My, my, look who is getting involved in the discussion about a photo on the page about Pearl necklace (sexuality). Our very own Neil and the dreaded JzG?!

Curious how Guy Chapman says that a "Pearl necklace" is somehow a "self reference" to Wikipedia that should be avoided (WP:ASR).

JzG means that the Template:Censor does not belong in the mainspace, per ASR. It does not. It is just for talk pages.

But the issue seems to be most dramamongers mongering drama. Possible copyright problem, which a hundred or so are dealt with every day, with no drama.

YUK! I thought this was going to be about girls in pearl necklaces such as in older times would be on the frontispiece of Country Life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_Life_(magazine)

It isn't at all.

Curious actually that when I looked on the net there are hardly any "Girsl in Pearls" images which is sad really. I think pearls are a fine thing.

This is much nicer.

http://www.dargate.com/241_auction/241_images/1575.jpg

A very strange reply to my ANI comments here.

Some guys have all the luck....

I'm sure Wikipedian users have never had sex.

So a Pearl Necklace can only come from a tit fuck? Have they never heard of pulling out and spurting somewhere other than inside the woman? Have they never heard of being wanked off over a girl's tits?

In what way are these people qualified to even write about sex?!?

I think that Jimbo needs to step in soon.

Ha! Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "expert withdrawal".

I'm being tongue-in-cheek (which isn't a bizarre sexual act) about this whole thing because I really think an entire "adult" Wiki would be a far more suitable place for such articles.

Heck, with Jimbo's contacts from the past, surely he could make a lot of cash out of one.

Those replies were pretty tame, they let you off easy with your 'It's absolutely revolting' comment.

When it comes to editorial judgment, the anti-censorship crowd tends to be as self-righteous, intolerant and hate-filled as any fire-and-brimstone minister, at least in my experience.

Back in the days when Tony Sidaway was trolling about [[autofellatio]] and the Danish Muhammed cartoons controversy was boiling, there was an option on the table to hide controversial images behind a link, so you could view them if you chose to, without being forced to see them immediately upon loading the page. I always felt this was the optimal solution, but unfortunately it wasn't implemented in the long-term and apparently nobody is even suggesting it as a possibility anymore.

The possiblity of a brown-paper-wrapper mod for some articles has been planned for on Knol. I forget just what they call it, but I can't imagine how WP has gotten this far without it. I suppose there are so many .xxx sites that parents and such have been inundated by them, and Wikipedia, with a tiny amount of stuff about porn hidden among 2.5 million articles, escapes notice as being too overall educational to rate on the Potter Stewart scale as having no redeeming other social value.

There is the story of the woman who complemented Samuel Johnson that he'd put no dirty words in his newfangled "dictionary". To which Johnson naturally said "Aha, ma'm, so you've been looking for them?"

I honestly don't know what the solution is. The test for objectionable images used to be "is this image really needed" - an editorial judgment call. Also, back in the day, and I don't know if this is still true, you had to have a consensus to delete an image, not a consensus to keep. Consensus is hard to get at Wikipedia on some topics, so objectionable images uploaded by trolls got this automatic protection. It should be the other way around; images like this should require a consensus to keep. That would better align with the requirement is this image really needed.

Another thing that's going on lately are these realistic cartoon images. I think people go find a commercial image, transform it into an svg with Corel (or whatever) to make it look like a cartoon and less recognizable to the original, and then call it their own work when it's actually a copyright violation.

Oh good grief! You're right of course -that's a substantial amount of information the article is lacking!

Is this another nail in the coffin of 'the sum of all knowledge' claim?

Are you goiing to put that info in, or are you scared of getting into a revert war with other editors demanding citation from Reliable Sources...? I know I would be...

Those were the days, yes. Early 2005. That's when "protection of minors" was added to NOT and quickly adapted by Tony Sidaway. Jimbo himself axed the autofellatio photo, which was later put behind a link with Jimbo's approval. This caused Tony to lecture anyone within earshot on numerous talkpages and the listhost about the evils of censorship.

As you can see, the image hasn't been behind a link for a long time, even though the original poll favored it about 3-2, as did Jimbo, apparently. The talk page advocates rationalized away Jimbo's sane act by telling themselves that he only objected to the original picture's dubious copyright status. The new images were certainly free culture, so of course Wikipedia should inline them, along with unhelpful pictures of Mohammad. These images are positively essentual illustrating the subject, and if anyone disagrees they can go to hell. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Nor nor is it stifled by outdated puritan concepts like editorial judgment.

But yeah, links would be nice.

Grammar aside, I suppose it depends on the circles you move in. Elbow bondage is also pretty common.



They sure aren't qualified to delete bondage articles; that's never stopped them.



I used to get endless arguments about that - why are most of the bondage images of scantily clad females? Why not use fully clothed people, some male? To which there are two replies. If you're in a contorted position, it's much more comfortable not to be wearing clothes. And if anyone will volunteer, I'll tie them up and photogrph them. (I never had any takers.)

Realistically, I do not see a problem with the images that does not exist with the text. Is it perfectly alright for kids to read about pearl necklaces, but not to see them? Seems pretty odd.

Up for deletion on Commons, and with some truly ludicrous copyright arguments to boot:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:..._3rd_nomination

How much time have you spent on that thread, Rooty?

Surprisingly little, actually.

That sounds kinda hot...

If we could all agree that "pearl necklace" is a legitimate topic for the project, then of course an image would be necessary. We wouldn't want readers struggling to figure out exactly what was being discussed, as they would on "Dirty Sanchez" (no link, it's positively disgusting.)

It is the existence of the article itself that is the problem. Nor is this remotely analogous to depictions of Muhammad, other than the generic, "someone doesn't like the picture." The one is a topic of serious curation and academic scholarship; the other is not.

There are no reliable sources cited, and I doubt any will be found. The article is about a term, violating Wikipedia's claim not to attempt to be a dictionary - and why is it exactly those terms least likely to be found in an actual dictionary that are most likely to be found on Wikipedia?

I am emphatically not offended or disgusted in any way by the notion or depiction of a "pearl necklace," or of its depiction. Rather, it strays from the purpose and is beneath the dignity of a purportedly scholarly reference work to cover this subject. That this is already obvious to everyone else is evidenced by the character of cited references.

Excellent, Dr Johnson.