When I was in high school, I volunteered to help in the school library. We had a periodical collection, and students would have to request a specific magazine issue, and then the student assistant would go into the back room, pull the issue and have the student sign it out. The most requested magazines were ''Car and Driver'' followed by the ''National Geographic'' issues which photos of native African women. We can discuss these subjects with an encyclopedic tone and without including examples. In contrast, Wikipedia works extensively to collect as many nude photos as possible and is not family friendly. We don't want Conservapedia to appeal to the crowd that reads ''National Geographic'' for just those few special photos. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 18:05, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::It sounds like everyone basically agrees on this anyway, but I'll chime in. I agree that we should keep such content to a minimum. If such information can be used to prove hypocrisy, then it might be worth carefully mentioning. However, in general, that's just a part of the secular world now. Let's keep it out of here, unless perhaps if it is beneficial to prove a different point. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 21:04, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
I'm thinking that there's an agreement about how to handle this particular issue from now on. Although, I still regret my rash judgment and current inability to correct it at this time. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 23:02, 14 July 2017 (EDT)