Editing Talk:Brongersma (section)

==revert warring on deletion tag==
Leucosticte, who created the index page, requested [[Template:Delete|deletion]] as "Author request." He was not the sole author of the page, though he created it. I removed the tag, and discussed the wiki above. Leucosticte has again tagged the wiki for deletion, this time with  ''(delete|Violation of [[Project:Prohibited content]]).'' That is a draft policy. Leucosticte attempted to edit it with what was not a policy but an argument for a possible policy: "advocating legalization of activities that most of the public deems immoral could offend some readers and harm WikiIndex's reputation."[https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex:Prohibited_content&diff=186919&oldid=186906]. I removed that. It has no support, so far. Note that advocating legalization is not the same -- at all -- as advocating illegal activity. Many people advocate legalization of marijuana, for example, but do not advocate smoking marijuana, whether it is legal or illegal.

I have again removed the tag. Most wikis allow any user to remove a speedy deletion tag. The whole point of speedy deletion is to avoid unnecessary discussion for uncontroversial deletions. Speedy deletion is, here, being abused. (Some wikis require an admin remove the tags. That's not the practice on developed, community-based wikis.)

His replacement of the deletion tag ignored the comments above. He is attempting to bypass discussion to force deletion, which then serves other purposes, such as claiming "censorship," or, alternatively, to force discussion of the topic, which he knows from experience can be highly disruptive, and "highly disruptive" is his goal.

However, [[Brongersma]] does not violate the proposed policy. It can look at way to someone who just looks at superficialities, such as how Wikipedia describes Brongersma. Brongersma was not a pedophile, except in popular definitions that depend on overgeneralization. (i.e., pedophiles are attracted to "children," and in some places a 17-year-old is a "child," therefore, the knee-jerk thinking is, someone who had sex with a 17-year-old is a "pedophile." Which is about equivalent to "evil inhuman monster who should be killed immediately." It's actually preposterous. What Brongersma did was violate a law aimed only at homosexuals, had the "victim" been female, no violation.

Leucosticte also nominated for deletion a page for a homosexual activist, an academic, whose wiki is the only known host for the "shredded" Encyclopedia of Homosexuality. [https://www.Amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Homosexuality-Wayne-R-Dynes/dp/0824065441# Amazon] [[William A. Percy]]. Quite a story, in fact.

Possibly as a result of the Brongersma case, the age of consent in the Netherlands was made the same for homosexual and heterosexual activities. It was or became, then, 16 years of age. Many jurisdictions have lower ages of consent. Advocating lowering the age of consent is not advocating illegal behavior. That's obvious!

The relevant draft policy, which might be accepted, it does seem to enjoy a level of consensus, prohibits:

:''"Sites which advocate behaviors that are illegal. Legality changes from district to district. A site like [[Wikilivres]] hosts material which is copyrighted in some jurisdictions but not others. Exercise caution when providing links to wikis which advocate illegal activity. We want to provide a comprehensive view of the world of wikis but not provide a repository of sites for finding drug smuggling mules or child pornography.

The page clarifies:
:''It harms the credibility of our site and makes using it a potentially dangerous activity for users if we don't have minimal criteria for prohibited content. All of the examples given above are for actual wikis which exist solely or substantially to provide content that is dangerous and harmful.

Key: ''solely or substantially.'' No content has been referenced or even alleged which is "dangerous and harmful." There is "child pornography" hosted on [[Wikimedia Commons]]. Nobody would claim that such was the substantial or sole purpose of Commons. (But people do object!) Brongersma was not a pedophile, and did not -- to my knowledge -- advocate legalizing true adult-child sexual relations. And if he did, that would be historical; after all, he's deceased, and a site documenting his life and work is not advocacy. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:Is it a revert war if you cite a different deletion reason the second time around? I dunno, maybe it's a gray area. Wikimedia Commons does not host child pornography; there are no images there of children exhibiting their genitals lasciviously. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 21:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:#It's tendentious editing if you already know the edit is opposed, which you did. Whether it's a "revert war" or not is another issue. I use the term to mean repeatedly asserting the same or similar content. Time is also involved. The only change in the second assertion was a reason that was false on the face, and you know it. You are advocating reasons that you know might be advocated by those you seek to expose or humiliate. The real disruptive violation is WP:POINT, not WP:3RR (which does cover reversions lower than four, four is a "bright line.")
:#As to "child pornography," Leucosticte is playing with varying definitions. In common usage, the word has varying meanings. There is coverage of this on {{Wp|Child pornography#Terminology|Wikipedia}}. When he created his [[Nathania]] page, trolling for outrage, Nathan presented images in categories 1-3. Sometimes these can be used as supporting evidence in a prosecution for a violation of law, but, in themselves, they are not illegal. The Commons images do not present "children exhibiting their genitals lasciviously." As I recall, the children are clothed. The adults are exposed. I'd interpret them -- these are drawings from long ago -- as Category 8 or 9, "Assault," or "Gross Assault."
::Brongersma does not even get close to any of this, as far as I've seen.
::When considering offensiveness, the legal definition of child pornography can be irrelevant. Legally, there is the {{Wp|Miller test}}. By that test, the Commons images are legal. As Leucosticte knows, the issues are far more complex than most realize. There is a second issue besides the Miller test, which is realism. The drawings are clearly not photographs or produced in imitation of photographs. They are "realistic," but are clearly drawings, they are not "photorealistic."
::And all this is irrelevant to Brongersma. Leucosticte knows better, much better. Hence he is trolling. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 21:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::The ''Miller'' test doesn't apply to child pornography. See {{Wp|New York v. Ferber#The Court's decision}}. There are other types of child pornography besides the kind I mentioned; more broadly it [https://www.Law.Cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256 involves] "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" which can involve "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person". [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 22:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Frankly, DGAF. This has nothing to do with Brongersma. It seems to me to be an excuse to repeat phrases that make people go ballistic. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 23:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)