Talk:Cerne Abbas Giant
Oh, the picture has been deleted. What, precisely, was wrong with it? Chrysogonus 10:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- I have a hunch that you know what was wrong with it. CPWebmaster 10:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
It was a picture of a well-known English landmark. Was it anti-American perhaps? Chrysogonus 10:22, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Read our rules. The user who uploaded that image is going to be blocked, and your account is going to be blocked if you try to push obscenity further here. Thank you.--Aschlafly 11:22, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Excuse me? What obscenity have I been pushing? Chrysogonus 12:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
If the Cerne Abbas Giant is considered to be obscene, why is this allowed? http://www.conservapedia.com/Michelangelo
- I think this is an interesting point. On the Brest Exam talk page, where there is an ongoing discussion re "obscene" pictures someone makes the point that whereas they would delete photographs of naked people it is ok to have a picture of David because that is a statue, and not a real person. Surely that applies here also? You really need to have a clear policy in place because at the moment we are getting these inconsistencies. Also, threatening someone with a banning just for this seems pretty draconian; it's not like he's posting up porn or something. It IS a very well known landmark and I think it is over the top to label it obscene, just as it would be crazy to remove the picture from the Michelangelo page. Silverfish 14:12, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Since no real person's nakedness is being exposed (cf Michaelangelo's David) I do not see what the problem is. (Biblical references to nakedness (mostly in Leviticus 18 and 20), seem to refer mainly to relatives.) The Cerne Abbas Giant is a very famous British landmark, one of the finest surviving examples of prehistoric hill figures. --Jeremiah4-22 14:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Folks, I'm not going to waste time debating what constitutes "clean" and "family-friendly". I'm building an encyclopedia here, and hope you can too. You wouldn't see this image in a real encyclopedia. It's crass obscenity. By the way, it's not prehistoric either. You can have the last word here if you like.--Aschlafly 14:43, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- You won't see articles promoting creationsism or Noah's Ark in a real encylcopaedia either Silverfish 15:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)