Recently an image on our wiki was deleted by a Wikia staff member because she felt that it violated the terms of condition of Wikia. The image in question is one of the Broodmother. In the opinions of the administrators of Dragon Age Wiki, we do not feel that the image violates the TOC because the image is derived from a monster from the game. And, we feel that by including that image, we keep true to the spirit of the game.
In addition, traditional monsters such as mermaids, sirens, harpies are also depicted in the nude as like other fictional beasts. In such a fantastic context, the depiction of the Broodmother are quite in line with the rest of the mythical beasts as well.
So, let us know how you feel. Do you think that as an encyclopedia for the game, we should keep true to the look and feel of the game? Or do you feel that this image is visually offensive to you? --20:40, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
I, of course, do not support the deletion of the picture or even changing it to a headshot. Doing so is a disservice to the fans and people who want to know about the game. It is not meant to offend anyone, but to document the creature as it appears.
Note that supporting or changing this particular image means we will have to take down other images depicting broodmothers since they have full frontal nudity. --D. (talk · contr) 20:49, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
I am fervently opposed to the deletion. By deciding what is and is not offensive, we can no longer do our job; making a free encyclopaedia of information. Because this image was used in a proper manner, and not simply for the purposes of being pornographic, I believe this does not constitute a deletion. Not only that, but it is not an actual image of a human being. It's purpose was not to be pornographic, but rather to be complete in it's description of our topic. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 21:00, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
- I too oppose the deletion of this image as it is no more than an accurate picture of a Dragon Age monster. It is in no way gratuitous and removing lessens the ability of our wiki to provide information. A head shot would not provide an correct impression of the Mother as it does not show her bestial qualities. Loleil Talk 21:21, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
I too oppose the deletion because, like others have said, it injures the wiki's ability to give an accurate representation of the mother. ----Isolationistmagi 21:24, March 31, 2012 (UTC)I shall skip my usual diatribe on the absurdity of censoring tasteful images of the human body, since this situation is even more bonkers than that. I'm no regular article editor here on the wiki, so I can't lay any claim to being afraid of having the integrity of my work compromised as the other users can. However, I find the removal of images of The Mother to be completely baffling. The image in question is that of a monster, and it's certainly frightening and grotesque to behold, but I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone could see past the monstrosity that it is, and simply take issue with the "frontal nudity" of something that isn't designed to be even remotely erotic or pornographic. Are we doing this for the children? Protecting their innocent hearts and minds from giggle fits directed at pictures of monsters with multiple rows of boobies? Please don't continue this madness, Wikia... There's a colossal difference between obscenity and anatomy, and an even bigger difference between human and... that. Or are we going to start censoring images of udders too?
I concur. The image's purpose is clearly not to cause offence, but to portray an accurate depiction. Furthermore, the image comes from an 18-rated game, and so images like this are to be expected surely? Or should we simply censor or shut down all wikis based on mature material? A head shot would not suffice as it does not present (as Loleil mentioned) the monstrous details of the Mother. This clogs wikia with yet more bureaucracy and red tape, and is inconsistent with the purpose of our (and most) wikis. 22:09, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everyone else. There is absolutely NOTHING offensive about this picture. Both Dragon Age games were rated M for MATURE. It even lists "partial nudity" next to the rating. Anyone on this site is only on here because they have played Dragon Age, or are looking into playing it. They should make themselves aware of the rating if they find things like breasts offensive. Please keep the picture.--Turbotwistedfire (talk) 22:18, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
I oppose the deletion of this image or any of the original images of the game. I could see if it was a mod that showed nudity but it is not.23:06, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
I honestly think this is ridiculous. This is a normal in-game image from DA, why delete it? Shall we remove various pictures of desire demons as well? Delete the pages about the brothels and all characters found there? Asherinka (talk) 23:13, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
If someone finds the Mother sexually titillating (I mean, that's why it's problem, isn't it? Nobody censors belly buttons), then that man has a far larger problem than the Mother being on this wiki. He needs a psych eval. GabrielleduVent 23:29, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
Adding my opposition for the already stated reasons above. There was no reason to remove the image. Period. This is just plain ignorance. I suppose next they'll contact BioWare and demand it be edited in the game itself? It's a MONSTER in a game not a p0rn. Vhardamis (talk) 23:46, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
Once again, "sensibilities" overrides common sense. No one ever says anything about the fact that her face splits apart, because she's a monster, but the sight of a breast and its "Omg! There's a breast! Won't someone please think of the children!" In case you can't guess, I oppose the deletion of the image. It is from a mature game that deals with mature themes. It is an undoctored image, there is nothing scintillating about it, nor is it by any means pornographic, it is simply an image of a monster. --Madasamadthing (talk) 00:36, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
I oppose the deletion, and support our admins. What are we going to do next, cover the ceiling of the Sistine chappel? Drape the classical statues? Forbid anatomy at schools? Besides, such censorship is unacceptable in an encyclopaedia. The purpose of DA wiki is to collect information about the game; messing with this purpose makes us a tool of someone's philosophy, and I shall not tolerate that. --Ygrain (talk) 06:28, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
- I think this issue of thoughtless censorship can have far reaching consequences and should be brought to the attention of as many community members as possible. Is there a way to pin it somewhere at the top of the Recent Activity page, or something like that? --Ygrain (talk) 07:09, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
I also oppose deletion, accuracy of images is important. On the other hand, if the erotic nature of the image is an issue to more than just the one that complained, we don't want to ostracize or exclude some viewers, everyone who wants to should be able to use this. A compromise would be to use the headshot as the main picture and but the less appropriate images in the gallery behind something akin to a spoiler tag --CarloGrimaldi (talk) 07:45, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
- "Eroticism (from the Greek ἔρως, eros—"desire") is generally understood to refer to a state of sexual arousal or anticipation of such" (wikipedia)
- I fail to see how the picture of Mother could be perceived as erotic. I don't agree that nudity automatically equals erotic, and especially in this particular case. I also fail to see how users could be offended by genuine in-game content on the wiki if they have played the game and seen much more of the Mother than a single shot; has there ever been criticism towards Bioware for creating the content? Those who haven't played the game yet and might possibly come to the wiki to learn something about it beforehands, should IMHO have access to full and unabridged game information to make an informed decision whether and on what basis they want to play the game or not.
- Besides, if I understand the post that started this correctly, the issue was not someone feeling offended by the image but confused why the picture was deleted on another wiki while still being displayed here. There might be a point to restricting other wikis to the headshot, to avoid controversy among users who are not familiar with DA, but here, on the very DA wiki, the information should stay true to the game. --Ygrain (talk) 11:01, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I'm for keeping the image, if we have to flush out any M rated material, i think all the blood, dying humans, Viscount's eviscerated head, etc. would also need to be removed, which would be ridiculous, leaving little content available that reflects the "dark fantasy" nature of these games. I was simply providing alternative options should it be deemed inappropriate, though it's not looking like it will. --CarloGrimaldi (talk) 20:23, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
The Broodmother is part of the game. A game which is rated as "Mature". If we want to keep wiki's true encyclopedic nature, then we should not take down such images. Those who use this wiki, obviously realize and comply that they will find material which can be found in the game as well, thus some of them may be rated as M Viktoria Landers (talk) 13:32, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
Seriously? Leave it as is. If something offends you, exercise your right to click on another page, or change the channel, or not play it. For those of us with kids, and worried about your kids seeing it, then here's a suggestion: BE A PARENT! The game is rated M after all. The internet isn't raising your kids. And if it is, you shouldn't be a parent. The Grey Unknown (talk) 13:53, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
Agree with all the above. People who frequent the Dragon Age wiki are well aware of the game's M-rating and thus the wiki should be free to accurately portray any image especially with a vital character. No one likes to look at her...but she has to be seen in all her disgusting glory! Badgley (talk) 15:16, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
I figure I'll add something since I somehow started this - as stated above I wasn't offended, I was confused as the image was deleted for being "against the ToS": which I felt was weird as Broodmothers are not in the slightest bit "attractive" so the argument of porn gets thrown out rather fast.. however from the response I got it seems bared breasts is enough to be considered offensive now: I'm sorry if my question caused problems for you guys, I was geniunely confused as to what was so "wrong" with the image and wanted an answer.. then this happens. --Inferno Pendragon (talk) 15:58, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with all the above and strongly oppose the deletion of any images taken directly from the game. We have all played the game or are trying to learn about it before buying it and are well aware of the M rating. I agree that the Brood Mother is not attractive or erotic and so is not pornographic.--CouslandRogue (talk) 16:06, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
The interpretation of the terms of condition by the two Wikia staff member involved and the immediate deletion of the image is quite worrying. As pointed out by everyone before me all used materials that derived from the games are M-rated, there is no reason to gloss over or even censor. I hope these issues are at rest now. --ShardofTruth (talk) 17:03, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
- You can show the side of a breast, you can show the underside of a breast, you can even show 90% of the breast, but if theres a glimpse of a nipple, well then its red alert! The obscenity and morality brigade is on the march! Because someone has to think of the children! Nevermind that she does a pretty good predator impression with her face, or that she has arachnid like limbs coming out from her back or that she seems to be permanently crying blood. Its the nipples that will destroy humanity and bring society to its knees!--Madasamadthing (talk) 17:50, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
Yep, like Ser Mea hinted, this kind of editing would not occur (in the Western World) outside of the USA. This image should never have been removed. There is no, repeat NO reason for the removal. **Sigh!** Hickorie —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC).
I oppose the deletion. For one thing, it seems to be pretty arbitrary considering there is a Banshee on the Mass Effect Wiki.  Really, it's an image from the game the Wiki is dedicated to. Just silliness to remove it. --Bhsup (talk) 21:50, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
I too, oppose deletion. It's perfectly normal image of scary monster. Many beasts in fairytales are scarier and more frightening/offensive than the Broodmother. This is just a stupid paranoia. --Markurion (talk) 22:44, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with a lot of the previous statements that the Images are fine, if anyone is offended with Images of the BroodMother. The game as a Mature Rating and Images Portraying Breast and Frightening Images, well all I can say is that the Parents need to be responsible for what they LET There Kids Play. The game has a Mature Rating for a reason, it is not up to Bio Ware or EA to raise your kids for you, this from an adult whom does not defend Bio Ware or EA, it is hard for me to defend them, On This Issue I do defend them.--Charlie.look (talk) 14:34, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
One thing I haven't seen a lot of mention of is the fact that we're not the only wiki with such pictures. I could name four wikis right now with pictures just as "obscene" as the Mother that have not been touched. I know this is an incident that is specific to our wiki because it was reported etc. but I still believe it is unjust that we are singled out in such a manner, especially with no prior notification of the action being taken place. I said as much in the original discussion about the issue, because such high-handed tactics always sicken me. Rathian Warrior (talk) 15:26, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
Case in point: The Witcher wiki has all the sex cards, half of them showing boobies, uploaded in a resolution twice as big as the Broodmother. Most of them depict human women, not mythological creatures -- if that is fine with Wikia, I don't see how a monster who happens to have mammary-like appendages can be more offensive. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 16:44, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding comments about other wikis, Sannse has said they are currently reviewing several pictures on Wikia, so it's only a matter of time until they get to these. --D. (talk · contr) 16:48, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
- We have here a case of a Censor On A Holy Crusade, I'm afraid. If Mother is found offensive, the sex cards are bound to go, as well, since they are really erotic in their nature. However, my opinion is that since the cards are an integral part of the game, their display at the Witcher wiki is perfectly legitimate. --Ygrain (talk) 17:56, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
How hard is it to implement a MediaWiki mod that would automatically replace "offensive" images with "NSFW" plaques unless a setting is checked in the user preferences (or someone actually clicks their way to the image file)? Make tagging "offensive" images (which is about as much effort as deleting them all) mandatory and make the "SFW only" setting default for anonymous users, and there you have an intelligent compromise between not offending the moms and excluding relevant graphic contents altogether. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 13:07, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
I can't believe this is actually being discussed. You will always find someone who is offended by some content on a website. Some people are offended by tits, other are offended by pictures of people (like some radical muslims), again others are even offended by certain colors (I read in the newspaper that Amish won a law suit, allowing them not to carry orange triangular warning signs on their carriages because orange is bad and triangles even more so). The key for these people is NOT TO USE THE INTERNET (the Amish seem to be that smart) or at least be careful where to click. Oh and regarding "NSFW" - why should it be safe for work? you are not supposed to waste time during work with reading in a fantasy game wiki, are you?--184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:47, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, okay. I agree that some people are maybe too easily offended, but that got borderline racist, let's be careful not to turn protecting our freedoms into insulting or hating others. Chill, dude. --CarloGrimaldi (talk) 23:49, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I expressed myself in a way that could be so misunderstood. I didn't mean to say anything against Amish or Muslims, quite the opposite. Certainly my way of life differs from that of the Amish, but they don't force me to follow theirs, and the other way round I'm happy that they are not forced anymore to follow traffic regulations that they find utterly offensive (they can now use reflective white stripes on their carriages, which is fine with them and still protects them from accidents at night, good solution imho). That example just came to my mind, but instead of the Amish I could have just used any other culturally or ethically well-differentiated group of people. My point is, you can live your culture or way of life, so weird it may seem to others, but noone should force others to comply with his own way, as long as it doesn't harm anyone. I definitely don't want to see certain websites either, but I just stay away from them. I don't like overall pink websites *cough* but I'm not running around and telling every pink website that they must change their colors. Someone who is strongly offended by bare breasts will probably refrain from traveling into countries where they are a common sight, or at least he would try to look away, but I'm quite sure he wouldn't run around with a truckload of stick-on bras to cover each and every occurrence of nakedness. But why should he start doing that on the internet? Or to put it yet another way, if you have a problem with someone, that is first and foremost your problem and not his, and you should think twice before making it his. BTT, I think marking the page with "warning, pic of rotten tits inside" is probably the best way to deal with this. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:29, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
This seems to be the term that the overzealous and definitely prudish editor was using an excuse for the removal:
[Do not] "Post or transmit any content that is obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive, profane, or otherwise violates any law or right of any third party, or content that contains homophobia, ethnic slurs, religious intolerance, or encourages criminal conduct."
The broodmother is definitely gross, obscene, disturbing, and revolting, but that's it's entire point. It's a villain monster in a video game, not commentary on real life. Wikia's editor has pretty obviously severely overstepped her mandate by deleting the picture. That line in the ToS is there to prevent deviants from using Wikia to setup midget porn worship, neo-nazi recruitment, or Jones Town favorite Koolaide recipe sites. It should never be used an excuse for blocking a legitimate documentation effort.
- Wikia definitely lets midget porn worship, neo-Nazi recruitment, e.t.c. It's called uncyclopedia. - 04:10, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
"Obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive". I'd very much like to hear to which category Mother falls, in Sannse's opinion, since, IMHO, neither fits. Here is a piece on "obscene"  - the part where it clearly states that the perception depends on the prevalent opinion in a community, is rather telling. --Ygrain (talk) 04:59, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
- That's the problem, though: this is not about obscenity, pornography or any other misconcieved 'deviance' other than ultraconservative, closed-minded, bluenose prudishness, which, in my opinion is equally as 'deviant' as any of the aforementioned. Hickorie (talk) 05:45, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
Responded to the discussion again. For those curious, the moderator's point is that the image is offensive because it is explicit according to the general culture of modern western society, because videogame nudity is unacceptable while similar nudity in classical art is. She suggested a profile headshot as a replacement, and asserted that it was possible to talk and post about Mature 18+ content in an unexplicit manner, and offered her help to us in trying to do just that. The people against her are stating that according to our culture as a wiki and DA players, the image is in no way obscene or offensive, and this discussion was linked as evidence of the denouncement we have given her deletion. My point specifically was that we should not be held to a higher standard than the game itself: that is, we can be exactly as explicit as the game is in its portrayal of things, because we are a mature wiki about an M for Mature videogame. This wiki was created for us and our viewing, and so we should not have to worry about what outside people think of our content, because we do not force them to come here and view it. Rathian Warrior (talk) 13:53, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
- "No one in our community finds the content offensive, and yet we must bow to the odd person, who may or may not exist, that stumbles onto our site of their own volition and finds what we post obscene?" /thumb up/ That was very well said (my own response to this is here User blog:Ygrain/Předpřiposranost). I can only add that concerning bare breasts, there is no general or universal concept about unnacceptability of these. There are countries where mothers breastfeeding in public do not earn as much as a second glance, and where incidents like Janet Jackson's "accident" wouldn't cause more than a giggle, and definitely not an outcry for a public apology. So, Sannse is not acting upon some universally accepted concept but on her own concept of what is, or is not, acceptable, and the norms of her society are not the norms acceptable for the majority of the DA wiki users. --Ygrain (talk) 20:41, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
I can't wait until Sannse and like-minded people uses an argument "DA is an M-rated game, but the DA wiki is not rated, so no titties", or something like that. Then the over-zealous censors will be in a big disadvantage.-Algol- (talk) 19:42, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
A quote from Sannse: "I understand that the game is 18+, but Wikia isn't. The image shows bared breasts, and so is outside the area we consider acceptable." This was in her second post. Rathian Warrior (talk) 19:59, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
Since Sannse has now seemingly changed her mind on the subject the image is no longer deemed "offensive" - I've restored it on the page it was deleted on in my wiki (the page has a "Mature" tag on it, which is another reason I was confused as to its removal in the first place - any page with "Mature" tag specifically states the subject matter is not for everyone). The goal of the wiki is to create a database on villains from all media, including video-games - so mature subject matter is always going to appear (such as horror movies and so forth): as stated above I wasn't offended, no one else on the wiki was either - it seems the image was the victim of not-so-friendly fire in terms of censorship. Again, I'm sorry for any problems I caused as it wasn't intentional --Inferno Pendragon (talk) 22:26, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
- No problem; you don't need to apologize. I'm pretty sure Wikia would have acted on this one day. It's a much bigger issue than simply that image. --D. (talk · contr) 18:56, April 5, 2012 (UTC)
Thoroughly late to the party as usual, but the announcement is still appearing, so I've just read up... (otherwise, i'd be thoroughly oblivious, so thanks for that, too!) A raucous round of appreciative applause for fighting the CORRECT fight. (It can, of course, be a slippery slope, at least in any exercise of Law) but sometimes it needs to be said: Not all opinions are equally valid! and not all 'matters of opinion' are 'equally moot'... I am so glad (if i put on some minor-key music now my emotional response might run to the blatantly physical) that such minds as yours are actively and articulately looking out for the quality and integrity of this community and its resources. It's clear enough what you're dealing with by the time Sannse makes the [rather unnecessary, i thought] remark to King C., "I'm happy to help advise on that if you need it." [polite is one thing; i suspect there was more to that.] Then the wiggle room expands with "...but it's a part of the cultural norms that we need to consider." Which was nailed with precision by Tierrie.
- something tells me that regarding the broodmother, a more apropos comparison (whatever other argument one is making) is not pornography but rather images of ~extreme~ casualties of war and their perhaps-curious absence ('dearth' is too strong a term, i think) in the media-at-large - though desensetization is of significance, it's nary an issue (or at least 'too late!') to worry about with those of us who repeatedly play games like DA!) of course the blurry line of "what is extreme?" is there, just as with 'obscene'. and then again, a monstrously adapted/mutated female organism is a whole different kettle of offensive than "simple death" (a picture of a headless and/or limbless corpse with genitals exposed; a fully frontally nude victim of lethal nerve toxin with no discoloration or contortion?)
- having foamed all that... it's not as though we're 'done' with our own cleanup, and extended absences like mine are perhaps largely to blame for that. so i'll soon set aside another full day or night (or longer!) to more of my pedantic contributions... :) Yeti magi (talk) 19:05, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
Hello Forum Folks! #00: "Pornography" translated from Latin to English means, "harlot writing", or in formal prose, "the writing of a harlot". "Porne"alone = "harlot", so writing/using "porn" just to be lazy with writing out "pornography" does a disservice to the terms "porne" and "pornography", because "porno" = "harlot of" and "porn" = just being one letter short of spelling "porne" correctly. Ergo, I don't find the picture to be offensive in that category. As for "obscene", that means it took place "off stage". Big battle scenes would be too expensive and large to do on a typical play stage, so they were done "obscene". Along with any sexy scenes, because back then, there were no actresses, just actors. So, leaving the picture in place wouldn't be "obscene", but removing it would be. #01: Okay, so she's a "monster" not a homo sapiens, but she is still humanoid. If she were an actual human though, who looked just as ugly, sure you may not want to look at her, because of her "monster parts that make her so ugly", but in so doing, you miss out on her "normal parts that make her pretty". In the context of said picture, that would be her breasts. In REAL LIFE, people would either choose to bully her for her looks, or be polite and say that she's pretty on the inside. But would anyone actually want to make love to her? Would she be a virgin forever because Humanity At Large sees her only as a monster? (Well, some guys would get drunk enough to try and do her eventually, but they doesn't count.) In the game, she's an ugly monster, but in RL, she'd be an "ugly mutant freak". So saying that she's not allowed to be nude, is a form of "lookism", right? Is the complaint really about her bare breasts, or her overall appearance? Well, anyway, regardless of the motive behind the proposed censorship, I vote "nay", and that it should be kept in place. If people can find her pretty enough to masturbate to, then bless them! Leo Star Dragon 1 (talk) 00:57, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
Do they realize this isn't the only wikia that depicts nude females AND males? A wikia website exists for FACTS about the subject. Alistair is an ex-templar. FACT and info. The archdemon is an antagonist. FACT and info. Isabela is a whore. FACT. I like cheese. FACT and info. The Mother and Broodmothers are nude. FACT! The wikia has a right to display images from the game, nude or not. The wikia is used to find information, and The Mother being nude, believe it or not, is information and we have proof of that. Otherwise what's the point of a wikia? If nude images aren't allowed, you might as well delete the whole God of War wikia. Danerogil (talk) 02:05, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
I oppose deletion because the image in question is neither gratuitous, nor pornographic. The simple presence of breasts is not inherently sexual in nature and I would question the implication that the Broodmother is intended to be even remotely titillating. Son Goharotto (talk) 17:33, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
I concur with the previous poster, this image is not meant to be arousing or pornographic in any way, shape or form. The subject in question could hardly be expected to be wearing clothing, no? EzzyD (talk) 19:13, April 20, 2012 (UTC)