geni said:
Indeed. But here you're simply flipping to a mischaracterization of the present state of Wikipedia as "pornographic", which is clearly nonsense.
And you are charactering what your oponets want as bowderised
It is a fact that you propose a bowdlerization.
You wrongly accused me earlier of proposing to speak for the human race. This is what you are doing as a matter of fact. What makes you think that the majority of the human race is revolted by Kate Winslet's naked left breast? If it's such a problem, why was there not rioting in the streets at the prospect of children being exposed to this heinous sight?
Check out the recent history of bollywood
Ms Winslet does not act in Indian movies. You're dodging the question. Why did Titanic receive a PG13 certificate in the USA, allowing children of all ages to attend the movie legally, unaccompanied by adults?
There was a lot of opersition to the banning of fox hunting in the UK. I don't notice much in the way of rioting in the street
There was quite a lot, actually, although the majority of the UK population either didn't care or strongly supported abolition. I think you're clutching at straws but if you seriously question this we can discuss it off-list and summarise.
A fork wouldn't be a bad idea in this instance, because probably people offended by the sight of a breast would have pretty firm ideas about our textual content. But a mirror would be adequate for imposing the kind of grundyism you are defending.
So you view all those with to keep the level of nudity in wikipedia down to a minium as stupid?
Non-sequitur. I decry the rush to eliminate perfectly useful, encyclopedic, esthetically beautiful illustrations from Wikipedia out of what appear to me to be wildly overstated fears about the acceptability of such images. I recognise that those proposing this removal are intelligent people, and thus I hope to persuade them that they are wrong.