Talk:Brongersma: Difference between revisions

Talk:Brongersma (edit)

Revision as of 21:50, 7 January 2015

2,051 bytes added , 7 January 2015

→‎revert warring on deletion tag: tendentious argument, presented insincerely, to confuse issues and entice ignorant reaction.

Abd

331

edits

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test 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)