kq wrote:

.... Is it really so unclear what I'm saying? The idea of what is "sexually explicit" has at various times included piano legs, women's ankles, and Elvis Presley's hips. In quite a few places on the planet, it still includes women's ankles, and I'm sure it would include Elvis Presley's hips as well. For an example in the opposite direction, Robert Mapplethorpe considered his work "erotic," yet many (many) people consider it "pornographic." Should I point you to the obscenity trials for James Joyce's _Ulysses_? Anyway, tagging articles with commentary of that sort--"sexually explicit," etc.--is the same as imposing your cultural POV onto them; in other words, it is the same as declaring the wikipedia a developed nation's middle-class anglocentric-pedia. Exactly how is that of benefit to us?

I tend to agree and think that we shouldn't be the ones doing the flagging but several to many external "team certification" or "Sifter" projects can do so.

The faint of heart could then access our articles through those separate projects. At the most we can say in the Wikipedia article that "A previous version of this article has been certified by X, Y and Z groups."

Let them deal with flagging wars and criteria - we have an NPOV encyclopedia to write!

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)