Talk:Lolicon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Straw poll on Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg

File:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg

Picture under consideration

Straw polls are not a panacea. They may not be able to "build" consensus, but they may be useful to "gauge" consensus. Therefore, I offer this straw poll on the Image:Hikari Hayashibara Manga.jpg image. I request the straw poll to remain upon until 23:59 31 March 2006 (UTC). Johntex\^talk 20:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have notified all of the voters (both sides) from the old straw polls who did not appear to be active in this discussion, in addition to notifying a wikiproject of relevence. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And Johntex has notified multiply-blocked religious culture warriors to come vote! Yay for polls to determine "consensus." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be more informatively called a "wikiproject populated by people Hiprocrite expects to agree with him". Johntex\^talk 21:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Hipocrite hs posted a call for voters at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship I am not sure why he is complaining about other users spreading the word. -Will Beback 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not approach a problem edit-warrior with a penchant for disruption to come to this article and make lives more difficult than they already are. I contacted interested parties. I suggest that you do the same, not try to rally support religious fundamentalists who don't actually give a shit about the issue at hand. WP:WAC cares about issues like inlining images in articles, and contains members who have thought about why and why it should and should not be done. (including dissenting voices, who read the page as well). People who voted in prior polls obviously should be notified, and I notified every one of them that was not currently active on this talk page. Why would one contact Rgulerdem?Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem is involved in policy discussions on inlining images. I am not aware of his being blocked. How many readers of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship have been blocked? Did you ever get a chance to read WP:CIVIL? Is that where you learned to describe your fellow editor as an edit-warrior or a religious fundamentalist? Johntex\^talk 21:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem is a multiply blocked edit-warrior, currently blocked for spamming talk pages of religious fundamentalists to get them to vote with him for a policy. I suggest you contact interested parties, and do not seek out religious fundamentalists the way he did. WP:AGF does not mean WP:Ignore Bad Acts, like those that rgulerdem engages in. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If he's not banned then he may participate. Maybe you just want to limit this to your preferred group of voters? Johntex\^talk 21:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You win at internets. Gratz 2 u. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can feel from your personality that calling you for being more polite and civil won't work. I cannot contribute to a discussion page as you did here simply because I cannot swear and insult people: my self-respect refrain me from doing so. I am not engaged in any bad acts, including spamming. I am not a religious fundamentalis either, just an ordinary person. Insults and rudeness from you is a strong indication for me that I am on the correct side and doing something good, though. Resid Gulerdem 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Inline (place on Wikipedia behind one single click) alongside new image, or replace with new image

Please state which you prefer

1. Support - prefer inline, otherwise remove if it violates fair use- Johntex\^talk 20:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Is this answer responsive to the poll? It is just as much a fair-use violation if linked, no? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Yes. I want it inlined because I want it available to people who want to see it (I'm in favor of informing) but not shown by default to the significant numbers of people who wish to read what Lolicon is without having to view a picture that is possibly illegal or offensive to them. However, whatever our consensus is, it can't over-ride the law. If showing or inlining the image is illegal, then it has to go, no matter what any of us think. Johntex\^talk 21:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   To be clear, then, your accurate position is "inline, because it's offensive," and the second part, about "fair use," is not relevent? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   No, my position is exactly what I said - inline because it gives people the choice to view it. Remove it if we must. Johntex\^talk 21:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Support - We have a replacement image which has not caused any problems. Use the replacement, it's just as informative! Ashibaka tock 20:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Support linkimage but I will not support removal of all images. Shouldn't we have a seperate section for removal? kotepho 21:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Support There are several policy reasons which support removing this image but the most important one is our own judgement. Do we want to include a drawing of a children with a naked butt in a sexual situation? I don't think we need to and I certainly don't want to. Wishing to remove it is not censorship, anymore than wishing to keep it is perversion. There has never been agreement to include this image, which has been controversial since the first day irt was added. Let's just tell users what is contained in Lolicon images. -Will Beback 22:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Wishing to keep it is not perversion. Sn0rlax 04:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   Thaqt's what I said. And wishing to remove it isn't censorship either. We're allowed to make editorial decisions about what we include in our articles. -Will Beback 04:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

5. Support This way, the people that don't want a graphic depiction of what lolicon is can just read the article (and avoid possibly breaking laws), whereas the ones that want to see the picture so badly can easily click the link. Silent War 01:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Support I agree with Silent War completely. Force10 04:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Support I certainly support the idea that Wiki articles should have higher editorial standards. From purely editorial point of view, this picture should be removed from the article in my opinion. A verbal description would suffice. Please note that no censorship cannot and should not be considered as no editorial standards. If removing the pic is not an option, I cannot see why a link is not preferred. Resid Gulerdem 01:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Show (position) alongside new image

(please express preferred location - top of article or lower)

1. Support - We're here to inform. The image is a good example representation of the article, icky as people may find it. Top. --Jqiz 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Support - Here to inform. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Since neither of these two votes give a preferred location, I'm assuming you want the image down low where it was for a few months prior to this poll. Ashibaka tock 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Jquiz includes the word "Top." I have explained my preferred position a number of times, which is to include only the one image, which you consider "offensive" at the top of the article. I am happy to compromise to move the image you consider "offensive" below the fold, and even to include the image I consider "misleading" at the top of the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

3. Support, I guess, as per above. It is not for Wikipedia to decide what is offensive, and the picture in question is more illustrative. Preferred location is at the top of the article, as normal. --Ashenai 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

4. support wikipedia is not censored based on personal beliefs: WP:NOT--Acebrock 21:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And inlining the image does not meet the definition of censorhsip. And WP:NOT does not take away our editorial freedom. It is actually a legal disclaimer, not an attempt to tie our hands. Johntex\^talk 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT is a policy. Wikipedia:Content disclaimer is a disclaimer. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it is not a policy, I said it does not tie our hands to force us to show something. The very first line says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive" (emphasis mine). Whether we chose to show that content by default, or deal with it another way, is up to us. Johntex\^talk 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia is also not your personal soapbox, hipocrite, nor is the image in question something thats even a prime candiatae for censorship, its merely lines and color, not anything even r emotely simmilar to a photograph. grow up. oh and for the record it should be left alone, who are we to say whats offensive and what isnt.Gimmiet 21:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

5. Support.

#Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors

#Wikipedia does not issue legal opinions (although the Wikimedia Foundation may if necessary)

Kaldari 21:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those policies require that we include any particular image. Is this the image you want in Wikipedia? -Will Beback 21:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what image is used. I just oppose putting the image behind a legal disclaimer. Kaldari 21:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Excume me Kaldari, but could you please clarify? This is a poll about a particular image. There is another image that has not been challenged. Would it be correct to say you "Support an agreed upon image with no legal disclaimer used", rather than to say you "support this particular image"? Johntex\^talk 21:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you just say there's another image that has not been challenged!? Is this for real? After this pass, we have to vote for the 'other' image as well to see if that's a better image to use? What the hell is this poll for? Does this not border absurdity? --Jqiz 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone say the second image should be removed, so I assumed it would stay no matter what. Are you saying we should take it away for some reason? Johntex\^talk 22:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've said this a number of times. I believe, after the research I did since I first visited this article, that the picture of the reclining blonde is a terrible example of the genre. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to back that up with reliable references? Ashibaka tock 22:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not me that wants it taken away. I was perfectly happy when both were in the article when the article displayed both picture as compromise, with the offensive picture below the fold. It is another editor who invoked a fair use clause to remove 2 picture from the article that killed the agreement. Obviously one has to go now. I do hope we do NOT have to go through a poll again to see which picture we're going to use --Jqiz 22:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

6. Support. Wikipedia isn't censored and this is a good representative pic. I really hate content disclaimers. --Cyde Weys 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

7. Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored, we're here to inform, it serves to illustrate, and so on. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 22:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

8. Support. If you are genuinely offended by the sight of prepubescent cartoon buttocks, you may have issues with your own sexuality that shouldn't be projected onto Wikipedia. I know, I know, but somebody had to say it. The older so-called "controversial" image conveys the concept much more clearly than the alternate. I don't see why the alternate is even needed, but displaying both images could I guess be seen as a reasonable compromise. Or it might be a ruse by opponents of the more controversial image; if they succeed in getting both images on the page then they may someday try to use "redundancy" as an excuse to remove the older image when nobody is looking. I know, I know, but somebody had to say it. I've never edited this article and I know my opinion will not be counted because I do not have an account, but somebody needed to say this. 4.226.60.34 23:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

9. Support. Show this image at top for it's encyclopedic and notable contrast to the Coppertone girl image. Show the other image? in the body of the article also. I also note this section of the poll is ambiguous, so I request someone put links to the images being discussed, just as I have here, to help with clarity. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

9. Support - show on top!!! Sn0rlax 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

10 Support, most informative. Also, this poll is very poorly worded, the other option says "inline" when it means "link image", that's very misleading.Babajobu 10:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

11 Support - The image in question is representative of the topic of the article. Although many will consider the image or even the article in itself offensive we must accept that first and foremost the goal of Wikipedia is to collect and display information. Keeping the multitude of cultures present on Wikipedia and the general principles of NPOV in mind we must accept that it is not within the scope of the project to judge the “level of offensiveness” to various cultural or religious groups as this would inevitably be biased, subjective and implicit moral lecturing per censorship. Celcius 04:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

12 Support Informative. And not offensive to me, at least. DanielDemaret 22:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

13 Support Informative. Vanessa kelly 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

14 Support Informative, should be in the top part of the article. It is relevant, it is not illegal, it's use is ok from the copyright viewpoint. It is not porn, it is not particularly offensive (any more than the article itself), etc. This has been discussed to death many times over... Paranoid 15:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem with poll above

WHY is the option of hiding the image allowed in the poll above when it was 'already' covered by a previous poll? Why isn't the past poll honored? --Jqiz 21:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the details about the past poll because it occurred before I came across the page. From what I have read, it seems there was no consensus either way, and a small minority preferred showing the image with no inlining. Johntex\^talk 21:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The last poll didn't show a consensus. -Will Beback 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and no consensus was reached. However, lumping the inlining issue to gain support.....and also, we have to pick a position!? The poll is quite biased enough as it is. 3 out of the 4 options are pro-censorship in some ways. We have to pick a 'preferred' position as well, and it seems if we don't, it's defaulted to the bottom? What the hell is up? I do want the issue to be over with, but the poll is very biased toward the image in so many ways. --Jqiz 21:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think there is a problem with it. I only put the "please add your prefered position" part in to try to learn more about people's views. It is a good thing, I think, to encourage discussion vs straight yes-no votes wherever possible. I certainly wouldn't want to assume that the default position is top or bottom or anywhere else. Johntex\^talk 21:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And if they do not pick a position, the vote does not count? Do you see where the problem is with the poll? If anything, the default position should be on top. Evens out the biasedness of the poll --Jqiz 21:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have faith that anyone that shows up to look at the poll will spend the time to explain their vote throughly, such that we can understand their position completly. Order is an irrelevency. Let's see what people who actually care about policy and/or this article say, and go from there. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If they do not pick a position then we know they want to show the image, but we don't know where. We may have to do further work. I have no problem with "Top of article" being the first listed choice. Johntex\^talk 21:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we still held by brenneman, under fair use clause violation? Clarification is needed. Even if consensus shows no consensus, thus, status quota image stays, if he invokes the fair use clause again, we'll be BACK to the poll voting on which is the 'better' image to use. Currently I believe we're only allowed to show ONE image, so I'm not sure why are we voting on.......Show (position) alongside new image instead of Show this image. --Jqiz 22:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Because no one (except Hipocrite) is arguing that Image:Kotori-Kan_Vol_2.jpg should be removed. It is not the controversial one. Johntex\^talk 22:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets cut chase. Will we be back at the poll booth to decide WHICH of the two images will be used in the future since we're allowed to use only one image? This picture should not have to go through double hurdles to get approved. --Jqiz 22:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My understanding (perhaps faulty) was that we wanted Image:Kotori-Kan_Vol_2.jpg to stay, and that we needed what to do about Image:Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg. I was trying to keep this simple, but I don't think I succeeded in that. If there is a camp of people that say we can't have two images, then this poll will not resolve that question. But, if it is a question of fair use, then consensus doesn't trump the law anyway. Johntex\^talk 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Then this poll is meaningless as both options, other than removal, violates fair use. There's no point in this poll other than removal. Rescinding my vote. You're just creating an unnecessary hurdle for this picture to get approve. Not wasting my time. --Jqiz 22:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Scrap this poll

This is the most ill-defined poll I have ever seen. Not only are the descriptions of what you're voting on unhelpful and inadequate, but they keep changing. It seems there are at least 3 different issues conflated here (assuming we are actually discussing just one of the images): Is the image appropriate to use in the article at all; if so, where should the image be placed in the article; and should the image be linked to behind a disclaimer or displayed within the article itself? Kaldari 22:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Support scrapping poll, it makes this read too much like censorship when we're really talking about what placement of images is the most courteous to readers. Ashibaka tock 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The poll should have been kept simple on which image should be used and get over with it, sheesh. --Jqiz 22:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kaldari, for the confusion. It was probably too much to try to learn with one straw poll. I don't know if stopping the poll is legitimate or not. Let's see what other opinions are. Johntex\^talk 22:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a complicated issue, I think we should do something more generic as a poll. Actually, let's try this now. Ashibaka tock 22:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Requesting the nullification of the poll above. It does not solve the fair use issue(one picture to show an example) whatsoever. The poll is nothing more than an unnecessary extra hurdle for the controversial picture to go through. All the options, as mentioned above, violates the fair use policy, other than removal. That's not a poll by any means. We will be back at the poll(Yes, I just know it) to decide which picture we'll be using, even if this pass when someone points out the fair use clause is being violated. Therefore, I ask for ONE deciding poll on which image of the two being considered we should use to illustrate the article. --Jqiz 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It can't be that simple though. My main request is a poll on inlining. Johntex\^talk 00:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Including the image inline is what happens by default. If you mean hiding it behind the linkimage template, that is not inlining. I'm not even sure which you want. kotepho 00:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean putting the suggestion of putting the image on a subpage (E.g. Lolicon/Image) and putting a link to it from Lolicon, rather than shwoing it inline. Johntex\^talk 00:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Subpages are deprecated(it works, but don't do it) in Main:(article space). See Wikipedia:Subpages kotepho 00:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand that sentence. Can you please elaborate or rephrase? Johntex\^talk 01:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Better? kotepho 01:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Much better thanks. From reading the link you provided to Wikipedia:Subpages, it seems that the history is subpages were once an attempt at categorization, but were limited in their ability to handle many-to-may relationships. That should not be a problem with regards to what I am proposing we consider. Johntex\^talk 02:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Subpages it probably does not even work anymore. kotepho 02:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It definitly works and is in use today. See Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop for an example. If anything, it works better with the new category system. Johntex\^talk 02:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, that does not change its deprecated status (going to look for mailing list posts) and how is it functionally different than linkimaging? kotepho 02:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic_programming/Workshop isn't a subpage btw. It is just an article with a / in its name. kotepho 15:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect; Neuro-linguistic_programming/Workshop is a workshop page for possible redesign of the Neuro-linguistic_programming article. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't think it is a subpage because it doesn't have the thing at the top to go to the parent page. That think right under From Wikipedia, < [[Parent page]]. That you will see on a talk archive, a userspace subpage, etc. Maybe they just turned that off for article space and it still functions as a sub page. I'm not sure what they did when they turned them "off." Not that it really matters much. kotepho 00:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What? So, the poll above is nothing more than a bloated up poll to inline the controversial picture take 2, when the past poll on inlining was taken around 2 months ago? Oh the joy...--Jqiz 03:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what it is, but the image already is inlined and it would seem that the poll is an attempt to have it not inlined (that is Template:linkimage). The previous poll was on the side of actually linkimaging it and yet the 'status quo' remained. kotepho 04:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This has to be the most pointless and confusingest poll ever. Now I don't know what it is trying to accomplish. --Jqiz 04:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what it is trying to do either, but I blame it on you people using terms inappropriately in a conspriacy to confuse me. kotepho 04:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Kill the current poll, if the questions are changing it is de facto invalid. It's also offering at least one false dichotomy and uses "inline" where it apparently meant "linked". No offense to the poll creator, I'm sure they meant well, but it's not going to work as constituted. I suspect once the Fair Use stuff gets sorted out this will be a null issue in any case. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This poll is biased: Either vote to keep or vote to delete. Either vote to display or vote to link. Do not create a patchwork of options intended to favor an agenda. So, I vote to keep both images and to display them where they can be seen. Sweetfreek 20:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll: runoff edition

Sorry to make everyone vote in two polls in one day, but the first one is clearly heading nowhere. I'd just like everyone here to list what they absolutely need to see with regards to the images in the article, in order to agree with any compromise. For example:

1. I simply want to have the replacement image on top. Ashibaka tock 22:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   We should avoid being nonspecific. If you are talking about an image mention the filename, the teddybear dildo one, or something that clearly identifies it. Trying to go through archives with people talking about the 'current' and the 'status quo' image it is nigh impossible to tell which they are refering to. kotepho 00:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, I mean the new one. Ashibaka tock 00:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   Image:Kotori-Kan_Vol_2.jpg? kotepho 00:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah. Ashibaka tock 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Per my comments as 4.226.60.34 in the previous poll, I would prefer to use only the teddy-bear image and remove the newer inferior image from the article, but as a grudging compromise both images could be used; however I think that would serve as a dangerous slippery slope for those who wish to someday censor the teddy-bear image entirely so I would strongly prefer to avoid using the newer image at all. I would be totally fine with using both images EXCEPT that enemies of the older image might be using the both-image compromise as a ruse to enable them to someday get rid of the older, superior image entirely. 4.89.240.111 23:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   As you can see here there is a lot of support for the older image and it won't be going away anytime soon. Ashibaka tock 23:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

   Then what's the point of the new inferior image? Sn0rlax 04:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

   I was hoping, as above, we could display it at the top. Ashibaka tock 04:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

3. I just want it linkimaged. Moving it around solves nothing, even with a warning not to scroll down. kotepho 00:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment : What seems at odds here to me is not so much the sexual overtones of the image in question, but that it appears to show a very young girl rather than a pubescent girl, which is what I understand is meant by the description "lolita". This also seems to be point made in the opening paragraphs of the article. (If that isn't meant to be the point made, perhaps the opening should be rephrased to make clear that although the description "lolita" stems from the novel of the same name that involved ephebophilia, in this (Japanese) context "lolita" is taken to refer to either or both pedophilia and ephebophilia.) Either way, if an image is to be used, I'd say it should be of an older girl anyway and not feature sex-aids. Hope I haven't missed anything obvious, David Kernow 18:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (via WP:CS)

I don't understand your crazy poll

But the image should be kept as is, on the protected article [1]. The only other remotely acceptable option (other than adding more images) is to do something the community has already decided against; requiring people to click alink to see the image. This page is ment to inform, the current image does that. Sam Spade 00:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you support having the new image at the topic and the old (dildo) image lower down? Ashibaka tock 00:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use? - brenneman^{L} 01:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, I don't support anything illegal (officialy anyway ;) Sam Spade 09:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The crazies are apparently still making weird polls and raising fits and talking about laws they don't understand, but I thought I'd chime back in here to say that the current image on the locked document (with the butt and teddy bear) is fair use, does illustrate the article far better than a more offensive image, and is reallu unobjectionable except to people who freak out about everything. I am voting to keep that. DreamGuy 17:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)