Wikipedia talk:Censorship/Shock images

There seems to be considerable contradiction in some of the previous consensus decisions on the issue of censorship of deliberately offensive images. Two in particular come to mind:

• Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, which was decided 202 keep and display vs 45 delete or hide, and then 86 display at top vs 31 lower or hide.

• Goatse.cx, which was decided 15 display vs 59 hide or delete.

There appears to be a clear contradiction. It can be said that:

1. Both cases involve images whose inclusion makes a big difference to the informativeness of the article.
2. Both cases involve images that are deliberately constructed to offend some people.
3. Both cases offend at least some readers of wikipedia to a potentially very great degree, and fail to disgust or offend others.

Keeping one and deleting the other prominently then looks pretty bad. And it's a major hurdle to constructing a consistent approach of censorship of Wikipedia. Options:

1. Keep the Muhammad cartoons, and reverse Goatse.
2. Delete both Goatse and the cartoons.
3. Keep current status - no contradiction...
4. Talk some more. This vote is premature.

Is there a contradiction?

Obvious difference is that the goatse image elicits a visceral reaction, where as the editorial cartoons do not. While people may be offended or shocked by the mere sight of goatse, people instead are offended not by the mere sight of the cartoon itself but by the author and publisher(s) of the cartoons and the offensive messages presented. Simply classing both cases as "offensive" (and therefore requring the same action) is overly simple. The two cases have been handled separately for a good reason. —Pengo 02:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with this argument. For at least some fundamentalists, the cartoons are offensive simply by the fact that they depict Muhammad, regardless of the message of the cartoons. In many ways, the visceral reaction to Goatse is itself a function of culture - some people or societies aren't affected by it. I don't think the distinction is at all clear.--Fangz 02:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, visceralness is too subjective as a measure. It can easily be abused to delete things that should not be - e.g. quoted profanity etc, that most people appear to be happy with including.--Fangz 03:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

KEEP current situation. Not comparable. and redudant poll. --KimvdLinde 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that fundamentalists choose to be offended by the Mohammed cartoons, whereas most people do not even have the capability to choose not to be disgusted by the distended anus. There's a big difference between choosing to be offended because of religious sensibilities and being disgusted because of visceral imagery. --Cyde Weys 08:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be more helpful to outline what the important differences are, and so how we can apply this in a rule on when removing offensive content is OK.--Fangz 03:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Censorship? It's very early to be splitting the policy up. Gerard Foley 04:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No contradiction. The differences are plain. In one case, we have a highly newsworthy set of images that have been widely published, with a worldwide debate highlighting their relevance. The issue of censorship for the benefit of factional, partisan religious interests has been central to that debate. Non-censorship is part of how Wikipedia implements its principle of neutrality; so Wikipedia itself has a stake in that debate. The "Muhammad cartoons" are more newsworthy than just about any other image we could name.

In the other case, we have an image which is unimportant on a global scale, whose chief claim to fame is that pranksters use it by tricking others into seeing it. It is not widely published, except insofar as its insertion into online forums as a form of vandalism constitutes "wide publication". The substance of the goatse image's importance is precisely that it is used by online vandals -- including Wikipedia vandals. Wikipedia policy has a position against the vandalism of Wikipedia; and the presence of the goatse image within Wikipedia has been shown to lead to its use for vandalism.

In short, Wikipedia policy opposes both censorship and vandalism. However, Wikipedia policy does not oppose blasphemy or vandalism removal. Policy opposes the removal of images or media for ideological political or religious reasons; but supports the removal of images that are notable only for being inserted for the purpose of vandalism. The Muhammad cartoons are famous for their role in a worldwide censorship debate; the goatse image is merely used for vandalizing and attacking Web sites. The difference could hardly be any wider. --FOo 04:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

KEEP - Present situation. No contradiction - images not comparable. Cencorship based on this approach would result in an image-free wikipedia. Celcius ^(Talk) Wiki be With us! 04:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

KEEP current situation, per Fubar Obfusco. The two cases are not remotely similar, and this poll is doubly redundant. RichardRB 04:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep current situation, per Fubar Obfusco. Also note that:

• our article on the cartoons does not show the two clearly offensive pictures added to the imam's dossier (the dog-sex prayer and demonic pedophile pictures), instead showing the relatively mild pig-squealing photo;
• it is arguable whether the cartoons were "deliberately constructed to offend some people." They were published in the context of a debate over self-censorship, and the difficulty the writer of a children's book on Muhammad had finding a willing illustrator.

-- Avenue 08:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep current situation. The two articles are not really comparable. The cartoons did not seem offensive to me when I first saw them. Goatse produced no visceral reaction, but I suppose it might have if thelink there had not warned me about it first. The cartoon article is interesting, the other is almost too uninteresting to have an article of. DanielDemaret 09:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

KEEP and end this poll, and then delete it. Apples and Oranges. Valtam 16:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

KEEP current situation. Varga Mila 06:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Keep/Restore" all images. People should learn to face the Truth, even if they don't like it or it is unpleasant. Stephen B Streater 06:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk some more. This vote is premature.

1. WAS 4.250 01:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

   They can comment and discuss on this page. --Fangz 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

2. I haven't seen one bit of support for Fangz's position yet (other than from him). Cyde Weys 09:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
3. I have changed my mind. I voted with a false premise in mind, namely that other people had voted like me for the same reason as I. We must talk more. How does do "strikethru" on my vote above? DanielDemaret 08:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Use < followed by "strike" without quote marks and > to start a strikethrough, then end it with < then / then "strike" without quotes then >. Homestarmy 14:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Speedy delete This poll, come on now, we've gone over this too much. Homestarmy 01:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• In what way? I don't see any agreement to change the status of either of the two articles mentioned, or any attempt to justify a clear difference between them. If you think the cases are different, give a reason and put down a vote for keeping the present situation.--Fangz 01:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• This article isn't about the horror's of the goatse article, it's about cartoons. 12 of them to be precise. And apparently about how a certain religion is capable of rioting because of them, burning down buildings, threatening holy war, and destroying lives all in the case of stopping the presses. Without the cartoons displayed, people might get the mistaken impression that most of the people who are attacking everything actually have a good reason for it. Homestarmy 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you leave your rage and hate-speak outside the door please? I haven't even given an opinion yet. I want to establish - clearly and calmly - (a) whether there is a contradiction, and (b) what should be done about it. *Before* the trolls take us to pieces about it and start slinging the claims of unobjectiveness and so on. Goatse may be the inside of a person, but so is Heart. As laid out above, this poll is different because we are trying to establish a precadent for all future cases, and iron out a previous inconsistency. We may have 4 polls for one side, but we also have a poll for the other and it will take one more to overrule that one. If you think that the Goatse issue isn't enough to suspend the freedom of speech argument on the cartoons case, then vote to display goatse or tell me why there isn't a problem. The actions of the people wrt the cartoons only establishes notability - arguably, there is just as much neccessity for readers to see Goatse to decide whether or not the popular impression of it is an exaggeration as there is to see the cartoons to decide whether or not the rioting was an overreaction.--Fangz 02:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Eh, I probably should of clarified that. I meant to say an at least highly signifigant minority of a certain religion, though that's only proportional guess-work by me, it could very easily be a majority, I don't know census numbers. Im also pretty sure something this expansive really ought to have it's own policy behind it, which you can of course suggest to the policy category of Wikipedia. Besides, it's a bit obvious with a name like "goat sex" that the picture is going to be extremely offensive and lewd to the highest degree, whereas "Mohammad cartoons" just plain doesn't ring the same bell. If they were cartoons that featured Mohammad in provocative, nude, disgusting, or otherwise awful poses, then of course these cartoons shouldn't of been published, much of the issue in the middle east is because people were running around claiming that pictures of that very same class were the ones being printed, yet as we can see from the picture, they were not. If people don't actually see the pictures, all we can say is that we were the encyclopedia that robbed the world of information and helped to feed the lies many Islamics are spreading about the content of these cartoons, possibly leading to even more destruction, pain, and death than there already is. Homestarmy 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Hate speech?! That was hardly hate speech. In fact, it's merely a secular humanist (or atheistic) critique on religion. You're not going to go see atheists killing dozens of people and burning property over the exercise of free speech. It's actually very telling that you consider this critique of religion "hate speech". Tell me, is there some reason all religions are automatically supposed to be valid or above reproach, and any attack on them is blasphemous hate speech? --Cyde Weys 08:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Err, actually, im a fundamentalist Christian, I just don't like Islam for many of the same reasons many secular humanists or atheists do, but as for the people who aren't going crazy over it, well it just looks to me like people choosing to excercise their concience as opposed to making death threats, I can't see a problem with that as much :/. Homestarmy 14:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • You should convert to the EAC. Our crackers are better. --Cyde Weys 00:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
          • But doesn't their website say their after our children and pets? Plus, no eternal salvation man, that's lame. Homestarmy 13:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this poll. This is, what, the fifth or sixth poll on trying to censor images highly relevant to an article. Exhaustively discussed, exhaustively polled. The polls keep coming up with the same consensus. Re-re-re-re-polling in the hope that you'll eventually get a different answer is not productive. Weregerbil 11:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete the poll. Valtam 16:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• SPEEDY DELETE Mitigating circumstances surround each individual article. It's like when bush said kerry was flip-flopping on ideas, when kerry was really interpreting new information and making different choices based on that info. I'm with the group that feels each case should be handled on an individual basis, lots of work or not, it's the right thing to do. Making blanket policy regarding this isn't something two pieces of the wikipedia community should do anyway. If it were to be set as a global policy, it would have to go on the front page. -Moocats 12:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• (speedy) delete poll. we've been over this often enough. dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Abstain from voting

Abstain I belive both images should be possible to reach from Wikipedia, but that people not should exposed to them against their will, if they just want to read about the case. Bertilvidet 12:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Abstain The community attempts to reach consensus on every decision. In one case, the decision was to keep a certain image, in another to remove it. I don't think we need to compare every decision made and discuss whether they were made on identical grounds. This happens all the time on many different issues. If we tried to make editorial laws all the time, that would be all that we would be discussing, instead of focusing on writing an encyclopedia. jacoplane 13:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)