Category talk:Pedophilia
|
|
As brought up at Meta: Sanger's Message to the FBI, there may be issues with the Van Maele line art hosted in this category. It is discussed, on that same page, that these images may be of historical interest. While they may be, we need to decided if we actually need the volume of images that we do. One work by the artist should be sufficient to demonstrate his work, and yet we have fourteen. The other content (Russianboy4.jpg and Zichy Mihály rajz.jpg) may also be questionable. I think a conclusion needs to be reached. (this will also be posted at the Village Pump) --Blah2 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah I was reading about that in the news. By 'questionable' I suppose that means whether or not it is moral to document historical artwork? I figure the ban on fake or 'virtual' images was in case they were inspired based on reality or something. Usually based on the idea that knowing people are looking at their artwork the artist might continue abusing people or something. In this case the artist died in 1926, before most of us were born or the internet existed, so I think there's little risk of that, so it's more an issue of how law enforcement will deal with the Wikimedia foundation I guess. Ty (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wow! It looks like the internet is still the 'wild, wild west'. Hiding behind the label of 'art' is a lame defense, imho. There are certainly more discrete examples that can be used to get a point across. Allow those who care about children to be aware of this content (ever heard of warning labels?), so we can take whatever action we see fit to keep them from viewing it. This site category is careless, and gives NO regard to those on the opposite side of this issue. In turn, it throws up red flags to not trust the entire site. I predict this will become a much bigger issue in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.212.149 (talk • contribs) 30. April 2010, 14:52 Uhr (UTC)
- I guess we could get rid of those old romantic paintings too since they were painted with under 18 models for a large majority. I would hope that anyone clicking onto an art category shouldn't be too shocked at questionable imagery seeing as its a rather touchy subject which involves some rather perverse acts and people. That said it the images present in this gallery do not seem arousing or pornographic to me. 86.30.58.254 22:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's not hiding, these are works of art. I think you mean 'discreet', and whether or not you could convey points with subtler works is something that depends entirely upon the 'point' that an artist meant to make. Since we can't read minds, we should recognize that different images have different meme impacts and clearly since you would feel differently were it not so blatant, it would be missing a point. Ty (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Name change[edit]
I'm starting to wonder if this category name is appropriate or descriptive at all. I only see 4 images that, based on their file names, would for sure be relevant to this category (the 2 butterflies, 'das' logo and 'gay' graffiti). All the others are basically the opinion of whoever added the label and completely subjective. They may belong in a category which unites a common theme (such as "depictions of sexual acts with neotenic figures" or something) perhaps. Making Category:Lolicon a subcategory also seems completely inappropriate as well, it is a separate area of culture and not a paraphilia as this is. Ty (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)