It's official: no pedo, At least, Jimbo says so; others debate Options

[papaya]

Depending on whom you believe, WP:PED is either being considered for elevation to policy, or already is.

This post has been edited by papaya: Wed 30th June 2010, 5:44am

[Peter Damian]

Another very stupid discussion about the Koerper des Kindes here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...hoto_in_Commons

Beautiful pictures, thank you for showing them. If you know of more of such tasteful, historical pictures in the public domain, please upload them to Commons as well! Fram (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently, and anything even remotely problematic has been deleted (and a lot of unproblematic pictures with it, but these have for the most part since been restored). The reason that these pictures survived is that they are not problematic at all. The supposed motives of the editors opposing you over this are irrelevant and rather prejudiced, as gays are not interested in children, pedophiles are. And gays are usually not interested in nude girls... And children seeing nude children is even less of a problem, they can see the same in the mirror every day. Fram (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently" - Where and WHO checks this images???? Jimbo suggested to delete such images for after the FoxNews discussions. X-romix (talk) 12:40 pm, Today (UTC+1)

I find your comments disturbing Fram. Perhaps that is just me though. Prodego talk 07:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

I disagree, whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer. I would support having certain images non copyable so that they might not be misappropriated (a licensing legal nightmare, as well as a technical challenge, most likely) but remain visible to illustrate the encyclopedia, and thus remain a benefit to readers of a less delicate constitution than some. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer?? If you find anything offensive, it's your problem. Really?

etc.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 2nd July 2010, 6:16pm

[LessHorrid vanU]

Another very stupid discussion about the Koerper des Kindes here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...hoto_in_Commons

Beautiful pictures, thank you for showing them. If you know of more of such tasteful, historical pictures in the public domain, please upload them to Commons as well! Fram (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently, and anything even remotely problematic has been deleted (and a lot of unproblematic pictures with it, but these have for the most part since been restored). The reason that these pictures survived is that they are not problematic at all. The supposed motives of the editors opposing you over this are irrelevant and rather prejudiced, as gays are not interested in children, pedophiles are. And gays are usually not interested in nude girls... And children seeing nude children is even less of a problem, they can see the same in the mirror every day. Fram (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently" - Where and WHO checks this images???? Jimbo suggested to delete such images for after the FoxNews discussions. X-romix (talk) 12:40 pm, Today (UTC+1)

I find your comments disturbing Fram. Perhaps that is just me though. Prodego talk 07:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

I disagree, whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer. I would support having certain images non copyable so that they might not be misappropriated (a licensing legal nightmare, as well as a technical challenge, most likely) but remain visible to illustrate the encyclopedia, and thus remain a benefit to readers of a less delicate constitution than some. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer?? If you find anything offensive, it's your problem. Really?

etc.

Yup. If you see a picture of a naked child, standing or sitting or generally just being photographed doing not very much and get a feeling of guilt or are offended by such a sight, then the problem is with you. Or at least the fact that you have allowed recent western society to so sexualise the naked form of a child that it engenders a response other than "so what?" If the child was in a provocative pose or was engaged in activity that is not appropriate to their age, then yes outrage and concern are appropriate responses. Not these pictures, though.

When people are smart enough to recognise the difference between an image of a naked child, and a presentation of a child as an object of material and sexual desire - regardless of what they may or may not be wearing - then there is a chance for our children to maintain their innocence until their hormones start taking effect.

[GlassBeadGame]

Another very stupid discussion about the Koerper des Kindes here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...hoto_in_Commons

Beautiful pictures, thank you for showing them. If you know of more of such tasteful, historical pictures in the public domain, please upload them to Commons as well! Fram (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently, and anything even remotely problematic has been deleted (and a lot of unproblematic pictures with it, but these have for the most part since been restored). The reason that these pictures survived is that they are not problematic at all. The supposed motives of the editors opposing you over this are irrelevant and rather prejudiced, as gays are not interested in children, pedophiles are. And gays are usually not interested in nude girls... And children seeing nude children is even less of a problem, they can see the same in the mirror every day. Fram (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently" - Where and WHO checks this images???? Jimbo suggested to delete such images for after the FoxNews discussions. X-romix (talk) 12:40 pm, Today (UTC+1)

I find your comments disturbing Fram. Perhaps that is just me though. Prodego talk 07:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

I disagree, whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer. I would support having certain images non copyable so that they might not be misappropriated (a licensing legal nightmare, as well as a technical challenge, most likely) but remain visible to illustrate the encyclopedia, and thus remain a benefit to readers of a less delicate constitution than some. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer?? If you find anything offensive, it's your problem. Really?

etc.

Yup. If you see a picture of a naked child, standing or sitting or generally just being photographed doing not very much and get a feeling of guilt or are offended by such a sight, then the problem is with you. Or at least the fact that you have allowed recent western society to so sexualise the naked form of a child that it engenders a response other than "so what?" If the child was in a provocative pose or was engaged in activity that is not appropriate to their age, then yes outrage and concern are appropriate responses. Not these pictures, though.

When people are smart enough to recognise the difference between an image of a naked child, and a presentation of a child as an object of material and sexual desire - regardless of what they may or may not be wearing - then there is a chance for our children to maintain their innocence until their hormones start taking effect.

"Zero tolerance" means setting the bar a good distance from what is required to assure safety and protection. It means sacrificing other values and goals in order to achieve the end sought. This why for instance schools find themselves receiving criticism when a student runs afoul of a "zero tolerance" weapon policy by bringing in a toy gun and the school treats this (correctly) as a violation. The pictures reference while they have artistic merit and are not pornographic they also show clear indication of sexuality the children not merely preserving innocence. I would for instance feel (appropriate) concern if a school principal had his office decorated in numerous of these offerings. If WMF intends to in truth and fact pursue a "zero tolerance" you have to be willing sacrifice some content that would otherwise be seen as having significant value.

[LessHorrid vanU]

Another very stupid discussion about the Koerper des Kindes here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...hoto_in_Commons

Beautiful pictures, thank you for showing them. If you know of more of such tasteful, historical pictures in the public domain, please upload them to Commons as well! Fram (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently, and anything even remotely problematic has been deleted (and a lot of unproblematic pictures with it, but these have for the most part since been restored). The reason that these pictures survived is that they are not problematic at all. The supposed motives of the editors opposing you over this are irrelevant and rather prejudiced, as gays are not interested in children, pedophiles are. And gays are usually not interested in nude girls... And children seeing nude children is even less of a problem, they can see the same in the mirror every day. Fram (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"These commons categories have been thoroughly checked recently" - Where and WHO checks this images???? Jimbo suggested to delete such images for after the FoxNews discussions. X-romix (talk) 12:40 pm, Today (UTC+1)

I find your comments disturbing Fram. Perhaps that is just me though. Prodego talk 07:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

[...]

I disagree, whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer. I would support having certain images non copyable so that they might not be misappropriated (a licensing legal nightmare, as well as a technical challenge, most likely) but remain visible to illustrate the encyclopedia, and thus remain a benefit to readers of a less delicate constitution than some. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever prurience is perceived is brought by the viewer?? If you find anything offensive, it's your problem. Really?

etc.

Yup. If you see a picture of a naked child, standing or sitting or generally just being photographed doing not very much and get a feeling of guilt or are offended by such a sight, then the problem is with you. Or at least the fact that you have allowed recent western society to so sexualise the naked form of a child that it engenders a response other than "so what?" If the child was in a provocative pose or was engaged in activity that is not appropriate to their age, then yes outrage and concern are appropriate responses. Not these pictures, though.

When people are smart enough to recognise the difference between an image of a naked child, and a presentation of a child as an object of material and sexual desire - regardless of what they may or may not be wearing - then there is a chance for our children to maintain their innocence until their hormones start taking effect.

"Zero tolerance" means setting the bar a good distance from what is required to assure safety and protection. It means sacrificing other values and goals in order to achieve the end sought. This why for instance schools find themselves receiving criticism when a student runs afoul of a "zero tolerance" weapon policy by bringing in a toy gun and the school treats this (correctly) as a violation. The pictures reference while they have artistic merit and are not pornographic they also show clear indication of sexuality the children not merely preserving innocence. I would for instance feel (appropriate) concern if a school principal had his office decorated in numerous of these offerings. If WMF intends to in truth and fact pursue a "zero tolerance" you have to be willing sacrifice some content that would otherwise be seen as having significant value.

The WMF do have a serious "zero tolerance" attitude to paedophile activism, which I became aware of when I received an explanatory email from Fred Bauder while he was still the WMF legal rep. As far as I am aware it still holds, the attempts to rationalise relationships between children and adults by reference to (often Greek) antiquarian practices and portray the paedophile as the victim of their nature are quickly removed and referred to the office. The issue here is some pictures made when studies of naked children were considered to be the epitome of innocence, rather than how it is now often regarded. Those examples, firstly the solo youth is not paedophile in nature since there is obvious secondary sexual characteristics (pubic hair). Secondly, a couple of youths standing in an awkward manner, are also likely post pubescent - but the image seems a little hazy around the obvious indicator. I also cannot perceive anything close to erotic in that image - it looks like they are trying out for a clothing catalogue by staring meaningfully into the middle distance, shame they forgot to put on the comfortable pants and cardigan combination that usually goes with such stances...

[Kelly Martin]

The WMF do have a serious "zero tolerance" attitude to paedophile activism, which I became aware of when I received an explanatory email from Fred Bauder while he was still the WMF legal rep.

Fred Bauder was never a WMF legal representative. Any statement he made on such matters was his and his alone, or at best said with the support of the Arbitration Committee.