<CFD:FHM 100 Sexiest

I commend Stevertigo. User: MarkL

Thanks, Mark! :) -SV

For those of you who aren't aware yet, Stevertigo apparently decided the consensus was not going his way. He went through earlier today and individually deleted all 270 links. He also created some new links and articles in his continuing effort to demonstrate his opinions. This is not the first time he has tried to outflank Wikipedia procedures over this category; his initial course of action when he decided he didn't like this category was to simply delete it. It was reverted by another user and Stevertigo was told he did not have the authority to delete articles. It was then when he settled for starting a vote here along with two other threads on the same subject. His posts have included derogatory remarks and baseless accusations. I have been willing to ignore these actions because I assumed that after the issue had been discussed for a week, it would be resolved one way or another, and I would move on.

Stevertigo's actions puts the rest of us in a difficult position. I am not going to restore all the lost links as I feel that Stevertigo would simply revandalize them. However, without the links, we are in the awkward position of voting on a category that no longer is available to be seen. I would like to suggest that while we continue to discuss the issue, we hold off on making a final decision until we can be sure it won't be overruled by one individual. MK 03:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well populated by User:MK, but should not exist on wikipedia -Stevertigo 19:01, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This list is BS -- never heard of it.

This kind of thinking (logical, reasoned, rational, sensible, fair, etc.) has no place in a discussion of SEXY. Only SEXY people can participate, and only SEXY people need worry about who is SEXY. Which counts me out. -Stevertigo 05:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is not about whether FHM is a notable magazine or not. This is not about whether there should be articles listing the FHM poll results. This is about whether this poll is significant enough in a description of these subjects so as to categorize them under it.
Think about what an average visitor to this site is going to think when they see one of these articles tagged in this way. The categories function to classify article subjects—they appear with an even greater claim of factuality and objectivity than the content of articles. A reader will think that wikipedia believes that being ranked in this poll is one of the most important things about these women, as if that were somehow integral to understanding them or a notable achievement. A reader may also think that wikipedia contributors are a rather immature lot of boys if one of the only ways that we know how to classify someone such as Paula Zahn or Lady Diana is that she was ranked sexy in a men's magazine once. Why not categorize articles about women based on their breast size? That's verifiable in many circumstances, and factual, and could also result in substantial numbers of articles in each category. But is it a sensible way to classify them? Is that what the subjects of these articles are about?
Considering also the number of annual, monthly, daily, polls and lists about everything in western culture, the floodgate concerns mentioned above are very real, and so categorizing any subject according to its ranking by someone else should be kept to a bare minimum, to the most prestigious awards directly given to individuals (such as the Nobel or Academy Award, or the Olympic Medal), to perhaps less prestigious awards or recognitions that the subject themselves sought out or is otherwise substantially connected to (such as Playmate of the Year or Miss America) such that knowing of the recognition is really integral to knowing about the subject, or only the most notable lists by notable institutions (such as, perhaps, the American Film Institute's one-time list of top 100 influential films). Anything less than this kind of scrutiny and we are classifying subjects by mere external trivialities and burying them in categories to the point of rendering categories all useless. Movie articles could be categorized based on Category:Movies Gene Shalit loved and thought were much better than Cats or Category:Subjects of behind-the-scenes features on E!, and articles on women could also be classified not only as to whether FHM readers judged them sexy, but under Category:Women labelled Feminazis by Rush Limbaugh—all of these totally factually verifiable, and all of these totally worthless, perhaps not as mentions within articles on Gene Shalt, E! or Rush Limbaugh, but worthless as classifications of the hapless subjects of these "recognitions."
I haven't seen real responses to any of the above arguments because the defenses of this category seem to focus on whether or not information about the poll should be on wikipedia in some form, which is not the issue. I think this debate cuts to the heart of the power that categories have in wikipedia, and the trash they could turn into (and turn articles into) if we don't use them properly. Trivial information can be buried at the bottom of an article, but trivial categories bury the article itself. Postdlf 19:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information. We shouldn't be judging whether a subject should be important; we should only be acknowleging whether it is important. To prejudge and censor out information according to some arbitrary set of standards would be the ultimate violation of our NPOV principle.
The subject of this list is, in general terms, women who are regarded as "sex symbols". Some people might be discomforted by that. But I think we all have to admit that the concept of "sex symbols" is a recognized part of human culture. We should acknowlege that part of the reason that people are interested in Cindy Crawford or Elizabeth Hurley or Beyonce Knowles is because of their looks. To pretend otherwise would be to the type of self-censorship I described above.
Obviously there are some people who oppose any mention of sex in this encyclopedia. They equate any mention of sex as being the equivalent of pornography. (There were, for example, apparently people who argued in favor of deleting the Penis and Vagina articles.) But I think the majority realize that it's possible to provide information about a sexual subject without being obscene. And I think this category avoids any possible hint of pornography; it is after all just a list of names. There's no nude pictures or lurid stories or links to x-rated websites. It's just links to articles about famous people and an acknowlegment that those people are generally considered to be attractive. Anyone looking for pornography on the Internet is going to find much worse than this with ease.
Some people have argued that this category is POV. I'll admit if this category was just "Sex Symbols" or "Sexy Celebrities" or "Good Looking Women" or "Movie Stars I'd Like To Boink" it'd be easily open to POV accusations. But it's none of these things. I didn't pick who was put into this category. The criteria for being in this category are quite specific; if someone isn't named in one of the polls they don't belong in the category. I even provided links to the original lists so people can confirm the information. So this category is absolutely NPOV. If ten people each set out independently to compose this category, they'd each come up with the exact same names.
Others have argued against the original polls themselves. But I think these poll are as impartial as any such poll could be. The women on these polls were not chosen by a single individual or small group (with the already noted exception of one poll out of the fifteen). And despite what some posts have said, FHM is not an obscure magazine; it's one of the best-selling magazines in the world and is widely read. As I wrote before there are hundreds of references to this list that you'll find on a Google search. These polls of who is considered "sexy" were voted on in national surveys in the UK and US. The selection process was more open than the process used to select most major awards so why should we consider it biased in this particular instance?
The next issue is whether the category is necessary or if the original lists and articles should be enough. The reason I created the category was because I saw a need the lists didn't fill. The category is the only place which presents all of the relevant information on a single page in alphabetical order. Anyone trying to gather this same information from other articles would have to jump around from page to page and because the lists are ranked not listed alphabetically would have to search up and down each page for a specific name. I feel the category page organizes and summarizes the information in a concise and useful manner.
So to summarize my position: I think acknowleging that some women are regarded as sex symbols is legitimate information. I think the FHM polls are a comprehensive and impartial survey of who these women are. And I think this category is a useful way to present this information. MK 09:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Allowing this category is a slippery slope that ends in an article whose text is subsumed in the list of categories to which it belongs. I think that an article documenting the FHM lists is far more acceptable than a category. A category intrudes into the article, listing the information at the top in a prominent position. A single individual can fall into hundreds of categories if we so decide to create them. Should we have Category:Brunettes, Category:People with blue eyes, Category:People with a Q in their name, Category:People that have lived in Virginia, Category:People listed on any top 10 list, ad infinitum. No. These should be list articles, if they are compile here at all. A list article does not intrude into the articles which are the subject of those lists. Categories should not be used just so that an automatically sorted list can be created. The benefits of the sorting are outweighed by the intrusion of innumerable categories an article is placed into. Perhaps this intrusion can be minimized by creating a new set of articles such as Lists and Categories Paula Zahn is a member of, then listing those lists on that article, and adding that article to all of the appropriate categories you wish to create. - UtherSRG 21:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is not the only case where an edit war has been fought over a category. There was one over whether Grace Kelly should be included in Category:Gay icons.

In some cases, inclusion in a category will inevitably be POV or controversial, especially if the person is not known to have acknowledged belonging to that category in their lifetime. For instance, would it be legitimate to include Haile Selassie in a Category:Gods if a Rastafarian decided to do so? And would that be analogous to having Grace Kelly in Category:Gay icons?

It's true that the FHM 110 list is an actual, objectively existing list compiled by a particular organization. However FHM is only one of many lad magazines or celebrity magazines, and they all have lists of one kind or another... should all of them be included?

The main problem, though, is that this list will inevitably be updated, next year or five years from now, with some names added and some dropped. As a general principle, any category in which membership is by its nature transient should not be a Wikipedia category.

On the other hand, it would be perfectly legitimate to have a FHM 110 Sexiest page (rather than a category) listing all 110 names.

-- Curps 19:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There tends to be a lot of overlap on these lists. The new 2004 poll, for example, would have only required seven new links to be added. Considering that this site grows by about 100,000 new articles a year, I don't think we're going to be overwhelmed by this particular subject. MK 05:33, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the arguments made against elevating the FHM list to category status. MK and the others have not provided sufficient justification to keep the category. I don't believe that any popularity list should become a category—not even a more prestigous list like Time's Person of the Year. However, if someone wants to create articles listing the people (ranked, alphabetical, backwards, by birth, by breast size, etc.—you get the idea), they should go do it. But in no way is it appropriate as a category.

MK made this argument:

The next issue is whether the category is necessary or if the original lists and articles should be enough. The reason I created the category was because I saw a need the lists didn't fill. The category is the only place which presents all of the relevant information on a single page in alphabetical order. Anyone trying to gather this same information from other articles would have to jump around from page to page and because the lists are ranked not listed alphabetically would have to search up and down each page for a specific name. I feel the category page organizes and summarizes the information in a concise and useful manner.

I would respond by simply saying that any good list requires work to construct, but constructing a simple alphabetical list of names doesn't require anyone to "jump around" finding information. Furthermore, a category doesn't present "all of the relevant information on a single page" as was argued. A category will only display the title of the article. I think a good alphabetical list would probably also include the rank with the persons name: "Barbara Bush (#37)". You can't do that with a category.

I vote "thumbs down" to the category. Mike 00:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On a seperate note, a lot of people are bringing other categories, many of which don't even exist, into a discussion about whether this one real category should be deleted. Let's avoid the strawmen arguments and focus on the single issue that's before us. To reassure everyone, I promise that I have never started and do not intent to start "Category:Corporations listed by Lou Dobbs as "Outsourcing America", "Category:Juggs Personality of the Decade", "Category:Movies Gene Shalit loved and thought were much better than Cats", "Category:People with a Q in their name", "Category:People listed on any top 10 list", "Category:Gay Rastafarian Icons", or "Category:Women Ranked by Their Breast Sizes". So you can stop worrying. MK 05:33, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you yourself plan to create those categories. Can you explain why, if we kept yours, we shouldn't keep those should someone create them? Why is yours reasonable but those wouldn't be? Please explain—it's an appropriate slippery slope argument, not a straw man argument. Postdlf 04:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Postdlf has made a suggestion that rather than having a category page, there be an article titled something like "List of FHM 100 Sexiest Women" with the names of the women from all of the polls listed there. In the spirit of compromise, I'd like to put this suggestion up for a vote. Do people think we should:

MK 19:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Myself, Im inclined to think that MK, you must be on the FHM payroll, or else have no clue about what NPOV means. Perhaps the third option is more realistic: You spent a lot of time populating that list, innocent of the problems that it would raise, and like the rest of us, dont like to see your hard work get tossed. I sympathise; but back to the issue; Wikipedias prime directive is NPOV (followed by m:civility, and m:wikilove) and this includes devising a category scheme for POV based articles about matters of taste. Its beyond POV, its Double POV with a twist of corporate media influence on Wikipedia's culture. Pigs cannot fly, and neither does your reasoning for keeping this category. My sincere apologies if this all seemed like stepping on your toes. -Stevertigo 07:17, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Go out of town for a few days and look at the things people say about you. No, Stevertigo, as I told you before when you made this accusation, I don't work for FHM (and I showed you numerous precedents for articles that mentioned other corporations). I'm completely aware of what NPOV means; I suggest you reread it, along with the pages on civility and wikilove. As for problems, the only problem that occurred was your decision to delete articles when you had no authority to do so. Do you have an explanation for why you did this? Do you feel that your opinion is more important than other people's? MK 03:08, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Poll[edit]

  1. -- Noisy 23:54, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. -- Varitek 12:52, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  1. -- Curps 20:22, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. -- Postdlf 23:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. -- Mike 05:01, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
  4. -- Stevertigo 07:08, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. -- UtherSRG 07:56, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. -- ssd 06:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. -- Sean Curtin 22:21, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
More