Talk:Barbara Nitke

Wrong criteria

An anonymous editor removed the line:

She is not a BDSM practitioner, her only interest is in documenting a unique and distinctive community.

With the comment "per subject's request." I have no knowledge of the underlying fact presented, and I'm somewhat suspicious of an anonymous editor claiming to represent subject's request. But the article should reflect what's actually true (and germane) rather than what the subject might want stated.

---

I removed that section as the original author, I just forgot to log in. I received an email from Barbara Nitke requesting that this be removed. She claims that by photographing the community she considers herself a practitioner and has come to feel she is part of the community. I discussed several ways of wording this to make it accurate and not confusing to the reader and decided it was best just to strike it. It's always difficult to precisely define what is BDSM and what isn't. --Outlander 13:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, if the best knowledge we have of the fact is Nitke's statement, the article should reflect that. Not that any disclaimer of what Nitke does or doesn't do privately is necessarily germane; but just so "per subject's request" isn't the reason for edits in itself (then it become publicity rather than encyclopedia).

While I appreciate we don't want to do publicity, we do want to be accurate. She's the only one who can authoritatively state what her interests are, so her's is the best information.

Perhaps it is better said "per new information provided by subject"

For the sake of clarity, and because it really doesn't matter anyway, I'd prefer to just leave it out. It's difficult to explain to vanillas and not important anyway. As for reasoning behind the edit, its explained on the talk page. --Outlander 19:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Idaho and San Francisco

I do not like the sentence:

In short, this means that any religious political extremist in Idaho can claim that a website from San Francisco is obscene and therefore illegal.

I've replaced it with a substitute that I don't much like, either, but can serve as a placeholder until someone figures out better wording:

This would appear to provide a mechanism by which citizens of less permissive communities can block citizens of more permissive communities from viewing material which is perfectly acceptable within that community.

Let's not characterize Idaho and San Francisco, OK? If some famous person (judge, lawyer, etc.) puts it that particular way, we can quote him/her. But for one thing I don't like contrasting an entire state with a city. For another, I would not be surprised if there was a BDSM community in one of Idaho's bigger cities, and that there are things that are acceptable in that city that would not be acceptable in Orange County (ouch! I'm doing it, too), California. Click, click... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BDSM-Idaho/ seems to have some hundreds of messages in it. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• I really don't have a problem contrasting a state with a city. If you ask almost anyone in the US, they will say that Idaho is a very different place than San Francisco, with different values. We're not stating what those values are, or implying one is better than the other, just that the issue revolves around differing community values.

Of course, within any community individual values differ as well. But the main concept in the case is about differing community values, the sentence just illustrates two communities with different values.--Outlander 13:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What purpose is served by naming two specific communities as exemplars of "different values?" Or by suggesting that the entire state of Idaho is a single community with a uniform set of values? Idaho is a big place. I don't know Idaho, but when I lived in Wisconsin, which I had thought of as "Joe McCarthy's state," I became very aware of how complex these things are. (And I don't just mean around Madison, either; I saw antiwar posters in cornfields a hundred miles away from any city). As far as I am concerned, I do not want extremists in San Francisco censoring what the people of Idaho can read on the Internet, either. Naming the two communities sort of implies that Idaho is the likely villain and San Francisco the likely victim. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to use those specific communities, one could as easily use New Jersey/New Orleans or Utah/Los Angeles. I just think it's a faster, more effective way to communicate the concept of different community values than lots of PC wording that just puts people to sleep.

How about this: : "In short, this means that an extremist in a conservative community can claim that a website from a liberal city is obscene and therefore illegal, even though it is considered acceptable in that city." --Outlander 16:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not trying to be difficult, honest... that almost solves the problem. The issue I have with your proposed wording is whether the labels "conservative" and "liberal" work here. "Less permissive" and "more permissive?" Let's try it...

"In short, this means that an extremist in a less permissive community can claim that a website from a more permissive city is obscene and therefore illegal, even though it is considered acceptable in that city."

or

"In short, this means that an extremist in a less tolerant community can claim that a website from a more tolerant city is obscene and therefore illegal, even though it is considered acceptable in that city."

... dunno... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Dpbsmith in not wanting to name specific cities/states as examples. We can state the general concept without singling out some particular community as censorious. Btw. In the New Jersey/New Orleans contrast, which is meant to be which? (NJ has some very conservative and very liberal cities; NO has, e.g., both a large transvestite community and a large fundamentalist vein). And metro-LA has Yorba Linda, at least as informally used outside of CA. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:01, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

I think you miss the point- it's not liberal vs conservative or religious vs secular, it's two areas that are culturally different. The idea that people from one place should not be deciding what people from a very different place should see. Fundamentalists in New Orleans might not like what Fundamentalists in New Jersey like, either - or vise versa.

You seem to be trying to force it into some sort of value judgement on whatever city is mentioned. Fine, perhaps the reader will do so also. I proposed wording that doesn't mention cities at all, but you didn't comment on that ---Outlander 19:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

I believe I found a way to eliminate the problem of comparing communities entirely in a way that any reader could easily understand -

"This could mean that one community with exceptionally restrictive standards could decide what the entire nation could see on the internet." --Outlander 19:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:40, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Me too. Short and sweet. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No copyvio on press release

Taking out the NCFS press release quote because of copyvio is just weird. A press release is almost by definition released with an authorization for unrestricted copying. An quote from it, even in its entirety, is therefore automatically fair use. That's why it's called a press release.

It the editor doesn't want it stylistically, I have no strong opinion, but copyvio isn't a reason to take it out. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Plus, if you're going to remove a copyvio, you should remove the entire thing and not just a portion of it. But, as Lulu said, nobody in their right mind would copyright a press release - that would defy the whole concept of a press release. The intent is that you want the content reproduced as often as possible. I think the quote adds to the article as it adds a human dimension. --Outlander 18:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara Nitke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.oneeyedjacksgallery.com/blogs/news/14099645-barbara-nitke-american-ecstasy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304153541/http://metroland.net:80/back_issues/vol29_no13/newsfront.html to http://metroland.net/back_issues/vol29_no13/newsfront.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)