Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 6

< Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Number 57 in topic Discussion regarding possible picture of the day: Michele Merkin
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Discussion regarding possible picture of the day: Michele Merkin

Latest comment: 10 years ago251 comments68 people in discussion
Consensus is against this being used as POTD. Number 57 08:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First blurb

A glamour shot showing Michele Merkin, an American model and television host. Merkin has appeared in such magazines as ELLE, Marie Claire, Harper's Bazaar and Vogue. She has hosted The Next Best Thing, E! News Daily, NBC's For Love or Money and VH1's Red Eye.Photograph: Ian Scott
Archive – More featured pictures...

Second blurb

A glamour shot showing Michele Merkin, an American model and television host. The genre of glamour photography is most used commercially, with models – usually professional – holding a still position to allow for a composed image. Photographers may use a combination of cosmetics, lighting and airbrushing techniques to produce an image of the subject considered appealing for the target demographic.Photograph: Ian Scott
Archive – More featured pictures...
  • Greetings, all. As I've promised elsewhere, before I run a potentially controversial image in POTD, I would like to open up discussion so that the community can decide whether or not the image should be run. What you have before you is an image of Michele Merkin, an American model and television presenter, who's image may run on June 25, 2014 (her birthday). The image has been a featured picture since 2006, and has not run on the main page since then owing to concerns over possible negative feedback from her minimally dressed state. However, as Wikipedia is not censored, and sometimes near-nudity has its value, I feel that this should be a community decision. As the image is no longer used in Merkin's article (just recently removed, in fact) the blurb is for glamour photograph, where this still has what we call "encyclopedic value": it remains educationally illustrative of a subject or concept.
In the sections below, please write if you support or oppose this image running (with this blurb or another), along with your reasoning. This discussion will be closed in two weeks, and then the image removed or scheduled as necessary. Posts have been made at WT:MP, WT:FPC, and the talk pages of glamour photography and Mirkin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Just a note: this discussion will be closed by an uninvolved admin. Although I have not !voted, as the initiator of this discussion I am certainly not uninvolved. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

  • Weak support - I'm not quite sure what commends this image rather than any other, but the image proposed would not be considered indecent by most standards. You could stick that on a public billboard here in the UK. The idea that a certain amount of bare skin is automatically not for the main page is a curious one at best. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, quite - hence my support. I regard the FP process as sufficient - there should be no obstacle to this image going on the home page. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. I meant more that nothing much commended it to me over other featured images, but that I certainly have no objection. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Why not? As stated above it was acknowledged as "one of Wikipedia's best images". -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, beautiful photo. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, I see this photograph as artistic and well composed. I am also leary of censorship-based rationalizations against it. --Bark (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, as per Bark. Honestly, the biggest reason to oppose is "eww, topless, gross!", but this really isn't any better or worse than the cover of half the magazines plainly visible at my local 7-Eleven. Resolute 14:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, the picture does have EV, being used in the glamour photography article. Similar glamorous images would be found almost constantly in most western media, both printed and TV. The idea that others don't like it and might 'complain' is all the more reason to use it, to challenge the misconceptions of beliefs of those who practice sexism (gender discrimination). Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 15:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, It's already been judged as featured image worthy, so judging its quality is not my task. Besides the fact that we are not censored, and besides the fact that full nudity has been on the front page before, and is so regularly in paintings without controversy, this doesn't even depict nudity. This image is 100% safe for US network primetime TV (not that this is the yardstick - indeed we have no yardstick - but simply for comparison), I cannot imagine that it is not suitable for Wikipedia. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 18:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with blurb 1. The picture is not pornographic, in fact you see more in many daily newspapers here in the UK. The image itself has been deemed to be of a sufficient quality to gain FP status, so there's no real reason not to use it. Date suggested is appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with either blurb. Per Mjroots, the picture shows no pornography (breasts are not visible). And I don't think beaches are not suitable for children because of people showing more than 90% of their skin bare. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support with either blurb . Is a FP, used in a article, part of a type of image we dont access very often, and is a very good example of the subject. Even in the US (by far the most prudish country i can image) there are 100 feet ads with people wearing much less than she is, so I dont see why that particulary image would be a problem. Béria Lima msg 14:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Assuming that "imagine" is the word you intended, Beria, then I conclude that you simply can't imagine countries like Saudi Arabia, or any other predominantly Muslim country in the world. There are dozens of them, and they are vastly more prudish than the USA. Arguably, many non-Muslim Asian countries are as well. It's a big world. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't see any prudish Saudi Arab here, can you? But American prudish, in the other hand... All canvassed though e-mail and facebook, BTW. And I would really LOVE the day the grammar nazi squad remember their own place on Earth and start looking someone else than their belly button. Béria Lima msg 13:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I see no reason to treat this image any differently to any other FP. None of the oppose !votes offer compelling reasons. It's just a photo, and doesn't show anything particularly offensive. No reason not to run it. If editors think it is not a very good photo or of dubious EV, then they should propose it is de-listed as an FP, not placed on some Main Page blacklist. Modest Genius talk 19:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Every single oppose is about the content of the photo, not about its quality. We're not supposed to judge these matters based on our own personal values, merely upon quality. Personal values as to appropriateness differ on an individual basis, which is why such criteria are a terrible means to arrive at a consensus decision. Instead, we should be judging based primarly on objective measures of quality, not on personal values which others may not share. --Jayron32 11:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment User:Jayron32, that isn't true. My oppose, as well as many others aren't just about the content - or aren't about the content. The white balance is off, the lighting is dark and miserable in the background, and it looks like she's standing in a fountain in at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. I did make-up for better glamour shots for Hooters girls back in the day in the Midwest of the US. But, the "freely licensed shots" are often not as great as the copyrighted versions, I've noticed, too. SarahStierch (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment Once consensus has been reached, further comments/rationale on quality is invalid. Godhulii 1985 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that Sarah, perhaps I overstated, instead of "every single" I should have said "the vast majority". Opposes based on the quality are certainly quite valid, and perhaps I missed the grain of sand that was your oppose amongst the entire beach of comments that amount to "I don't like pictures of women's skin" or whatever other personal values people are objecting to. I apologize for missing your comment, and I didn't mean to disparage your quite valid concerns. --Jayron32 18:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who actually reads the "opposes" in totality can see that you are mischaracterizing and charicaturing the range of concerns that many editors have raised, Jayron32. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a range of personal values being expressed from a wide variety of perspectives. That's the problem. They are personal values, and given the fact that everyone's values differ, the fact that there's a huge variance of reasons to say "I just don't like this picture because it's (exploitative/offensive/shows too much skin/isn't a man/insert reason here" doesn't mean that I feel those are valid reasons to oppose. Look, I have sympathy for some of these positions. I actually agree with those who find pictures like the exploitative of women as objects of desire. But just because I believe that, doesn't mean that I can impose my opinion as such on the mechanics of Wikipedia. If I begin to demand that my opinions about issues of personal morality should determine the course of a worldwide encyclopedia, then whose particular personal morality should we follow? Do we follow the morality of the person who objects because their offended by nudity in any form? Do we follow the morality of a person who finds the exploitation of women offensive? Why should my opinion about the offensiveness of this picture be the deciding factor in why it should be featured, when there are hundreds of other intelligent, rational people with differing opinions. To make that melange of personal opinions the way we make decisions at Wikipedia leads nowhere good. Instead, we should put aside our personal feelings, as I have, and judge based on quality and criteria already agreed upon ahead of time. This is a featured picture, it meets the criteria as I read them, and my feelings about its offensiveness should not be why I decide to support or oppose, rather merely upon the criteria that were in place before the picture was nominated. I can find no objective fault when compared to the criteria, which is why I supported, and that I find so few people in the oppose side doing the same that is disheartening. --Jayron32 00:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a matter of editorial judgment, which is expressed here through consensus. To say that it is not the greatest image, and that it reinforces stereotypes, and is absent from the biography of the subject, and is proposed to be linked to a truly poor article; seem to me like legitimate issues around which to frame a discussion about editorial judgment leading to consensus. If approval of the image as "featured" is all that is required, along with a link to an article of a quality standard of "if it hasn't been deleted, then it is OK no matter how crappy", then write a bot to crank 'em out. But this very debate is about human editorial judgment, and those who oppose are just as entitled to speak out as those who support, without being unfairly stereotyped as Christian prudes. Why have the discussion in the first place, if it ought to be a foregone conclusion? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I;ve never used words like that. You did. I just said that I found opinions based on personal opinions of morality unhelpful towards deciding whether or not to show the picture on the main page. I've not singled out any one moral perspective, you did that. I've not claimed one particular moral perspective is superior than others, what I've done is called into question the usefulness of using personal morality at all as a criteria for arriving at decisions of this type. Editorial decisions based on valid editorial judgement, including image quality, article quality, criteria that we all agreed ahead of time we would assess the article against, are exactly what I am arguing we SHOULD make decisions against. When you invent things I didn't say, and then criticize me for saying them, it's hard to have a rational discussion. I never used terms you said I used, I never said that there was no place for editorial concerns weighed against the POTD criteria, and I never said that people who opposed based on their assessment of that criteria are invalid. You claimed I said that, and then criticized me for doing so. Had someone said what you said I said (but didn't), I'd have criticized that person to. I didn't, I'm not, and I will not be in the future saying such things. So please to claim I have, I am, or I will. -Jayron32 16:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I mentioned above that I have not !voted yet, and I had intended to keep it that way, but seeing as my position is already clear, I should probably expand on my rationale. First of all, I agree that this image is sexploitation. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. I also understand that many women (I will not say all women, but many for sure) would feel uncomfortable with such exploitation on the main page. However, and this is where I split with many of the opposes below, I find that this actually increases the encyclopedic value of the image in discussing glamour photography, as it is representative of the gender biases inherent to the medium as it has been practiced to date, particularly in a commercial setting; this gives it even greater educational value than a well-composed image of, say, a runway model with lots of jewellery. Now, we can't include an explicit condemnation of sexploitation as it is practiced in glamour / commercial photography, as that is both POV (although a POV I agree with) and goes against the licensing since it implies that Merkin and the photographer are against such sexualization, but we can educate readers with a link to an article which discusses the genre in an academic nature and promotes media awareness, making those readers who may not have thought about the exploitation begin to notice it in their day-to-day lives. Maybe a bit optimistic, but it could be done.
Secondly, although I do not personally find the image "hot" or "sexy", it is both a) a featured picture and b) a decent representation of the over-the-top, verifiably false nature of much glamour photography, especially that seen in magazines. Unlike some commercial photography which tries to lie about its falseness (the Dove Real Beauty campaign comes to mind), the image doesn't try to deny it. The lighting is entirely over the top and somewhat unnatural, which makes viewers realize what an unreal standard of beauty is depicted; this actually helps us disspell the beauty myth.
Third, and as mentioned elsewhere, the amount of skin shown in this image is considerably less than an American viewer could get during prime-time TV or in a magazine (or a European viewer could get in most media). We talk about concerns of standards of decency and editorial discretion, yet we do not compare what is shown on the main page to what is readily available elsewhere. PG-13 films have sexual innuendo and some have nude scenes (Titanic comes to mind), for instance, yet very rarely do most parents I know concern themselves over a 12 y.o. watching a PG or PG-13 film. Magazine covers have been mentioned elsewhere. It is thus, for me at least, plausible that even to many American viewers (singled out here because the culture is often seen as stricter than European ones in regards to nudity) this may not raise too many eyebrows.
I do not expect my position to change anyone's views. I just hope people realize that there is more being considered than just WP:UNCENSORED. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm personally really not getting your rationale in paragraph #1, since nowhere in the blurb does it link to anything about sexploitation, gender inequality, exploitation of women; on the contrary, the blurb links prominently to an undeniably poor and foreshortened article of incorrect and uncited information. It does not link to "an article which discusses the genre in an academic nature and promotes media awareness". I also don't get this: "Unlike some commercial photography which tries to lie about its falseness (the Dove Real Beauty campaign comes to mind), the image doesn't try to deny it. The lighting is entirely over the top and somewhat unnatural, which makes viewers realize what an unreal standard of beauty is depicted; this actually helps us disspell the beauty myth." Huh? Where did all that come from? I personally don't agree with any of that. I'm not trying to be annoying or to start an argument, but I felt I had to register my disagreement with this. Now that I have, I'm done; I think the repetitive arguments on this page are counterproductive, and that there appears to be a consensus anyway so that arguing isn't really going to change that. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought I had said it clearly, but I'll try again: as far as I understand the license, we legally cannot define glamour photography as sexploitation in the blurb, or imply that Merkin endorses the definition of glamour photography as a form of sexploitation, owing to a clause in the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license which is currently used on the image ("You may not implicitly ... assert or imply any ... endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of ... Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties.)" This means that we depend on the article for discussion of the sexploitation charges levied against the genre. I agree, that the genre article is a mess, but we've got a month, and in that time I can pester one or two editors with JStor access for sources which can be used to add some academic discussion of glamour photography. Agree, though, that a consensus is pretty clear here, and this will probably not be necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Did you notice my comment below? If I saw this, I would feel unwelcome as a user and an editor, and I know I am not the only one. Fhocutt (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't, and I'll be honest, I can't make a connection between seeing a picture and feeling unwelcome. I can't think of a single photo that would make me feel that way. Not even a picture of me, with "You're not welcome" on it. -- LookingYourBest (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support This is an image I've gotten into arguments about before. I'm a thorough believer in the "Wikipedia is not censored" principle, and am on record as being a strong supporter of retaining this image and its use in the glamour photography article. (An article that, BTW, does need some real cleanup - if half the words spilled in this discussion were put towards improving that article, we'd have at least one corner of Wikipedia that would be materially improved.) That said, I can see how a more general audience might have some that might be put off by seeing the image splashed over the front page of EN Wikipedia. Hence, though it wouldn't offend me if it was POTD, but I could see how this, like some of the medical pictures on WP, might not belong front and center, given the principle of least astonishment and all that. - So why support it at all? Well, it's no secret where opposition to this image is coming from - once again, it's the Ada Initiative attempting to shove their ideology down everybody's throat. If putting this image on the front page represents express rejection of that kind of ideological policing from a clique that has way too much power and influence out of proportion to its numbers, then it's a statement worth making. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support second blurb The focus of the blurb should be on glamour photography itself, not on the individual given as an example. --Philpill691 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

"People come to POTD for landscapes and wilflife photos etc., not seminude pictures." Said who? She has panties, and breasts covered by hands, so where's the problem? "We shouldn't put these kinds of things where people won't expect to see them"? I guess that people who regularly browse Internet, watch TV or walk in the streets of civilized world should survive the view of our main page featuring this particular image. This is absolutely harmless photo, at least in my Euro-centric opinion. Apologies to all who swim in coats. No disrespect intended. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Jakob, with the due respect for your opinion, but you think that - as i said above - beaches are not suitable for children because there are a lot of women and girls who show so much bare skin? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Everybody knows that that can be seen at a beach - and choose to avoid beaches for that reason if they so desire. But few people will be aware that this photo will be on the main page. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 15:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Seemingly a good point. But actually a no-point answer unless it can be demonstrated that the ones that don't go to the beach are the same that would see pornography in this photograph. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 16:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
And not in Michele Merkin too. So what the the relevance now? Jee 09:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There's still be EV in glamour photography, though we would probably need to rework the paragraph a bit. The image was removed from Merkin's page owing to consensus at a talk page discussion, so not likely to be reinserted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • IMHO, review should take place at FPC; so we can't evaluate the EV in Glamour photography here. And we are bound to respect the consensus at article space. Now the image is removed from both articles where we access enough EV; so eligible for a delist. (This is not Commons; so quality of the work alone is not enough for FP/POTD.) Jee 09:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
This reminds me the African elephant incident. The article editors think a picture is not suitable; and we are pushing it through back doors without considering their opinion in FPC. Rarely we notify them about the review is going on except from my side. Good; carry on. Now I understand the problem is not of Commons alone as Signpost complained. :) Jee 10:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I am unfamiliar with that incident, and have no intention of pushing this image on the main editors at Merkin's article. Hence why the blurb has glamour photograph bolded, and why the blurb is likely going to focus on photography rather than Merkin. I dislike the implication that I am forcing anything on anyone, to be quite honest; that this discussion has been opened should be evidence against that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not questioning your intentions. But better be wise and postpone such cases if the article editors reject an FP. If there is EV in another newly invented place, it should be re reviewed. Just my opinion. Jee 10:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Seriously? She's a lovely beautiful woman but until I see equal weight given to sexy male photography I can't support this. *sarcasm* But seriously... and ya'll can argue your brains out but really? This is going to start a shitstorm. SarahStierch (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and as someone who has worked in high fashion (I was a make-up artist) and worked with photographers (as an assistant) the white balance is too much in this image - from the water to the lighting on her skin - so there are my two cents there. I've also been in a few magazines, when am I gonna get on the front page of Commons? ;-) (I kid...I kid...) SarahStierch (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The second point (about the imagery) is something for the FPC nomination (or delist nomination, as it would be). Once an image is determined to be an FP, currently there is no consensus for "this has x technical flaw, so it should not be run" decisions. I agree with your point about about having a male model being ideal, but for your "education versus swimsuit modeling"... what if the topic is swimsuit modelling, or glamour shots? Hence the second blurb. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sarah, I just would like to remark the fact that the photograph has been licenced for Commons by the model herself. At this point I assume she needs a period of rieducation in some camp to learn not to show herself in order to avoid looking disturbing? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 16:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't mean much to me- it's fine she licensed it, and again, I worked in that industry, specializing in glamour, for ten years, but that doesn't mean I think it should be featured on the front page of the 5/6th most popular website which is struggling to retain editors, let alone attract more diverse people to edit. The image isn't even all that great - the best one's probably weren't freely licensed :) SarahStierch (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Kaldari. This isn't worth the impending shitstorm --Guerillero | My Talk 03:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It brings no value to the front page; it does not teach us about women's lives or even their anatomy. It sends the wrong message about Wikipedia. Harej (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an eight year old photo of a now 38 year old woman which is no longer in her biography. Why is POTD celebrating her birthday, anyway? I agree as well with SarahStierch, but admit I haven't checked the archive. Regulars, has POTD ever featured a "beefcake" style photo of a shirtless male hunk? If not, why not? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What is a birthday but an anniversary by another name? If you want exclusively birthdays, there's been Sarah Vaughan, Baldassare Castiglione, and Annkathrin Kammeyer so far this year. It is common, at both TFA and POTD. Now, as for this image particularly, I figured there'd be a very... lively... discussion and thus chose a date which was sufficiently far enough away for this discussion to be completed. Her birthday fit the bill. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, it appears from your response I haven't made myself clear, Crisco 1492. I have no objections to birthday commemorations per se and the first two people you mentioned are indisputably worthy of the honor. As for the third, she is interesting as an elected official of such youth, and the portrait is not sexualized. There is something abut the combination of the relative obscurity of this person (though I agree she is notable), the age of the photo of this living person who is now eight years older, and the overtly sexualized aspects of the image (which is clearly not pornographic) but may bother many people. I am not at all offended myself by the photo in the abstract, but it rubs me the wrong way in this specific context. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You asked "Why is POTD celebrating her birthday, anyway?". You got an answer, and said it wasn't your point, and asked "I was wondering why we are celebrating the birthday of such a minor figure as Michele Merkin?". Another answer, a similar response. No mention until just now that all three in combination was an issue, or that the concept of birthday commemorations in general was not an issue. At a TFA nomination for a Confederate general's article (also to run on his birthday), there were similar concerns (although from another editor), so I thought it possible that some do not recognize why parts of the main page aside from OTD run such birthdays. My apologies, as I was mistaken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I agree with SarahStierch and Cullen328. There are technically better and less overtly titillating images if we want to illustrate glamour photography (and seriously, why not beefcake?). Prominently featuring sexualized and unclothed images of women and not similarly-presented men on the front page creates the impression that Wikipedia is written by and for straight men. Fhocutt (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Per SarahStierch. It's not about censorship, it's about equality. Pbjamesphoto (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: Women's bodies are misused to sell too many things, wikipedia does not need to be one of them. Montanabw(talk) 05:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: There's been commentary that it's not a particularly offensive image, that it could appear on a billboard in the UK, etc. I don't disagree with that, but isn't this an encyclopedia for the whole world? Isn't this image going to be more offensive in a lot of countries less liberal than the UK? Is it what people in Islamic countries want to see on the main page or want their children to see? I doubt it. The main page should be there to welcome all people to Wikipedia, not be a turn-away for them. There are plenty of photos on Commons that would be acceptable to all; why deliberately pick one that can be predicted to be offensive to a large chunk of the global population (even a chunk of the population of the UK)? Kerry (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The problem with "what the world wants to see" is that there is no standard. A simple image of Hillary Clinton with an unveiled face would be enough to cause problems in some countries, whereas an image of Clinton veiled would probably lead to negative feedback from Americans. This is, of course, setting aside the fact that some people believe any form of photography is iconistic, and should thus be avoided. If one judges all images by what someone, somewhere, believes is inappropriate, then one ends up with no images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Kerry - your concern for Muslims is misplaced. We already offend a lot of them by displaying images of Muhammad. Does that concern you? Have you complained about that? HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This is not educational (an 8 year old pic of a woman now 38?), I don't think it's even shocking (this kind of image is really common in tabloids and rags). It's exploitative. Do we really need yet another media story about the ongoing systemic bias in English Wikipedia? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 07:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I would have thought that American religious conservatism and prudishness is a big part of our systemic bias. I am a massive opponent of systemic bias. I support the use of this image. HiLo48 (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not American. I oppose systemic bias (be it US-centric or gender-centric or Catholic-centric). And (thus) I oppose this image. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you please explain what part of our systemic bias you think is in play here? The part I see in play is conservative American religious prudishness. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I don't find it "offensive" as such, but it's a needlessly controversial image, especially coming after the recent "stack of corpses" fiasco. There are plenty of other great pictures we can choose from that won't annoy a whole bunch of people, lets use them instead. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Oppose. When deciding what to prominently display to our community, we are saying something about who we are and how others should see us, and deciding which people we'll be consistently friendly to. As Kaldari put it in the 2009 discussion, it would be better to make choices that avoid "objectifying women in a context that is supposed to be appealing to people of all different backgrounds, genders, ages, etc." I am a woman and I prefer to do work in places where my peers and I are not receiving visual cues to objectify women's bodies. Sumana Harihareswara 09:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia's role as an encyclopaedia is surely to reflect and describe the world as it is. It's certainly not our job to right great wrongs. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, it strikes me that the particular policy you are pointing to (part of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing) applies more to editing individual articles than to designing what experience we want visitors and editors to have overall. If treating women respectfully would not be a reflection of "the world as it is," then we should act better than the surrounding world. Sumana Harihareswara 09:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Where is the policy saying that we pretend things aren't as they really are? HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose It might be appropriate in some places - like in the Glamour photography article (which is, as an aside, a poor quality article) - but not on the front page. It objectifies women. Wikipedia needs more women editors. Let's not send that kind of message to Wikipedia readers (and potential editors). Lightbreather (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If one is attempting to attract more female editors, then sadly, this will not help in doing that. I agree that it is great glamour photography, however, if you're going to put up a POTD of a female model in a glamour photograph (regardless of what she is wearing) then I can see this propelling further ideas about EN:WP and sexism. (Not saying this is "right" or "wrong," it's just how it is.) InfinityBird (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Here we go again. Anyway, it's a decent example of glamor photography. On the Glamour photography article, I would expect content like this. However, I don't think it should be a POTD. The Coca-Cola logo is a great example of logo design, and has a long history in culture. Modulo fair use, of course it should be part of Wikipedia. However, would we use the Coca-Cola logo -- the current one, not some historical curiosity -- as a POTD? I think not. There's no lack of Coca-Cola logos in the world today, and by displaying the image, Wikipedia would start to look like it was advertising for the company, and part of a commercial transaction. I think this image is similar. In 2014, glamor photography is already everywhere you look on the Internet, and is used to drive views to publications due to salacious interest, in a culture where actresses are expected to objectify themselves sexually for fame. It is inescapable that by prominently featuring this, Wikipedia starts to look more like it's engaged in, or supports, that kind of culture. NeilK (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Kaldari and Lightbreather. It's a mediocre glamour photo of dubious EV, whatever is positive in its favor is dwarfed by the negatives. BalPhoto (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we want to attract and retain women editors, this is not the way to achieve it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have no problem with the image. Its standard model photography, but Sarah is right about it aesthetically.189.253.61.218 (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A sexist photograph, and no educational content, so it's not covered by the overall mission of Wikimedia projects.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Does featuring this picture as english POTD in any way represent the best interests of Wikipedia? This discussion is a microcosm of the larger world: 1) people WILL find it offensive 2) it will NOT be considered appropriate viewing for school-age children or their teachers 3) it will NOT be considered appropriate for many professional workplaces 4) it WILL alienate potential editors 5) it is highly likely to generate bad publicity. These are predictable outcomes: none of them will benefit Wikipedia or enhance its credibility. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment All great points User:Mary Mark Ockerbloom, especially the educational situation - I have colleagues who tell me stories about the famous pornographic anime that was the POTD on Commons and teaching training courses on Wikipedia to librarians and pulling up Commons and there was image - all with the point of showing the mission and merits of contributing to Commons. Let's just say the response was one of shock and horror and nothing ever came from that partnership! SarahStierch (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Then such people are conservatives who we don't want at Wikipedia. Perhaps like several of the above posters, who are clearly seeking censorship, and pretending it's something else. Please go to Conservapedia. Find me a child, or teacher, for heavens sake, who has been damaged by such an image. (BTW, I am a teacher. I guess you will think I have been damaged. That's actually an insult.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Your comment must be read against the background of the American debate on pornography, I suppose. However, my vote does not come from this debate. Also, it has nothing to do with censorship because there is no such thing as a censorship in all-private projects.--Aschmidt (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that the image in question is pornographic? HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
YMMV, but, as I already wrote, I do not share the Anglo-Saxon point of view on these matters. I just do not think the image is fit for the main page of an educational project, and I would not buy a paper with a photo like this on top neither because I do not like it when people are displayed in such poses for a commercial purpose, be it women or men. Again, this has nothing to do with censorship, it is simply a matter of taste and respect.--Aschmidt (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good grief, let's not contribute to the objectification and sexualization of the female body, the use of Photoshop to produce ridiculously unrealistic and unattainable levels of female physical perfection and sexualization, and the objectification, exploitation, and subjugation of women in general. Why don't we have a (tastefully) nude photo of Hugh Jackman instead? Softlavender (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • "Why don't we have a (tastefully) nude photo of Hugh Jackman instead?" - If one is donated (I doubt a Wikipedian would be in the right position) which meets the featured picture criteria, we'll certainly have a go at having it featured. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
For the record, and in case it wasn't obvious to anybody, that question was rhetorical and sarcastic. Softlavender (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. "Appealing?" (2nd blurb) Appealing to what, to whom and in what way? The image is gratuitously sexual, and the description doesn't match it: if you wanted a picture that accurately matched the description, for a wide swathe of the population (not just a particularly skewed male demographic), then it would be a picture of jazzed up food. Could there be a more accurate indication of just how much of a gender problem the Wikipedia community has, than picking this kind of picture? Hildabast (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've already registered my !vote, but I'd like to also comment that rationalizing this as a POTD by saying it represents glamour photography is yet another reason this is ill-conceived, because that article is among the worst articles I've seen on Wikipedia -- inaccurate, full of uncited claims and WP:OR, severely incomplete and uncited, and in general an all-around mess. Why in the world would we want to call attention to a bad, skimpy, and inaccurate article? This seems very ill-advised at best. Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree 100% with Softlavender. It is kind to call Glamour photography mediocre. All four references are hidden behind pay walls, and the article is packed full of questionable assumptions. I wrote a biography Fred R. Archer about a man who might be called a glamour photographer as he earned his living early in his career doing promotional portraits of Hollywood stars. The literature and history of this field is far richer than this article hints at, and the current version emphasizes the most sexualized aspects of the genre. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Point of order: could this please be moved a bit further south (i.e. in the next section), as it is commentary/further discussion? Second, I remind everyone that this is POTD, not AOTD; POTD is not, nor has it ever been, a vouch for the quality of the article; heck, there have been at times no standards for the length of the attached article (those days are over now, for the record). I agree that the glamor photography article needs work desperately (that a merge discussion is even being considered viable is further proof of your statement, Cullen), but that is outside the purview of POTD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Editorial discretion. wctaiwan (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The glamour photography article itself reads very badly, and after seeing photos of Merkin on more than a few male editors user pages, I'm unconvinced this has been nominated out of respect for the models career. Much as I respect the occupation and her decision to model for it, for it is a career valid as any other, I still think the industry is tied up with the objectification of women and the misogyny of general society, and whatever your outlook on this, it still carries a stigma, one that will be seen by everybody who visits the main page. Considering the gender WP:BIAS of the website, that is, the fact that only 8.5% of editors are women, I do not feel putting pictures like this on the main page is going to encourage more, in fact, after reading some of the responses above, it may ostracize the current female userbase, and better gender diversity is something this website desperately needs --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kerry and Mary Mark. Unnecessarily alienating to potential editors and surprising to readers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose just doesn't strike me as encyclopedic or informative. Sorry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Entirely inappropriate for the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Putting aside the fact that you'd never nominate a photo of a pantless man for the front page, exactly what educational or informational value does this picture have? Typically, photos on the front page involve cultural history or natural history. This photo is more suited to a men's magazine and is far from unique, you can go to any number of websites or pick up magazines that will have similar photos. I'd feel the same if someone nominated a photo of a celebrity baby or marriage, no matter how beautiful the photograph was. The Commons has this rich wealth of photographic images, it's an enormous repository and a photo of a pretty topless woman is about as ordinary and commonplace as you can get.
Also, while I agree that Wikipedia is not censored, there is the real possibility that this would be the first image a child might see as most people come to the front page first. Or someone from a culturally conservative background or population. Bottom line, this will certainly get people's attention but is that the kind of press Wikipedia needs, especially given the fact that it does not have as much credibility as an ordinary encyclopedia. Posting this image to shock folks will not bring in new editors, educate our readers and serve the stated purposes of the encyclopedia. Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it is desperately boring and I have seen no argument that it has any interesting context or significance. "Models are sometimes made to look pretty in photographs" is not a concept that most people in the world are unclear on. Unlike some, I think it has no chance of getting negative media attention, as giving attention to an anodyne glamour photo is depressingly common and I think more people will have their eyes glaze over with self-protective and immediate disinterest than will be moved to give it any more attention in any way. It is less provocative than anything seen in a commercial for hair products or random stock photography and ultimately more pointless than either. A picture of Newt Gingrich's current shoes would have more historical educational value and a picture of the change in my pocket would have arguably more artistic value. In its favor, I could say that the picture probably has sufficient resolution.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Internet does not need more titillating pics. Also, how many PoDs contain promotions like "Photo courtesy of: Michele Merkin"? An image credit is traditional for some unknown reason, but a fluffy promotional image of X, courtesy of X, is not acceptable on the main page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I could have sworn that, at the time I wrote the first blurb, that's how this image was credited. I'm wrong, apparently... anyways, I've now changed the credit line — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While it is standard to allow all Featured Pictures to appear as POTD with limited exceptions (usually technical or lack of content/context) I think that we have to look at the bigger picture. Seeing as how Wikipedia already has a reputation for being unfriendly to women, I think it's best not to further that image. —howcheng {chat} 02:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Any chance we can dispense with posts of the form "It's not what I think of the picture that's the problem. It's what I think some unnamed others will think"? Such posts sound caring and compassionate, but are, in fact, based on no concrete evidence or policy. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It's still a valid argument, whether you agree with it or not, because nowhere is it written that selecting POTD must be solely based on policy – we are free to use editorial discretion. I also dispute your claim that there is "no concrete evidence", because it is a fact that Wikipedia has an image problem when it comes to the treatment of women, whether as subjects (the whole "American female writers category" incident) or as editors. We also have past experience that when the POTD appears to be exploitative of women there's a big brouhaha (the tentacle porn image on Commons). I understand that you want to push the NOTCENSORED angle, but is this one image really worth the fight? If SarahStierch is right and this really isn't a technically well done photo, perhaps de-listing it would be the best solution and we make this whole discussion moot. —howcheng {chat} 07:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Howcheng was the one who had handled POTD for years, earlier. So he probably well know what it is, and what it meant to be. Jee 03:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
What? HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Howcheng managed POTD for something like five years, and it was he who first placed the Merkin image on WP:POTD/Unused. We have talked about this and agreed to see how the community would accept the image running on the main page. He is, as Jee was implying, well-versed with how people react to certain images and how POTD has been run. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose. That lady's got no clothes on. She must be cold. The photographer should have put down his camera and given her a sweater. Some people are so thoughtless! Might be willing to change my vote if the blurb started out "Objectivization of women for commercial exploitation, as seen in this photograph, is..." Herostratus (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This isn't Ralph, boys. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a professional-looking photo of the type used to attract attention for commercial purposes. Unfortunately, despite the model's outstanding physique, featuring photos like this is unhelpful for those of us doing outreach to cultures opposed to using the female form for commercial purposes. Perhaps there is some non-commercial significance in this photo that isn't immediately obvious, somethng on the order of "Imogen and Twinka", Waneek Horn-Miller's Time magazine cover, Leon Li, or Doris Schwaiger, possibly involving who the model is, or the particular location with the aqueduct, but if so, our caption isn't bringing it out. Djembayz (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The commercial nature of the image is, you know, kinda inherent to the genre. That's what most glamour photography with professional models ends up used for. That's also what gives the image encyclopedic value in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, it seems that some of those opposed to using the image regard the glamour industry as something somehow beneath them, and beneath Wikipedia. That's unhelpful. I don't approve of the glamour industry much at all either, but it's very real, and very big. We cannot leave it out of Wikipedia simply because we disapprove. As with every other topic, we should report on it as thoroughly as possible. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, as convenient as it would be to make a living by letting people stare at me and fill the media with praise about my appearance, and as fun and attractive as I find some of the women choosing this path through life, it is alas not an option for me, darn! :) The all-pervasive presence of the glamour industry can be highly annoying to us gals who have to get by on the basis of our knowledge, skills, and abilities. And we are, after all, the female demographic who can take time away from our many admirers (not to mention the family obligations that tend to ensue for women besieged with male attention), and devote ourselves to editing Wikipedia. I would hope that we would prioritize attracting the female editor demographic ... rather than annoying and antagonizing potential participants. And again, if we really want to be able to reach out to people in more traditional societies, we need to make the main page something these folks find informative, not an insulting provocation. We have plenty of room in the rest of the encyclopedia where this content is better placed. Djembayz (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Oh no, looked again and suddenly realized this isn't glam photography after all, it's NSFW. We could antagonize our readers even further by putting this photo on the main page as an example of Subliminal stimuli, and giving a full and explicit explanation of what's NSFW about it in the caption, [please do not insert said explanation in this discussion, OK?] ... or we could just move on, skip the needless WikiDrama, and get back to work building the encyclopedia ... Djembayz (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. I think I read a comment about whether or not opinion / consensus might have changed regarding this image being POTD, but I haven't read any comment about whether this image would make it as a featured picture if it were uploaded today. Even back in July 2007 it was hardly a ringing endorsement: this is the debate, and this is what Videmus Omnia, who uploaded the photo had to say about the debate:

    I'm dying to see how the featured picture debate comes out - I never imagined the reactions that it would get. You'd think it was the first picture of a woman ever nominated. Anyway, she contacted me again providing more sources for her bio, so I'll likely be improving the article this weekend in thanks for the picture contrib. Yesterday, since I needed a break from porn, I expanded the article on Philip Serrell, which was about as far away from it as I could get. (But then I came off my break after getting pics from Mimi Miyagi - :)

It is also worth mentioning the sleeping dog that we will be jabbing with a pointed stick - the edit history of Michele Merkin:

List of edits on the Michele Merkin article
14 July 2007, Michele Merkin 3.jpg added to the page
16 July 2007, Michele Merkin 3.jpg replaced by Michele Merkin 1.jpg for featured nom
24 July 2007, Michele Merkin 2.jpg and Michele Merkin 3.jpg added to the article (despite the article already having a pic)
24 July - 27 July 2007, A week's worth of edits move the pics all over the page and add Michele Merkin 4.jpg
29 July 2007, Michele Merkin 3.jpg & Michele Merkin 4.jpg removed. Michele Merkin 2.jpg inexplicably remains in the top left-hand corner of the page
20 October 2007, Michele Merkin 2.jpg removed
29 December 2007, Michele Merkin 1.jpg replaced with Michele Merkin 3.jpg, by 67.80.121.61 no explanation given
16 January 2008, Michele Merkin 1.jpg restored as it a featured pic
14 February 2008, Michele Merkin 1.jpg replaced (again) with Michele Merkin 3.jpg, by 67.80.121.61 again no explanation given (restored on the same day as a 'good faith edit')
17 February 2008, THIRD attempt by 67.80.121.61 to replace Michele Merkin 1.jpg with Michele Merkin 3.jpg
1 March 2008, revert to Michele Merkin 1.jpg
28 September 2008, Michele Merkin 1.jpg replaced with Michele Merkin 3.jpg, explanation given "better picture"
26 October 2008, revert to Michele Merkin 1.jpg
27 November 2008, 29 December 2007, Michele Merkin 1.jpg replaced with Michele Merkin 3.jpg, by 67.80.102.229 no explanation given
4 December 2008, revert to Michele Merkin 1.jpg
5 October 2009, attempt to replace Michele Merkin 1.jpg with Michele Merkin 2.jpg (Merkin on all fours)
6 October 2009, Carolmooredc replaces it with a less controversial Michele Merkin 4.jpg
23 October 2009, Michele Merkin 1.jpg reinstated on the grounds that it is a featured picture
4 May 2011, Michele Merkin 1.jpg removed for being too sexual & subsequently restored
5 February 2014, consensus reached that Michele Merkin 3 b.jpg should be used
3 March 2014, consensus ignored and Michele Merkin 1.jpg put back (reverted same day)
14 May 2014, an image gallery added to article featuring Michele Merkin 1.jpg and Michele Merkin 3.jpg
15 May 2014, image gallery removed due to the talk page consensus

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is all that? HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
You could have said, "I'm sorry I don't quite understand, would you mind explaining ....." and then gone on to what you are struggling with. Instead, you chose to be quite rude, for no reason whatsoever.
Firstly, I pointed out that if this picture were introduced for the first time today, then it probably wouldn't be made featured picture, and I posted a link to the original discussion where it was nominated to be a featured picture.
Next, I quoted Videmus Omnia saying he needed a break from porn (did we need to know this?). He uploaded the image in the first place and is no longer (as far as I can tell) an editor on Wikipedia.
Finally, the table has a title - it is written at the top. List of edits on the Michele Merkin article.
Perhaps is you could be more specific about the part that you are struggling to understand I would be able to help you more. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Re: needing a break from porn, Videmus Omnia often worked with pornographic actors on free image issues w/r/t Wikipedia. He was not in any way referring to his own consumption of pornography or otherwise connecting this image to pornography -- I don't think that should be a concern here. I'm also on record as an oppose but I don't want a good former editor accidentally smeared.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the point is that a lot of the support comments for this image relate to it prompting a debate on glamour modelling, in the debate on whether the image should be a featured picture one comment (in capital letters) spoke of how much more popular Wikipedia would be if POTD was always like that. This image is one of a set of images of Michele Merkin, most of the others are even more explicit, and the above list of edits demonstrates the repeated attempts to get those more explicit images onto the page. I think it is optimistic to the point of naïvety to think that that can of worms wouldn't be opened again. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as per. Lightbreather, Kerry and Mary Mark. I don't care if such images are or aren't legible in our articles, this is the main page. What is the benefit, except that some editors will celebrate "no censorship!"? It will do more harm than good. Potential (women) editors may be driven away, we need more of them. -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
And again, to paraphrase, "I don't mind the image too much, in it's place, but I think other people will here". That is not a constructive contribution. HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
IMHO you seem to disregard 73.006134969325153374233128% of what I said. Can you please explain why my comment is "is not a constructive contribution"? -- Fauzan✆ talk ✉ email 14:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think Howcheng raised a valid point about how Wikipedia (rightly or wrongly) already has a bad reputation in regards to treatment of women. This won't help. Calidum Talk To Me 04:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Could be offensive to conservative religious people and feminists, and as said above the main page needs to be inclusive. --Pudeo' 21:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, that's no reason at all. You clearly don't care about offence to Muslims, only prudes. And again, it's not about you, is it? Or so you pretend to claim. It's about some mystical "other" people, that you claim you care about. That kind of post adds nothing to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Out of curiousity, could you explain to me how you rectify the logical disconnect of excluding something in the name of being inclusive? Resolute 16:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

General comments

For the record, I am not suggesting censorship, just editorial judgement. Running this picture will undoubtedly shock many, if not most people and no one will expect shocking pictures on the Main Page (even if only because the POTD isn't usually shocking). --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 23:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A great encyclopaedia should cover all significant areas of human endeavour and activities. We must not omit or suppress our coverage of areas that some here simply don't like. There are big industries surrounding images like the one under discussion. We must not ignore the field. This image is a perfect example of it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's just be honest about why we're putting it up there and write a blurb linking to fan service. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you rewrite that in plain English please? HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Daniel is assuming that we would be running such an image as fan service, and says that we should recognize that by linking to the article about fan service somewhere in the blurb. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • HiLo, you could also click the link to "fan service" and learn what it is, just as you bewail that people know nothing about systemic bias.
Who wrote that? Forcing people to click on links doesn't make it plain English and easy to read. And I'm not sure you do understand our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It's ironic that you should ask for a "plain English" definition of fan service, since after all the term is a more or less literal translation of a Japanese term that itself is derived from English loanwords. Very well ...

At Wiktionary we define "fanservice" (why one word there and two here?), a term which originated in manga/anime fandom, as "[t]he inclusion in a work of fiction of any material, especially racy or sexual material, which has no relevance to the storyline, but is designed merely to excite the viewer". While our article treats the term as if it were purely still used only in its original context, it has in fact migrated out to be used in reference to all sorts of media, and frankly the TV Tropes page] and linked subpages are a better resource on the concept than our article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that American religious conservatism and prudishness is a big part of our systemic bias. I am a massive opponent of systemic bias. I support the use of this image. HiLo48 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have been considering contributing more to Wikipedia. I already don't feel like my contributions are welcome and I would feel even less welcome as a contributor if I saw this image as the PotD. Given the systemic biases of the site one cannot assume that viewers will be able to infer that this image was chosen for its EV and not as an excuse for sexist objectification. Fhocutt (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I'd love to have an image like that discussed above: a beefcake glamor shot. I'd be even happier with an illustration for LGBT subjects such as Bear (gay culture), Butch and femme, Yaoi, or Yuri (the whole subject area is terribly underrepresented at Featured Content). Sadly, we don't have any images that have passed yet; I've tried to nominated the lead image at Yaoi twice, but it's failed twice (the first time only by a hair). If we have any glamor photographers willing to donate shots of men, let me know. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I'll keep an ear out--there's been some awesome work done by queer photographers documenting their communities. I would suggest that an image like this not be run until and unless there is precedent for running sexualized images that aren't aimed at straight men. If that were already the case, I might feel differently about this one. Fhocutt (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Frankly, I too have no problem in such images are reviewed as the best illustration of those topics. But here, the image in question, is never reviewed as the "best illustration to describe Glamour photography". It was reviewed as the "best illustration to describe Michele Merkin and Physical attractiveness"; but the editors at both the articles rejected it later. Jee 07:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. The old "not censored" argument is just that, old. Putting T&A doesn't prove anything at this point. I think we've proved our point with past images (dead bodies, Muhammad).
  2. Do you really think that an image like this being on the front page of Wikipedia won't create a total media shit storm? And not in a good way? I already dread getting email from the press about this.
  3. And on that note, do you think that this image will help bring more diversity in editorship to the project? Ask your mothers and sisters if they'd be interested in contributing to a project struggling to retain editors if they saw that as the welcome image. SarahStierch (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
1. That you do not like the "not censored" argument does not invalidate it. 2. No, there is no reason to expect any media coverage, let alone significant. Not based on some of the things we have run as TFA without comment. 3. Can't really respond to the third argument without being unduly dismissive, so I'll pass on that one. Resolute 00:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps if she were a dead body there would be no objections? Kidding aside, I am not opposed, but I would like to see the concerns over systemic bias addressed through a plan to feature a series of such images that would speak to a broader segement of our audience. The plan should also address concerns of over the principle of least astonishment. I would not have been shocked by this image on the main page but I would of a nude from that same genre. I say that recognising not everyone's line is in the same place. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
What's astonishing about exposed flesh? Been to the beach lately? HiLo48 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Come on man, not everyone here is a "prudish American," that argument is so old. And have you been to a beach in Saudi Arabia? It's not all a skin show around the world... stop calling people prudes, it's mean. SarahStierch (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Calling people who oppose using this image prudes is like calling those who support using it perverts. Lightbreather (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations to both of you for misdirecting the conversation into an attack on me. What IS astonishing about the image? HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
However reluctantly, I must agree with HiLo - in which culture would this be censored, or considered offensive? Saudi Arabia, I will grant, but, with all due fairness and respect, Wikipedia is not run on Sharia law. I am frankly unclear why this is controversial, this is absolutely not nudity, and the vast majority of opposes have provided no explanation beyond a prediction that this will upset someone if it goes on the main page. There are also suggestions that this would be more acceptable if it were a male model - the very fact that this is so true that it's told as a joke should be grounds enough to justify this photo. In any case, "There might be unspecified main page spam" sounds a lot more like something I'd expect to see from editors with an axe to grind than it does a reaction I expect from a general public who sees images more explicit than this every time they stand in the check-out aisle. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, far too many of the Opposes have been of the form "This will upset somebody else" or "This will hurt children". The first is meaningless. Our policies aren't based on what someone thinks will upset someone else. If that were the case, we would remove all images of Muhammad from Wikipedia, because we KNOW they upset some Muslims. And the latter objection has never been proven. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
And HiLo48, far too much of the criticism of the opposes has been of the form, "Oh you Christian American prudes don't know what the beaches on the French Riviera (or Australia) are like" which is absurd categorizing and stereotyping. Though American, I am not a Christian, I know what beaches worldwide are like. I am completely comfortable with pornography featuring consenting adults, and I believe that our article on Sexual intercourse should have photographs like the tasteful books on sexuality published by Dorling Kindersley, instead of 100 year old "etchings" by Édouard-Henri Avril (which I like in other contexts). I do not think that any child has ever been hurt by seeing the cover of Maxim on a news stand, and do not want any censorship of any article here on sexuality. However, I also believe in editorial judgment, and think that featuring this kind of sexualized photo on the Main Page is in poor taste and risks needlessly offending people with no upside benefit whatsoever, except to allow a small group of editors to say "yay, no censorship!' to each other. Let Maxim do its own thing, and let Wikipedia be a generalist encyclopedia rather than a playground for pushy adolescent heterosexual males and an unfriendly place for very many women. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If you're calling me adolescent, why thank you. Presumably the lady in the image consented to it. What gives you the right to editorialise her out of Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea of your age, HiLo48, and was not speaking of you as an individual but of the way some editors are perceived by many others. I am 62, for what it's worth, wear earrings, have an active sex life and appreciate the appearance of the opposite sex. I haven't questioned either her consent or her notability and would vote to "Keep" at AfD and also to keep the photo. So, I will take your "editorialise her out of Wikipedia" comment as hyperbole as opposed to a serious critique of my comments about editorial judgment about what appears on the Main Page as opposed to specific articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • So long as we have featured images, they can be run... I've already re-nominated the Yaoi image, for better representation. Took a look at a couple other topics which don't interest the stereotypical white straight male (bear, femme and butch, etc) but none I've checked have anything that would survive the process. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
      • But as I pointed above, when Howcheng handled POTD, he usually inform the article editors on the talk page. I don't know whether you also practicing it. Here in this case they may not have any comments as they already removed this picture from their articles. :) Jee 18:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Jee, you said "Rarely we notify them about the review is going on except from my side." with a link to the Wikiproject, which came across as saying that one should notify the Wikiproject about nominations. If you are unaware whether or not I notify an article's main editors by posting at the talk page, it would only take 30 seconds to verify that yes, I do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I question the validity of the license to use this photo. The photographer never signed off on it or emailed any Wikipedia editor signing off on it or releasing it to the public domain. Evidently Merkin (the model) emailed the photo to a Wiki editor, not realizing she had to provide PROOF that the PHOTOGRAPHER signed off on public-domain use. I see no evidence at all that the photographer has any idea it was released to Wikipedia. Wikipedia could get in a lot of legal trouble for reproducing the photo so widely and prominently without his permission. Softlavender (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I took a look and User:Jamesofur did the research - we also have an OTRS message from the photographer verifying that it is OK to release the photo and so forth. SarahStierch (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, to answer your question... I have been to many beaches in many countries. Flesh is not shocking to me, nor is the fact that people have bowel movements, but I don't want to see that on the front page either. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Silly response. Obviously exposed flesh is legal and publicly acceptable in a lot of very civilised parts of the world. Public excretion isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
What is obvious is you haven't been to too many places in the world if you think there are places where people don't excrete in public. Regardless, replace defecation with a myriad of other activities and the point stands. Executions are legal, albeit botched, where you live. Should we place a video of that on the front page? Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yet another stupid, personal comment. In which "very civilised parts of the world" is public excretion common? These comments are a pointless distraction. You are avoiding discussing the issue at hand. HiLo48 (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Point of fact, we have posted an image of someone who was 'executed' to the main page before: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 25, 2012. Resolute 16:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Probably not as well as the article of Merkin would (especially in consideration of anniversaries; very few anniversaries in the glamour photography article), but I think it works well enough as an illustration of the genre. We could run a cubist painting to illustrate cubism, even if we didn't have an article on that particular painting, after all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Obviously not, but there is no point pretending that each aspect of the main page exists in its own little world. And the response to that image can certainly offer an indication of the type of response we can expect if we run this one. Namely: A few people will complain. A couple of them very loudly. Then life will go on. Resolute 18:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the whole US vs. UK issue that has been touched upon. As a Brit, and someone who has been involved in feminist campaigns / debates in the UK and online with Americans for some time now, I have a few thoughts I would like to share. I should start off with a disclaimer, that the following points are made with very broad brush strokes indeed and there are exceptions on both sides of the Atlantic, but anyway...

  • After the feminist sex wars of the late 1970s, early 1980s, within the US feminism became conflated with liberalism, particularly sexual liberation (pro-pornography, pro-Playboy). This stance, in turn, became conflated with anti-racism and opposing homophobia, to a point where 'to twerk is to oppose bigotry'.
  • Meanwhile, over in the UK, Rupert Murdoch took over the The Sun newspaper, in 1970 its editor Larry Lamb introduced the topless Page 3 girl, such as this one (covered with a piece of paper). The Page 3 feature went on to include a sarcastic 'news in briefs' statement which was meant to suggest "of course she didn't think of that, she's just a topless bimbo". The paper was, and is, synonymous with racism and homophobia with headlines such as these.
  • The early 1990s the UK saw a rise in lad culture and 'lads mags', such as Nuts, which recently closed. Magazines whose target market - according to the publishers - were the 16 - 24 age range, but they are on sale without any age restriction.
  • The internet led to more and more sexual imagery being seen in the UK, but recently there have been a number of books / high profile campaigns such as 'Lose The Lads Mags' and 'No More Page 3' which are going against the right-wing ethos that it is simply a matter of free-markets / consumer choice.

Like I said, these are broad brush strokes, there are those who object to the sexualization of the media in the UK who do so on religious grounds, there are those in the US who object on the grounds of damage such imagery does to the perception of women, there are those who argue "if you don't like it, don't buy it" in the UK etc. When I first started editing on Wikipedia it was suggested to me (in good faith) that, if you're interested in feminism you might be interested in the feminism portal, but of course, the portal takes no account of the different types of feminism that exist. It's a bit like having an "abortion debate" portal and expecting everyone within it to get along. I just wanted to post this because of how jarring I find it to hear a pro-glamour modelling industry POV discussed as left-wing and an anti-glamour modelling industry POV discussed as right-wing. In the UK it tends to be a London-centric privately educated toffs that believe 'totty' should be photographed and put on sale for cockneys to be able to buy and that the left-wing want the country to be 'full of foreigners' and to interfere with the markets. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

When you posted an even longer missive above, I pointed you at Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. You seemed to misunderstand my point. Did you actually click on the link and read the article? This isn't the place for long essays. Sure, it leads to pretty shallow debate at times, and I find that incredibly frustrating too, but it's real. Essays like yours will often be show-stoppers, not because of their quality, but because hardly anyone will read them. It's just the way things are here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean this: What on earth is all that -where you were unnecessarily rude to me? No, since the link was attached to a rude comment (and since I'm not a masochist) I didn't. In any case it was posted after one paragraph and a table and, in the context of the entire discussion I don't think was all that long. As for my "missive" (another rude way of phrasing it, you couldn't use the word "post"), this is the comments section, it is for comments, I am commenting. You find it too long? Fine. Move along there is nothing for you to see here. I'll take my chances with everyone else that happens by. Given the way that you have spoken to people throughout this entire thread, your way of doing this things is the polar opposite of the way things are done here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I will continue to highlight and vigorously oppose POV garbage here on Wikipedia. Too many posts here are just of the form "I don't like it", with incredibly subjective judgements of how the image will harm Wikipedia's image, and the like. If we are doing the right thing for a global encyclopaedia covering all topics, I don't care what our image is. We aren't selling anything. We don't actually have to please anybody. Feeling morally superior by opposing flesh just seems very sad to me. It's pure conservatism on display. If you were consistent about people being offended by this image, you would be arguing against the images we have of Muhammad. they offend a lot of people. Do you care about that? Or is it just your particular moral and/or religious values that matter? I don't think much of the glamour industry at all, but to pretend it doesn't exist, in a serious encyclopaedia, is completely inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This image will offend most of the people visiting here, not a small segment. Potential editors would be driven off. And that is a bigger loss than "yay, no censorship!" --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 15:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence at all for that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Where did I say that I didn't like the image? When the image was initially made a featured picture, it was only by a narrow margin. A number of people have commented in support of making this image POTD that it was worth seeking a fresh consensus on whether it should be. Surely the first question to ask, as has been pointed out by User:Crisco 1492, - So long as it's still listed, it's still eligible for POTD. The place where the fresh consensus is required is whether it should be listed as a featured picture.
Since you have brought up the subject of whether or not I like the image, and have also decided for yourself that I am a conservative, I will give you my opinion of it as an image. I'm a socialist and find glamour modelling to be corporate and homogenized, that is to say, such images are to the naked body what McDonalds is to food, similar to one another, repeated to saturation level within our society, and consequently they are rendered dull. When Susan Boyle appeared on US television in Time Square, the US public stood gaping at her in wonderment as though she was John the Savage from Brave New World. It is images of ordinary looking people that are censored by omission in our corporately homogenized society. If Wikipedia is opposed to censorship then I suggest it makes this image of Mary Beth Peil - File:Mary Beth Peil 2011 (cropped).jpg (whose birthday is on the same day as Merkin's) a featured picture and then make that POTD. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you say about the image. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I find it bizarre that a totally harmless image like this should attract such opposition when only just recently a crassly offensive film title was featured on the front page. Where were the opposers then when we needed them? 86.171.174.46 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean the featured article on 1 March? The featured article relates to a documentary about the use of the f-word, so that is the name of the article. If either the Michele Merkin article or glamour photography article were featured articles then there might be a case for the use image. For me, the image on its own is just voyeurism. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a strange categorisation. Are you suggesting that those supporting inclusion are voyeurs? I find the lady in the image quite unattractive, but strongly support inclusion of the image. You're obviously not a voyeur, and probably don't know many, if any, so I'm not sure how you could know if voyeurs find it attractive. The point is that one doesn't have to think the subject is a good one to support inclusion of the image. Broad brush suggestions of voyeurism among other editors are not just unhelpful, they're effectively personal attacks. The world is far more complex than you're alleging. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll point out that there's nothing in dealing with the Wikipedia "gender gap" that should require WP to abandon its POV neutrality in favor of a kind of anti-porn feminism. And shame on those that are suggesting such. I'll also point out that such an ideology is hardly the default "women's" view. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Reminder: Assume Good Faith - Don't Bite Anyone - this is merely a kind reminder

Just a friendly reminder - please assume good faith and don't bite, even the experienced editors during these heated conversations. And for the record, in the English language, "prude" is a pejorative word. So please stop throwing it around, as I really don't want to have to file complaints at admin's noticeboard for biting and bullying. Thanks everyone! SarahStierch (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you choose (what you saw as) an example of a lack of good faith from only one side of this discussion? The stupidity of comparing this image with one of someone excreting in public hasn't helped. Nor have a lot of other comments from the Oppose side. Is your comment truly made in good faith, or is it simply taking sides? Generalised criticisms are rarely helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, a very *unfriendly* bit of language policing, from where I'm sitting. It's a valid argument to say that the reaction to this kind of image is prudish, whether it's in the name of traditional social conservatism or "anti-objectification" feminism (that often amounts to the same thing with a different set of rationalizations). You can agree or disagree with that proposition, but to say that you're going to report other editors because they frame arguments in a way you don't approve of is bad form and downright un-WP:CIVIL. - Of course, all that said, calling somebody a prude is a name-calling "what you are" argument and should be avoided. To call an argument prudish (and, for the record, I am) is entirely valid Iamcuriousblue (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the post, Sarah. I agree with the main gist of it: this is not intended to be a means of giving editors rope to block themselves with. Let's all try and calm down. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Then who is it? Will you people ever have the courage to name the person you're attacking? I don't see the point of bland, generalised criticisms, unless they somehow just make YOU feel better. If the person you want to get rid of believes they are behaving appropriately, the criticisms will achieve nothing elseHiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If the shoe fits, wear it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  Like Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Whose attitude? The editor who thinks the image in question is equivalent to shitting in public? That's just sick. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I speak for only myself, but I consider HiLo48 to be the problem child here. You sir, are bullying people and behaving like a troll. I'll say it if no one else will: Look in the mirror. Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, just a heads up - due to the nature that this discussion has moved in I have asked administrators to monitor the situation (despite my efforts to ask for AGF and civility). I am very sorry to have to do this. You can read my post on the administrators noticeboard. Thank you and I hope people will change their tone and be WP:CIVIL. - SarahStierch (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

BUt...now I'm feeling guilty for just doing that. I'm not here to get called names or watch it happen to my wikifriends and colleagues. So...I'm going to move along, unwatch this, and hope that the outcome is a positive one that will show Wikipedia in a good light. Thanks everyone. SarahStierch (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't leave, Sarah, then the trolls win. Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I think HiLo himself will say that I do not typically side with him, but I am disturbed to see one person seemingly called out like this. Additionally, I am concerned that distaste for how he has made his point may obscure the fact that some of what he said is, in my opinion, not wrong. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a look back over this topic. I was prepared to apologise if what I had said had been inappropriate. I discovered I was not the first (by a long shot) to mention prudishness. I did not call any individual here a prude. I first used the term prudishness when I attempted to discuss claims by some that those wanting this image used were part of Wikipedia's systemic bias problem. I said that my perspective is that the systemic bias problem on this matter "is conservative American religious prudishness". That is not an accusation that all Americans are prudes, nor that all religious Americans are prudes. But we do have a lot of Americans here, and a lot of them are, especially when compared with the rest of the world, conservative religious folk. To me, some are prudes, again, when compared with the rest of the world. If that offends, I apologise, but remember that I was not talking about any individual, nor the whole of any group.

To continue, I will also never apologise for firmly calling nonsense when I see it. Comparing this image to one of someone excreting in public WAS stupid. Saying a post is stupid is NOT a personal attack. (I have made some dumb posts in the past myself.) Do any of those who disagree with my position on the actual topic here think it WAS a smart and helpful thing to make that comparison? If not, why not say so? Or is it just your opponents you will condemn and try to get rid of? That kind of behaviour just makes me feel firmer in my resolve. It makes me feel that my points are right, but that some here are uncomfortable with them. When the arguments against a position I am taking include such rubbish, along with the usual "Won't someone think of the children?" and "I'm not upset by it but others will be", why should I even contemplate the possibility that I could be wrong? I have made several points above that have not been addressed. When, rather than discussing my points, all that happens is that I am yet again taken to AN/I, in yet another case that will be thrown out of court (despite the usual pile-on by the haters I've embarrassed in the past), I feel very strongly vindicated. So, again, apologies if any individual feels I targeted them. That was not my intention. Can we get back to the topic now? HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the bowel movement analogy was inappropriate. I also agree that this photo is nowhere near as offensive as that one would be. However, none of the other opposes endorsed that analogy. So please don't keep returning to that point. Many others have opposed, for a variety of reasons. I respect the arguments of those who support. But in the end, it is incumbent on each of us to accept consensus as it emerges from robust debate. As for apologies, I need none. I simply ask you to try to avoid stereotyping me, and other editors as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
And there it is again! The accusation that I have stereotyped you. I have not! Read my post above again. When will bullshit like yours lead to appropriate consequences here? Nobody who has attacked me and tried to get rid of me via AN/I has condemned the shitting analogy. You have now at least finally described it as inappropriate, which is a pretty weak criticism, but while my other opponents here all let it pass without comment, I cannot respect them. POV pushing is rife here. Editors will accept all sort of rubbish by editors who happen to sit on the same side of the fence as them. It's very undignified. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
And what would be the "appropriate consequences" in your view for my conceding a point, and trying to extend an olive branch? Do you consider your own comments as "dignified"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I always reply to rational and dignified comments in a rational and dignified manner. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem is not that you are being offensive, it's that you are being boring. If you think of some new point, raise it. Otherwise, let others have a say without adding an editorial. Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
LOL. The silly attempt at bringing taking me to AN/I failed, again. So you give up on saying I'm offensive. Then you personally attack me on another front. I'm boring now. It's sad. There is another option. You could note that no effective responses have been made to a lot of the points I have made, so maybe I'm right. HiLo48 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • One might be able to argue US culture is slightly more conservative with respect to dress than European culture; arguining that the US is prudish in comparison to the rest of the world is fundamentally laughable. I also find it amusing that my initial comment here was that I was tending to support yet I get targeted as the prude by HiLo48. The defecation comment was deliberately shocking to force HiLo48 to realise that indeed people have lines they don't want to see crossed. Where that line should be for this project is what is important. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I did not call any individual here a prude. After others had already used the word, I added to the general conversation on it. Misrepresentation is a destructive form of debate. And the defecation comment was so ridiculous it added nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What you did was imply it, after it was out there, by intimating my perspective was warped from not visiting your approved beaches. It is no less a debate tactic as whining about the ridiculousness of a comparison when it makes the point. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Might I suggest that HiLo is in no place to complain about personal attacks, given his history of interacting with editors in an obviously less-than-civil manner? --WaltCip (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no agreed definition of civility, so it can never be obvious that I interact with others "in an obviously less-than-civil manner". HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It's been debated a lot. Consensus has never been achieved. Debates usually begin with claims that incivility is obvious, followed by requests for a definition, since it's so obvious, and they progress from there, with never a sensible conclusion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Such is the other side of the coin with respect to meriting debate. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

One week in

As I mentioned above, this should be open for two weeks. We are currently one week in and a consensus seems to have been formed, but to keep things proper I'll postpone asking an uninvolved admin to close this until the two weeks are up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Archive_6&oldid=1239356130"