objectification is a fact, and has sme of the same detrimental effects as objectification in general. What is unclear is what causes sexual objectification, or what is it an effect of, or is it part of normal human behavior. A feminist view might be that a patriarchal society, and the manner in which patriarchy operates causes sexual objectification, or perhaps propogates it as a necessary part of maintaining patriarchy. Now, that is the ambiguous, arguable part. Some would say that there can, or is, many other reasons or causes for its existence. But -- The existence of objectification, and sexual objectification specifically is not on doubt. Atom 05:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea that there's a broad "scientific" consensus around the existance of "sexual objectification" and that there's broad agreement about its harmfulness is a very tall claim. The assertion "probably most scientists would agree" doesn't even begin to justify such a tall claim. Can you find any citation that would justify your assertion that there's borad consensus around this issue, either within or outside of the scientific community? The idea of "obectification theory" or "sexual objectification" really doesn't have much use among social scientists except among feminist-influenced social scientists and some "sex addiction" researchers. On the other hand, evolutionary psychologists don't use the term at all as far as I know and are prone to treat visual "objecrification" as simply hard-wired into the human brain and the product of millenia of sexual selection.

Furthermore, I would say that any assertion that the kinds of photographs/art that we've been discussing in "which photos to use" are in any way objectively harmful (as opposed to some people claiming they're harmful) is a massively non-NPOV assertion. I will definitely treat edits asserting this as such.

Iamcuriousblue 17:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying. But, I agree that any changes in the article textwise should be cited appropriately, regardless of the POV. Images are subjective, largely, and can't be cited. So, we need to agree as editors that whatever images we eventually add to the article seem to support, illuminate, illustrate or bolster the points of the article (whatever POV those points suggest -- assuming the points are cited appropriately.) That is one reason it is my opinion that we should wait on images, as the article itself still needs alot of work, and I don't think any of the images so far available seem (in my opinion) to do any of those things.

Also, I make no claim, only opinion, when I say I think the existence of objectification is fairly broadly accepted. Or that "sexual objectification" is conceptually accepted as existing broadly. Or that the effects of it are not well researched or known. Were I to feel that any of my opinions should be in the article, I would find a citation for that position and try to cite a researcher, rather than my opinion. Atom 18:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The image in question: does this show women objectified sexually in a fashion show?

---

• The simple issue presented to us, in my book, is whether a topic of sexually objectifying people in our society can producce images of such, as a theory. I propose that a fashion show--of all places--shwoing models vacuuming in their panties and heels, topless, if the ultimate idea behind this theory. How can an encyclopeida have *no* images showing women or men being sexually objectified, and be taken seriously? There has been no consensus about anything on this page. Atom's remarks above, even though he is a new editor, show ownership qualities. They also foresake the "be bold" rule and the "good faith" presumption. He seems to want consensus BEFORE editors are made, which goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Below, I've outlined the positive feedback from non-interested editors who like the image for the page - this demonstrates there is no "consensus" and, if any, runs in favor of the image I propose. --DavidShankBone 03:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The possible modes of this are so various that a single picture cannot do it justice, and choosing one for the lede will over-define the page. A gallery might be the way.DGG 03:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who have voice positive views of the current image are as follows:

---

These comments are copied out of context, and are listed earlier in the article. Those objecting to the image are not shown here. Also, the consensus discussion started by DavidShankbone that established that no image be used occured AFTER these comments were written. So, this is carefully edit OLD news and views. Atomaton

These comments and their context are readily available above, and relate to the topless vacuuming photograph, the one I have asked for comment upon for inclusion. These comments reflect favoriability toward the photograph; read for yourselves above. --DavidShankBone 03:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think the vaccuming picture is excellent for this article. I'm not sure there's any clearer photographic way to portray sexual objectification. .V. _[Talk|Email] 04:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

* As per a message left on my talk page, I'm going to meticulously read the legal concerns on this page tomorrow before I make my official statement regarding this issue. .V. _[Talk|Email] 05:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I see a revert war going on as to whether this image should be here. So lets form a consensus instead. I support this image as an example of a cultural representation of the topic of this article. Please leave your opinions here, and once a consensus is reached we can follow it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• I personally feel the picture is a good representation of the sexual objectification of women. The irony of women doing their traditional role while topless is readily apparent. It seems a perfect illustration of the topic, and I said as much in a recent WP:ANI discussion. Jeffpw 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Just my opinion, but topless women vacuuming does illustrate sexual objectification. The copyright status is another issue. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• The image works pretty well, but the ideal image would be one that has been called ovjectification by a source that could be cited in the caption. An image from an ad could be used in this way under fair use. 'Keep this image, but it is not ideal, nor, in the end should it be the only image. Women/men need not be naked for the image to be considered "objectification" by a fair number of critics. futurebird 05:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I removed my comments (that were here earlier -- See Here) regarding the current consensus in the article, as it was three editors vs two. David suggested that it cluttered the RfC and confused things, and I agree. Atom 12:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Fine, you want an "alternative" image. How about Ingres's Grande Odalique or Il Sodoma's portrait of Saint Sebastian? High resolution, well rendered, and old enough to be in the public domain. Can anybody here provide a coherent argument as to why modern nude/bondage photography is "sexually objectifying" and classical visual art isn't? And, no, I don't think that the fact that the latter is "high art" (whatever that means) makes it any less "objectifying". Iamcuriousblue 02:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Iamcuriousblue. I don't think this article needs images. 68.147.218.231 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)68

Both of the above images add little or nothing to the article. Old advertising copy, perhaps? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Meh. While I'm as apreciative of the unclad female form as the next randy bachelor, I'd think there ought to be another image without such an unsubtle prurient appeal to serve the purpose for an encyclopedia; perhaps something similar in an Hadaka apron shot? Heck, there probably ought to be some college girls who can be talked into posing for such a shot, given all else that shows up on the web these days.... Abb3w 05:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've been asked to give my third opinion here, and I also thinkthis image is inappropriate for the article. It's a badly done, blurry photo to start with. Then it's WP:OR to suggest this represents sexual objectification of women instead of just silly postmodern art, especially when the photographer and editor who wants to add the image is also the artist (see also WP:COI). We'd need to add an image that has been characterised in reliable sources to represent sexual objectification of women. Sandstein 05:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Sandstein. BTW I'm an uninvolved editor who arrived here by chance, and I'm usually very pro-images. But yeah. I don't know if an image can adequately convey sexual objectification; maybe a screen cap of the thousands of pages of BB discussion of how 'hot' the Olsen twins would be 'once they're legal' (oops, that didn't turn out too well), or a reproduction of one of the many, many advertisements with models in provocative poses with their heads cut off (as in not in the picture, not literally cut off). Anchoress 06:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have been invited here by DavidShankbone, but I cannot pass quick judgment on this. I will simply point out that the image is substandard, and while it may depict sexual objectification it may also reflect a self-conscious parody of the practice. It is hard to say, but it strikes me a somewhat campy. Having said that I do not see why it cannot be used until something better comes along. Haiduc 06:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have also been invited here by DavidShankbone. Although in general I think that his image contributions to articles are very good, I'm unsure about this one, I'm afraid. I disagree with those who say that the topic can't be illustrated (given that much objectification takes place with the use of images, that's a peculiar claim) — but as others have pointed out, the photo in question seems to be of someone deliberately satirising objectification. I'd have thought that an image of the primary practice, not secondary commentaries on it, would be better. If, on the other hand, there were good images of the primary practice of objectification, this photo would have a place alongside them, clearly captioned as what it is. The notion of a gallery, as suggested by DGG above, is a good one. I also agree that sexual objectification needn't be illustrated solely by modern images, nor by images of nakedness, though we'd be wrong to censor the latter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• My opinion expressed earlier, is that the subject is complex. The image that Mr. DavidShankBone suggests may possibly be satire of objectification. It is not clear to me, and I have a good understanding of this topic, and a highly analytical mind. Even with a picture taking a direct approach, such as Pamela Anderson, it is hard for someone to grasp what the photo is trying to convey, much less a subtle and satirical approach. Add on top of that the difficulty that most of us are culturally conditioned by society to accept sexual objectification through the constant advertising, and the entire message of a photo like any of those previously mentioned here is lost. If we have to have a paragraph, or section, to explain what the photo represents, and why it is that we don't inherently get it at a glance, then we probably sholdn't use that photo (and I think that applies to all of the photos so far suggested, not just the one DavidShankBone prefers.) Finally, the last issue is that a photogrpaher who puts his own pictures into articles, and fights to keep them there is under a conflict of interest. I know that this is less understood, and it should be talked about in detail in some other article. Because a photograph is intellectual property, primary research or OR in a way, and other editors cannot edit it (other than remove it entirely) it is different than text, whi requires citability, verifiability and does not allow OR. A photographer pushing his own photo in an article is like an author pushing his new book (as of yet unpublished) by publishing the section on sexual objectification into the article, and then refusing to let anyone change the words. I want to discuss this more generally in a different forum eventually. We desire and value free images, such as that provided by DavidShankbone. (In his specific case, some of his images are truly outstanding -- just not this one) But the problem is that his closeness to the photography means he can't tell a mediocre image from an outstanding image, and sees how every article could use one of his images. This lack of objectivity causes problems when that photographer himself puts a photo into an article and tries to defend it. I don;t see this as a failing of this photographer, I think that any of us would face that conflict of interest. Atom 12:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I was invited by Mr. DavidShankBone to express my opinion in regard to the image discussed in this page. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the image and its use in the article since it depicts the sexually objectifying of people. As long as the image is within Wikipedia's policies and doesn't violate any of the Pedia's bylaws, I see no rational reason for its removal. I believe that the image was uploaded with good faith intentions and that there is no conflict of interest. The article is made more interesting with an image or images which can give the common reader an idea of what is sexual objection. Remember that old saying "A picture is worth a thousand words".

Now with that said, I would also like to express my disappointment in the edit war between the editors involved. The matter should have been solved a long time ago with an organized consensus with the help of an arbitrator or administrator and shouldn't have gone to this extent. Wikipedia is a community effort where disputes are to be solved in a orderly and civil manner. Tony the Marine 16:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think another user noted that the scene depicted may not be an objectification so much as the parody of an objectification - based only on the photo itself, I think that's a distinct possibility. I think I also saw suggestions of the depiction of an advertisement in which a scantily clad man or woman appeared, or perhaps a Hadaka apron shot - these would be less ambiguous and thus better for this article. --Badger151 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How does one judge between objectification and a parody of objectification? Does one have different effects, or play off of different social mores and customs, than the other? Is the root cause of one or the other different? If an advertiser sells vacuum cleaners with a naked woman doing the vacuuming, is it any different than if a fashion show incorporates naked women vacuuming in its fashion show? If so, how? --DavidShankBone 15:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

<arbitrary indent reduction> I agree with DGG; a gallery might be more appropriate than a single image. This image however is good in that the theme of the artist's work is sexual objectification. This could be discussed further in the text or with a link. If the picture of women only is sexist, perhaps comparable pictures of men being objectified as well could be included in a gallery. There are many aspects to this, and a lot of ways to go with it, and to explore it fully would probably take several photos. For example, what about the ancient Goddess statues that are all hips and breasts? What about connections with paraphilia, associating sexual feelings with real objects? --Filll 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Filll and DGG - a gallery is the way to go. I only had the one suggested addition of my Imitation of Christ fashion show photo. Filll, do you know of any images that are GDFL or Creative Commons that would work well? Do you think the IOC photo above would fit within a gallery? I also agree that objectified men should be included. We could find advertisements that demonstrate both male and female objectification. I know Ms. Magazine has always re-printed advertisements they felt were degrading or objectifying of women on their back cover under the phrase "No Comment" - they still do, I believe. --DavidShankBone 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How about no image, until the article is further along? As was voted on before?

The problem with galleries, is that editors delete them. (This article is not a collection of ...) Atom 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think for an article about portrayal of men and women as objects, it is incumbent upon us to find images that fit, and there is no shortage. The overwhelming consensus so far is for images, and since the idea relates directly to popular media portrayal, it shouldn't be hard. Only two editors and one anonymous editor have said no images, but Wikipedia has a clear policy in favor of images. After all, the article isn't about rocket science or brain surgery - it's about popular portryal of genders. --DavidShankBone 00:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no "overwhelming consensus". There are a few favorable comments, mainly by people you've lobbied to come here and post favorable comments about your proposal. I have yet to see any straw poll result one way or the other. Nor have I seen anybody address how to deal with the inherant bias that comes with posting a particular image and labeling it "sexually objectifying". Iamcuriousblue 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion amongst Iamcuriousblue, Atomaton and DavidShankbone has taken an unfortunate turn, and I'm partly to blame for that. But we were repeating the same arguments over and over (with an anonymous user, 68, reverting unhelpfully; whereas Atom removed the image in a respectful way). I listed this as a RfC and did not solicit bids. I only wanted input on my photograph; I felt I was becoming too involved in the squabbles on the page when my only interest lay in my belief it was a good example of sexual objectification. THere was no photo, and I am pro-image, which is why the berth and variety of my photography doesn't stick to one subject. So I asked for comments, and I stated it in what I felt was a neutral view as to what my objective was. Then I looked at my Watch list and picked whichever editors had recently made edits at that time of night. Then I went to people I had contentious issues with, like Haiduc on the Allen Ginsberg page (see for yourself). I didn't even turn to the people who had already commented above. The only lobbying was to come "interject your opinion". It's not a complicated subject; most people "know it when they see it" in the words of a famous Supreme Court justice. So to end this, or at least my part in it, let's do a straw poll now:

Straw poll over David Shankbone's Imitation of Christ photo

Please vote whether the image should be on the page or not. Give a reason if you want, but it is not necessary.

• Yes --DavidShankBone 02:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  
• Yes The page needs an image that captures the concept. There are none at present; this one works. --Random Replicator 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• No Concluding that the image represents objectification is probably correct, but still represents original research. It could just as easily represent ironic commentary on the objectification of women, or neither. I would strongly recommend that you select an image that has been discussed as arguable objectification by a relevant expert, and source it as such. (E.g., "this image of Marilyn Monroe standing on a steam vent has been used as an example of objectification by Foo Bar, Bar Baz, and Baz Foo.").—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheronJ (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 February 2007

I'll note that even though I've been the strongest opponent of use of images with this article, I'd have no objection to the above kind of image and caption. The essential difference is that this is clearly pointing to the image as being objectifying in the opinion of such-and-such and is citable as such. That's very different from some editor imposing their own opinions on sexual objectification like they were the final word on the matter. Iamcuriousblue 02:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - any image we make and upload (unless the image has been published and critically reviewed) comprises original research - and this has long been accepted at Wikipedia. WP:OR simply does not apply to images. Rklawton 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that the creation of the image is OR, I'm saying that the statement that the image's contents represent sexual objectification is OR. TheronJ 18:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  Even without an explicit statement, when an image is selected for use in an article, there is an implicit statement that the image's content represents or illustrates the subject at hand. And that sort of OR is both standard and accepted. If you like, suggest removing the textual statement, but this straw poll isn't about the text, it's about the image. Rklawton 18:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  I disagree, for the reasons I state above. TheronJ 18:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  You can upload any kind of image you like, but when using images in an article, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR still apply. The idea that imagery can somehow be an end-run around these very central Wikipedia guidelines is ludicrous. Iamcuriousblue 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• No - But not for the reason given above. The image lacks artistic merit. These images far more aptly illstrate the subject: Image:Pouring-water-for-wet-tshirt.jpg and Image:Wet underwear.jpg. Rklawton 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually really like those images for the page! --DavidShankBone 17:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A crowd of men, a half naked woman, and the fact that her obscured face fails to detract from the image's erotic appeal all serve to illustrate "objectification." The composition of the image with a half naked man lacks the same quality but serves as a counterbalance. Rklawton 17:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• DDV Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of discussion above on my image. If other editors want to discuss which images should be on or off, I think that is wholly needed for this article. But for the sake of one lone image, for which this straw poll is being conducted, I think a vote is merited. The consensus in the discussion seems to be against my image, which I'm fine with. I only didn't want two editors who don't want any images of how men and women are objectified in the media and our society to decide it. Since the main editor against the image (Iamcuriousblue) and the main editor for the image (DavidShankBone) both agree a poll is merited, it seems a good use of it. --DavidShankBone 17:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the point of WP:DDV, but on the other hand, straw polls are helpful it clear that there isn't anywhere close to a consensus. It was claimed the other day that there was consensus for using an image. The straw poll so far only show 50% really want an image, with another half only wanting an image if it references outside opinion - in other words, right now there's no consensus. Iamcuriousblue 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• No - I agree with whoever said above that any image should be supported by sources identifying it as being representative of, or depicting, sexual objectification. Anchoress 19:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  Is this your opinion or is there some policy regarding images you can point out for us? As a professional photographer and frequent photo contributor, I think this point a rather significant one. Rklawton 00:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  It's WP:OR, and it seems kind of obvious. (1) If I take a picture of a wetland, obviously that picture is not OR, even though I made artistic choices in creating the picture. (2) However, if I post the picture on the global warming article with a caption "an example of rising water levels caused by global warming," that is OR, because it requires a logical or inferential deduction to render the image relevant, and because my conclusion is controversial. (On the other hand, if I say "The foobar wetlands. According to the theories of Dr. Baz, global warming will cause a 10% increase in the total wetland acreage over the next 100 years." then I haven't engaged in original research.) If you like, we can take this to the WP:OR talk page and clarify it, but it seems obvious from the policy as written. TheronJ 01:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Another way of viewing this is by asking the following: "will we start seeing edit summaries stating something along the lines of 'removed image perported to show X due to lack of source citations confirming that this image really is what it looks like it is'"? Rklawton 00:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• No 1) I really don't think the page needs an image. 2) Images that added by an editor as a "sexually objectifying" image (without any reference to the opinion of a citable external source) represents original research and a POV statement by the editor. (That objectifying images are "obvious" and "you know them when you see them" is an absolutely piss-poor counter-argument.) I'll also note that every image proposed so far has been a "sexy" image rather than a "sex role" image. The idea that "sexy = sexist and objectifying" happens to represents a point of view, one that a lot of people don't happen to agree with. 3) David ShankBone's seeming campaign to get his image posted, his total lack of consideration for any reasonable counter-argument, and his claims that there's consensus to use his image (when, in fact, no such consensus exists) to my mind make this look like the case of somebody who is simply too attached to their own work to make reasonable editorial decisions about its use. Iamcuriousblue 02:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The first argument is not supported by policy. The second argument might hold weight if it weren't for the fact that the editor in question has already expressed a preference for an image that wasn't his own. Rklawton 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What policy? Show me the policy that says every single article must have an image. If so, what kind of image should be used for the article like "Relations of production"? Not every abstract concept has a neat concrete image that neatly explains it. I'd argue that "sexual objectification" is definitely one such fuzzy concept. Iamcuriousblue 02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I just disagree with your first point; that's all. The policy argument applies to your second point. There is simply no policy that supports your OR position. Rklawton 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are of course referring to Wikipedia's policy on original images. Yes, of course original images are allowed. However, when it comes to use of images in the context of a larger article, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV most certainly do apply. Just becuase an edit happens to include an image definitely does not mean an editor suddenly has carte blanche to introduce novel interpretation or POV into an article.

Wikipedia policy states, "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." That is normally true with images, however, in this case we're clearly talking about the interpretation of certain images, and so far, every proposal I've seen calls for an interpretation of the image (as "sexually objectifying") to be left up to the editor rather than refer to a verifiable external source. That's exactly the kind of editorializing I've been arguing against, both in the text version of this article and with accompanying images. Iamcuriousblue 05:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Image rejected

Partly because I have been somewhat convinced by the arguments on the difficulty of interpreting the photograph (although I personally feel it's obvious; however, reasonable minds can differ), but also partly because I don't want to spend any more time addressing the minutia above. I do think it is important for regular editors to find some images, even fair use. Ms. Magazine has their "No Comment" on the back page that deals specifically with this subject, showcasing degrading or objectifying advertisements. I strongly suggest finding some of those on Google and using them; and a Chippendale's dancer or something else would be good for men. Galleries at the end of each section wouldn't hurt either, although it may look junky. I dunno. Farewell everybody - and you are welcome to insert the image if the tide changes. I have other projects to work on. Atom, I hope in the future if we cross paths we can leave this behind; my problem with you was you never assumed good faith on my edits/additions. But your arguments, although incorrect (COI arguing on behalf of a photo? No way), but you eventually raised some decent rationales that I pretty much disagreed with. But let's not leave off mad. We both obviously care about Wikipedia, and that is good; you're alright in my book. Dave --DavidShankBone 07:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Good for you, David. (Not the withdrawal, specifically, which is up to you, but the good faith and fence-mending). For what it's worth, I wouldn't personally object to including the wet T-shirt picture with an appropriate caption (Maybe "a possible instance of objectification"), because I think it's less open to interpretation, but others may disagree. Thanks for your help and great attitude, TheronJ 14:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

David: Conflict of Interest is a strange thing. We assume good faith on your part. I have no doubt that you are honest and sincere when you claim no conflict of interest, or loss of objectivity. I am sure that it is your intention to not let that happen, and if you felt it were true, you would say so. But, one of the strange things about COI is that it often is a result of loss of objectivity when it does happen. IF you ask a person who has lost objectivity, they say "No, there is no conflict of interest, I assure you." If you ask a person who has not lost objectivity, they say "No, there is no conflict of interest, I assure you." That means that no statements from the person who has the possible conflict of interest can be useful in determining if it has occured, or not. That person themselves are often not aware of it. That is the reason that many people recuse themselves if there is merely "the appearance" of conflict of interest.

I am of the opinion that a photographer should never place their own photos in an article. It is not because I am suggesting that every photographer always has a conflict of interest. But, every photographer has the potential, and therefore, the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. From a very specific approach, it is obvious that you have added photo's to a number of articles. In a number of places that I have checked, the placement of a high quality image, directly applicable to the article, that improves the article, has been the result. I'm not going to suggest articles where a conflict of interest might have taken place. Besides opinion and speculation, it would be non-productive. But I ask you to consider how I carefully worded an ANI request merely asking for an opinion on whether a series of edits where a lede article was replaced by one of your images, (sometimes a free-use image, sometimes a free-licensed image), and a series of other edits where your images replaced other articles was appropriate or not, before taking further action. You responded extremely defensively and aggressively, and have been very aggressive since that time. Someone who did not have a conflict of interest, and had no issues would not need to respond like that. Also, if individuals had seen your photos, and asked for them to be used on their articles, there would have been no appearance of a potential conflict of interest, and so, no one would have brought the question in the first place. Is it really wrong to merely ask if others feel that someone is self-promotional? My point is not to dig up old issues. Nor is it to start a debate about it. Clearly you need to identify your own code of conduct that will precent the appearance, or the fact of conflict of interest. For myself, I intend to work on guideliens as part of WP:COI that will help minimize the general case, so that things like this have a loweer chance of happening on WIkipedia in the future. Atom 21:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the above, entirely, and without hesitation. Adding an image is no different than adding text to an article. If an image isn't suitable for an article, other editors can replace it with a more suitable image. When the editor in question encountered one or two editors who felt this article should have no image at all, he responded defensively to that proposition. When he was presented with a more suitable image, he immediately agreed to it. These are not the actions of someone with a conflict of interest. They are, instead, the actions of someone who believes an article about sexual objectification can and should be visually illustrated. The fact that he is a photographer with an image candidate had no bearing on the matter, and this was made clear when he agreed without hesitation to support a more suitable candidate.

I think it would be far more useful to explore the POV pushing that motivates the editors who think this article should use no illustrations whatsoever. Rklawton 22:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. What I was discussing was the difficulties all photographers who add images to articles have with the appearance of COI, something that certainly was an issue here. As for your concern about anyone pushing POV that there should be no illustrations whatsoever, it would be a short exploration. Most people felt that an image may be important in the future. Most did not like the current choices provided, for the reasons they expressed.

My view, as quoted from this talk page was

"

In most cases I am a strong advocate for a lede image that helps the reader to grasp, in a moment, a great many characteristics of the topic. I have seen how powerful this can be in many articles. Also, other photos with sections that help make the point of the section visually can work. In the long term, I prefer a good, solid, powerful image. The candidate images we have, in my opinion, do not make the point strongly. A really good image should give the reader an "AHA" moment that rings in their ears, if possible. I have looked through the commons site, and on to google pictures, and have not found that kind of image yet, for this article. I think that may be because the subject of this article is more abstract, and harder for people to grasp visually. A compromise might be to use a weaker image. I don't know that any of these qualifies for that. The christ image is to esoteric in nature, the Pamela Anderson image too ambiguous (is sexual attraction the same as objectification?) The religious image too religious (Objectification is the same as iconism?) I prefer to keep looking, myself. Atom 23:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you can read that I seem to be advocating a good image for the article, not pushing a POV against. From an editorial perspective, the editors here have a concern for finding an approriate, striking image that exemplifies the topic. Nothing so far has come close to that. Atom 23:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't address my point that anyone who contributes to an article can be perceived as having a conflict of interest when it comes to preserving their work. A simple difference in formats doesn't change this fact. We've seen numerous instances where editors have fought ridiculous battles to maintain "their" wording in an article. And like text, if an image can be improved, an editor is free to improve it. Next: I think this image pretty well exemplifies sexual objectification: Image:Pouring-water-for-wet-tshirt.jpg. Do you have any objections to adding this image, and if so, why? Rklawton 01:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeeed, that can be the case. The nature of the content is different though. Words in the article are required to be supported by citations. They have to meet standards for reliability and verifiability, and can not be original research(no primary research). A photo is intellectual property, has no citability and is always OR(primary research). A photo is integral, and we as editors can take it in it's entirety, or not at all. We don't generally "edit" a photo. A photopgrapher placing his image on an article and then fighting to keep it there would be much like an author copying a chapter from his as yet unpublished book on "Sexual Objectification" into the article, and then refusing to let anyone change any of the words, or remove it. Integral as all or nothing, non peer reviewed or cited, and original research. So, because the nature of the content is different, the way in which it can be modified is different. When I add a paragraph, other editors may change it, they may challenge its accuracy, requiring me to cite a source for the information. They may integrate other complementary sources of information into my content. Sure, we can argue about the content, but if the appearance or challenge of COI appears, one must fall back to providing solid cites, or they lose. With a photograph, there is no citation to reference or fall back on.

Take the current image (and I am not trying to bring back debate of it, just using in illustratively). The photographer says it is sexual objectification, no citation is given. It looks like three teenage girls taken in someone living room, but the photographer says they are models, and that it was a public event in 2004 (or 2005). How we know that the girl on the left is over age 18, when she certainly looks little more than age 16? (which would be a violation of federal law). How do we know that these women gave their permission to have their photograph used? (as normally use of a persons photograph without permission is a violation of law also). If it is a modelling show, how do we know that the producers of that show are okay with use of their creative work being used beyond the normal commentary and criticism that a newspaper or magazine might use their photo's for? Although all three of these have a low probability of being a problem, it does expose Wikipedia to potential legal issues. Our only citation or reference is from the photographer himself (as the image is by its nature OR), with no method of verification available. Now, I don't want to upset anyone, I am only using this as an illustation of the kinds of problems that can occur easily with an innocent image. Any other image by any other photopgrapher could have the same kinds of issues.

The point being if an editor adds text, is challenged about its accuracy or reliability, then the editor must provide reliabile citations to verify the text, or it gets removed. If we were to challenge the reliability and verifiability of a photo such as this, there is nothing to fall back on. And rather than automatically removing the photo, as we would with text that fails verifiability, the photographer insists that unless we can prove otherwise, it must stay. Atom 10:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)