Talk:Complaints lodged, police helpless as "boobs on bikes" parade happens in New Zealand

OR Notes

I know it's obvious from the article that this is original reporting, but without something here, you have a red link in the OR template. --Thunderhead - (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It was so cool!!! --Nzgabriel | Talk 03:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And you guys don't invite me... terinjokes | Talk | Come visit the WikiBistro 04:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

really, try

Hi,

This might be antagonistic, but I really don't want to check my regular news site to find out some 16-year old went to a parade to see women's breasts. This is why there is an age limit on pornography. You are not special and this event was not special. It's a depressing statement about Wikinews.

You didn't even pretend there was social significance. It was just advertising for the local sex trade. Do you know any girls your age? If you don't, you realize that means the prostitutes on parade are probably undermining your emotional development, and that is not "so cool"?

"Accreditation" does not lend legitimacy to anything.

Potatoswatter 11:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I've removed the details about Gabriel, as this is entirely relevant. I know that this may sound hypocritical, as I've been mentioning all about Mueller in every story he shoots, but in that sort of instance, I'm hoping the public will suggest other events they'd like to see him at, with this it just seemed a little irrelevant.

More importantly, I've expanded the article to include comments from the city council, police, and event organizers, discussing the legalities of bare-breastedness and holding a public procession without a license. -- Zanimum 15:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Potatoswatter, if you're not interested in a story like that just don't read it. There's really no need for remarks like that. What you're suggesting is pittyful, Gabriel doesn't deserve to be treated like that. I hope you act as a grown-up.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews is pronography now??

I see...so now not only do we allow swearing in Wikinews articles, we allow nudity? Since when have we become a prono site? I think that the choice of images used needs to be looked at very carefully. I think its possible that legal implications me evolve from this and could cause some issues. I am NOT against the article nor its Original Reporting, but I just don't think that a lot of these images are required to be in the article given their "statue." DragonFire1024 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no need for the pornographic images, im sure people fully understand the point of the parade without the visuals.Dark Squall 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It ain't porn if it don't hurt the servers. Sysadmins & such will obviously delete any image which produces excessive traffic. I see no legal issues here since it's a parade. If your still worried, these women are likely porn stars, and thus famous, and thus their privacy is not protected by American courts. Now I see some gramatical errors in the story and "her boobs on bike" isn't a nice photo caption, but I'd say keep the photos. And heck looks like the author intentionally picked only unattractive participants. Nyarlathotep 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats tnot the point ugly or not and that would be regarded as highly POV. The point the new user above (Potatoswatter?) made is what if a person UNDER 18 views the images? Thats the legal implication. We do NOT ask the ages of users and for them to view pornographic material WITHOUT a disclaimer, and without the consent of a legal adult thats illegal. We do not know how many people under 18 read Wikinews and we don't know how many are going to now use the site for their own "personal pleaseure". I am sorry, but if you want to show boobs or any part of a naked human body, upload them to a porn site. Are we going to add a disclaimer or a redirect asking if the viewer is 18? This is Wikinews.org not Wikiporn.org DragonFire1024 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews is not censored, if we tittilate a few 14-year olds I don't care. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple nudity that doesn't even show the primary sexual characteristics certainly isn't illegal to display. There's still a thing called the "First Amendment to the United States Constitution". Whether we should display them is of course an entirely different matter. --+Deprifry+ 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The first amendment does not allow for people to go running around naked and showing their boobs. its called indecent exposure. And its not censorship its PORN and thats a difference. if I wanted to see porn I would visit sex.com or something. DragonFire1024 19:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether people are allowed to run around naked is a matter of local jurisdiction and not important for the issue at hand. The issue is whether we as a site subjected to the law of the United States are allowed to show pictures of people running around naked and that we certainly are. I refer you to w:Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union. --+Deprifry+ 20:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I totally agree with DragonFire1024. These are even disgusting to people older than 18. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 20:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to the law known as indecent exposure. And any of these woman would have been arrested in this country. They get arrested in Mardi Gras for exposure and this would be nothing differnt. To say that any of you could care less about what kids or people read Wikinews is BS. If you did not care why are any of you here? I care and I also do not see any point to nudity on Wikinews PERIOD. This is on a borderline {{notnews}}. If you want to get into free speech laws, then we can start to publish editorials...which is what I think this falls under more than news. Sr8 gay or whatever, young or old, I am 26 and I see no need for nude photos. DragonFire1024 20:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they allowed it in New Zealand. It only matters if we let these disgusting photos stay on Wikinews. I know Nzgabriel meant well by doing some local original reporting, but these photos are disturbing. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. DragonFire1024 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me that half our contributors need to grab a dictionary and look up "Pornography". If you're American and prudish, tough noogies, we get boobs in adverts on a regular basis here in Europe (think shower product adverts), the ridiculously prudish standards that I see in the prudish preceding comments are only common in the US and Islamic countries. Guys, grow up and learn to admire the human body. It is one of nature's finest pieces of engineering. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But Wikinews is international. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Trust me...I admire the human body...in ways that you would not want to know about...unless you are gay like me. I admit...I look at porn and penises and asses and other stuff all the time...on porn sites...NOT wikinews. That is Europe. Its not my fault they don't have exposure laws. I am far from prude, and again in ways that you would not want to know. DragonFire1024 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• So what's the problem with the article? Is just a few bits of flesh and nothing that I - as a heterosexual - would describe as particularly arousing. I simply don't see what all the fuss is about, a few boobs do a hell of a lot less damage than labelling countries as an "axis of evil". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong? i do not want to see porn on a news site that has readers under 18 and users too. Arousing or not its NOT what i want to see while reading NEWS. I never labled anyone the axis of evil. The President of the US did, and I did NOT vote for him therefore he does NOT speak for me...and to compare those to is just ridiculous becuase they are two totally different situations. I ahve to go to my real job now...sorry and I hope this gets fixed. DragonFire1024 20:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Canada, not Europe. We do not like seeing naked pics. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• The only photos I want removed are the really revealing ones. This is a (IMO) a good comprimise. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• While I agree with DragonFire on this issue, I think a good comprimise (that Brian and other users would agree on) would to only remove the really revealing ones. I also think that reporting on the "boobs on bikes" parade is worthless. The Wikipedia article states that it is only to market to adults. However, if the women were doing this for a good cause (e.g. to stop lung cancer, etc) then it would be a good story to report on. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 21:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Our official policy from Wikinews:Content disclaimer, is:

Quote

---

...

• Wikinews contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.

...Wikinews's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikinews is hosted.

It isn't illegal, it does not breach our existing policies, its relevant to the story (We would include pictures of other similar events), and not including it might by a violation of npov as we are assuming that all viewers have the same definition of what is or is not offensive. As long as it has a warning before going to anything offensive its fine by me imho. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is about morals and such. If we do this, then what is to stop it all from happening in the future? I see that Brian again failed to respect disruption rules by removing tags to articles. If this article is not cleaned up and the pornographic materil removed then I will request it be deleted. This is disturbing and appalling. If you want to be aroused by nudity then look at porn. Wikinews is not an Playboy or WikinewsPorn.org.' DragonFire1024 19:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We published the Muhammad drawings. To me that is way way more offensive then this will ever be (And I'm not even of that religion). The big question is whose morals. We're supposed to be global. Well not everyone on the globe finds this offensive. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes and Yes Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 02:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comedy Boobs

Too bad this isn't a comedy site, because this shit makes me laugh. The photo section is brilliant.

Tag NPOV

Since a number of users dispute the images of the article, or at least some images, I have tagged the article as NPOV as we are in disagreement about what is and is not allowed to be presented. DragonFire1024 20:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, anyone who find the images on this story offensive should be checked into hospital for terminal prudishness. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing tags is considered disruption...others agree to have them removed...the tag is there WITH merit. So check me in. DragonFire1024 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of adding the NPOV tag I added the cleanup tag. I gues I'm going to the hospital because I don't like porn. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag (again). Can someone give me a damn good reason why this should be heading towards deletion? Yes, I like boobs. No these aren't all pictures of nice ones, no I don't consider one of the images porn. Would those who're doing the Mary Whitehouse impression care to divulge their ages? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take a sip of TEA and look at the Wiktionary definition of porn? For my opinion, perhaps we could put all these images on Commons, and have a link to it, warning users under 18? --Thunderhead - (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote

---

"...with the main purpose being to sexually please the viewer."

I doubt that this was intended to sexually arouse anyone, although it probably did... --Thunderhead - (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, my 2 cents, personally I am opposed to this parade, however it is news, and it has been all over New Zealand media. If this is not allowed, then material from Iraq should not be allowed Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well they should probably be in a gallery at commons either way. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, wikipedia has several articles with pornographic pictures on them. (And big long debates on the talk page as well...) Bawolff ☺☻ 03:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

captions need to go - "Face and boobs." and "Another side on view of a hot lady." don't cut it. i don't see the need for the extensive picture gallery. previously when we ran them (cherry blossoms, if i remember), either the pictures or the subject were worth it. don't think its the case here. we don't need to use every picture taken of an event.

there's a "Boobs on Bikes" parade and nobody has anything to say about objectification? lets get some reporting as well as pictures into the article. Zanimum has made a good start already.  — Doldrums(talk) 06:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of many of the captions. I think no caption is best with many. -- Zanimum 14:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Im in the news

Hi (I have been away for over 24 hours so I have not been able to participate in discussions), I am in a 3 News video in the background while they were interviewing some girls about what they thought about the parade. Video here: http://www.tv3.co.nz/Home/Video/National/tabid/249/articleID/22272/Default.aspx?articleID=22272#vidlist22272. I am the one holding the camera, and with the blue "no fear" bag. --Nzgabriel | Talk 07:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now found another video of me, kind of better in some ways. It can be found on stuff.co.nz here: http://stuff.co.nz/videoplayer/98925a15455.html. Sadly I wasn't interviewd, I can be seen sitting on the ground waiting for the parade next to some photographers and an Asian. --Nzgabriel | Talk 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

On images

There's nothing wrong with the photos per se. Wikinews is not censored, just like Wikipedia. The idea that pictures of a woman's breasts are "pornographic" is utterly bizarre. The captions need editing, though, and the specific "close-up of nipple" is over the top.--Eloquence 08:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Right...so when I see naked people running around I will upload them...so where can I look at Porn on Wikinews...oh wait I am...if you want to not follow laws and discretion then fine. You guys are unbelieveable. DragonFire1024 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm European. The problem is prudish Americans. Things like women sunbathing topless are commonplace around the Mediterranean coast. I suppose you also take offense at women breastfeeding in public. 14-year old children will be titillated with this article, same as they'll go and look up breast on wikipedia. To give an example of how laid back about boobs Europeans are, you'll get to see them in adverts for shower products - yup nekkid women in the shower, in the commercials, and not always late at night. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope...woman breast feeding is a survival mechanism... flshing your tits around is not. So Wikinews has to influence or cause a child or underage person to do illegal stuff or to be bad? I thought we were supposed to set an example. DragonFire1024 19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Breastfeeding, until the most recent century at least, was a biological necessity. In a story about breastfeeding, it would be entirely appropriate to include a relevant image. As for setting an example, I'm not sure that is the case. We should aim to set an example for the journalism community, possibly, but not for society as a whole.

Regarding Brian's comments about "nekkid" women in ads, or as we English speakers call them "naked", like commercials air on North American channels. However, we use artful descretion. By using tricky camera angles, we avoid showing the nipples and pubic areas. By not showing these areas, viewers are allowed to use their imaginations and fill in the details. -- Zanimum 21:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

From: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/boobs-on-bikes-bid-for-oz/2007/03/02/1172338867654.html Parade was held/sponsored by: Christchurch's Erotica Lifestyles Expo. AKA the porn industry. A porn parade by the porn industry to do what? Promote porn. DragonFire1024 22:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Eloquence summarises it perfectly. I don't think there is a legal problem. The captions and such have been improved and the article is a lot better now. It's not porn, YouPorn is porn, this is just nudity and news. There is clearly a difference in standards and moral, and little consensus. Since it's tradition to allow this on Wikimedia projects, I think it should stay.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

If you want to remove tags during a dispute then its disruption. There are sveral who dispute this article. Disputes are not solved by removing tags on articles where there are disputes. I put it back up so sue me then. I see nothing that was resolved here. DragonFire1024 20:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the tag and will revert attempts to restore it. I count less than 5 opposed to the images and over 10 neutral to in favour. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to do so then that is disruption. A dispute is a dispute. Solve it. As an involved party brian, you should know better. DragonFire1024 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Efforts to deal with people over moral issues are pointless, you aren't going to change your morals and find this story acceptable, I ain't going to come round to seeing why this should not be published as it is. You, FelloWikinews, and some guy I've never seen before object whereas we have a considerable number of people who do not share your view that this is offensive. At least one picture has already been removed from the gallery already, I am restoring the date bump, removing the cleanup tag and marking the article as ready since you object to its publishing. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Our readers are our team. Without them we are nothing. You continue to ignore the concerns and the dispute. This is disruption. You cannot ignore the concerns of me, FellowWikinews. Drak Squall, Potatoswatter regardless of how new or old they are. DragonFire1024 20:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I give up. You guys just want to keep removing tags and keep ignoring the concerns. Apparently it does not matter who or how many dispute something it seems you don't give a crap anyways. DragonFire1024 21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not true. I just don't have hangups about partial nudity. I'd let my 12 year old son look at this article - as it is now with lots of pictures removed - or as it was before when I tried to publish it. I suppose you think that'd be child abuse? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And then if you got caught letting that happen, you would be arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. DragonFire1024 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not in Belgium, and I doubt it'd be the case in most parts of the United States. However, I'm beginning to see why there was such an outcry over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction". As I already stated, my 12-year old can see adverts equally as graphic as the pictures on this article, and - to be honest (but not serious) - I kinda wonder if you should just ask your ISP to cancel your Internet connection if this bothers you, there's worse - and petabytes of it. We now have a warning at the top of the article, it is long enough that most people will have to scroll down to get to the pictures, you have to click on them to get a clear view of the boobies, and I can probably find something far more explicit with less effort. That's as far as I think the less prudish amongst us should compromise. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not care...Porn is porn...if you want to be a sickoo and let your 12 y/o look at them thats your problem. A disclaimer in small print...yeah right...thats really helpful. And again the tags were removed without merit. Whatever...you guys apparently do not care about what anyone thinks. DragonFire1024 22:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well when you guys decide that the opinion of others is valid, then maybe I will come back to Wikinews. But until then I am gonig to leave for a bit. I am ashamed that no one cares about the concerns and ashamed that porn is allowed on Wikinews. This is a disgrace. DragonFire1024 22:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just so you know, and to remind you if you did, I am 16, I know people my own age who were there as well. If a 10 year old was there, then they would be able to watch the 'parade' as it was in the public, and no "R18" laws could apply. And just so you know I am sort of outraged that some of those photographs were removed! --Nzgabriel | Talk 22:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

This article is disputed and the concerns have been ignored. Apparently the concerns of Wikinews users has no bearring anymore. So much for a collaborating news site. DragonFire1024 22:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the actual pictures, and post a link to the Commons gallery, so that anyone going there has done it on thier own. Feel free to revert me. --Thunderhead - (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you do before I've finished writing this comment I'll revert. I strongly believe we should treat all our readers as adults, and if you find something offensive in a newspaper you should simply turn the page. Whilst DragonFire1024 is insistent that his concerns have been ignored, numerous pictures have been removed from the article. Other contributors, including board members, have given their opinion and no compromise has been offered by those who've arbitrarily decided the pictures are porn. Current version is what should stay. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. --Thunderhead - (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally believe that we should not censor stuff for the simple reason as to what is offensive differs between people (For example, apparently some parts of the world feel that women should wear veils. obviously we're not going to censor women not wearing veils.) However warnings about partial nudity are fine in this case (IMHO). But if you're going to have warnings though, I would like to strongly suggest having one warning, at the top, or before the pictures, wherever, but having two warnings looks stupid. Also since it seems like not all the pictures are here (Which is okay, as not all of them may be relevant or needed), perhaps {{commons|Boobs on bikes parade}} should be in the sources section (In addition to having some (or all) of the pictures in the article) so readers can click if they want more pictures. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i just did that. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the pictures don’t add to the article, while I do not agree with censorship i feel that there is nothing to be gained from leaving the 4 picture that are currently there on the page. while they don’t seem to show anything offensive, they also fail to capture much of the parade or crowd and as such I feel that they should be deleted to improve the article not to censor it!--Xbehave 15:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dragon, as a project of the Wikimedia family, Wikinews is not censored (there are plenty of images that are significantly more prurient than this in Commons). Wanting Wikinews to be censored is not an actionable objection, because it isn't and will not be. It is like an objection to the principle of NPOV.--Eloquence 15:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

News value of images

Personally I don't have any problem with images of breasts on this site, but I do think the images should have some news value. People can view the rest of the images on Commons if they want.

I've tried to take a critical look at the images. The overall quality for usage in a news report is a bit average (not that I could do better, but as Gabriel admitted, he is just an amateur photographer, unlike Mueller, for example). Here are my motives for changing the pictures (the edit summary didn't provide enough space). Numbers refer to the image titles.

• 11 and 13 are poor copies of 12
• 4: who cares which news crew was there?
• 16 more informative then 17
• 25: close ups like that don't really add anything to our knowledge of news, do they?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

good work!  — Doldrums(talk) 19:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

While I am neutral in this POV debate, I'm going to go ahead and say that Gabriel did some good journalism, and took good pictures. I agree with you, Steven. --Thunderhead - (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Thunderhead for the nice comment, and Steven for the nice captions. The pictures could have been better, but I was in a rush and didn't bother doing pre-auto focus. --Nzgabriel | Talk 03:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)