Template talk:Feeding

this photo

Ummm... why is this photo being used in a template? sorry, I disagree with this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of the recent change in image? The former image showed a hawk eating, apparently eating a rodent, the current one shows a monkey eating a stalk of vegetation. Both show feeding in progress. Why is one better than the other? DES ^(talk) 21:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

well, the former one showed the bloody head of a mouse. Since this is a template, it seemed gratuitously explicit. the new picture is equally informative. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankly i don't think that is a good reason to make a change. WP:NOT#Censored after all. (And at the resolution displayed, the mouse was not particularly graphic anyway.) But I don't feel strongly enough about this to simply revert. DES ^(talk) 21:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an eagle eating a mouse much is more relevant and appropriate than a monkey playing with some grass. Trying to censor and water down Wikipedia articles because you feel squeamish is not a good way to go. Instead of trying to impose consequences for your condition on everyone else, you could just confine your reading to things you feel less squeamish about. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There are varying levels of graphic and explicit imagery in any area, some of which are not consistent with an encyclopedic approach to a topical area. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, to answer your question about the current photo, it is inherently interesting to a reader, because it would immediately catch the eye with the similarity between the posture of the monkey, and the typical stance of a human. The monkey is grasping the food in a manner extremely reminiscent of typical human physical movements. So it is suggestive of the wealth of behavioral and physical data which underlie the simple act of eating. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the image was chosen as it highlighted feeding better. It seems to be gratuitious to grab attention more than to highlight the topic. Given the wide community here on Wikipedia I questions it's suitability. I would suggest that this image is changed. --Trapzor 01:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems important to you to sanitise the reality of animal feeding behaviours, and pretend it is not what it typically is. But that is not the role of Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Both images show animal eating beahviour. My concern is younger community members using this portal for research and seeings this sensational photo. It is explicit and it is sensational. Changing back and requestin arbitration. --Trapzor 16:00m 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Image used. Epipelagic reverts back to a sensational image of a bird eating a severed mouse head. Trapzor reverts back a monkey eating grass.

Initiated by Trapzor (talk) at 16:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Trapzor (talk · contribs), filing party
• Epipelagic (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Requested
• Epipelagic notified via discussion page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Discussion Page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Feeding
• Link 2

Statement by Trapzor (talk · contribs)

seriously doubt the image was chosen as it highlighted feeding better. It seems to be gratuitious to grab attention more than to highlight the topic. Given the wide community here on Wikipedia I questions it's suitability. I would suggest that this image is changed. --Trapzor 01:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Both images show animal eating beahviour. My concern is younger community members using this portal for research and seeings this sensational photo. It is explicit and it is sensational. Changing back and requestin arbitratio

Why not an image of a lion eating a chunk of flesh? Why not an image of a seal eating a fish? The fact that is always a severed mouse head proves it is sensationalism

Statement by Epipelagic

Gosh, such dramah... even arbitrator opinions and clerk notes. I don't want to cramp your style, Trapzor, so I'll just comment within the framework you have set up. The image of an eagle eating a chunk of flesh is not sensational. In the context, it is a rather middle of the road choice. A sensational image might be more something like this, and there are many more of that calibre. I've replaced your cute, but rather unrepresentative, picture of a monkey playing with some grass with another cute picture of a bird feeding a small creature to a fledgling. Hopefully this will meet your requirements for the sanitising of Wikipedia. Or you may still find it too disturbing. After all, possibly the bird regurgitated, vomited, that small helpless creature, and even worse, that small creature may well be still alive. That would be much worse than the eagle, who is not eating vomit, and has mercifully killed the mouse before devouring it. If the replacement image is still too graphic, you could try this one or this one. I considered an image of a mother sucking her child, but promoting the unprotected exposure of young children to bodily fluids would be irresponsible.

The next step in your campaign should be to look at the actual topics listed in the template. Many of these are shocking and gruesome. For example:

• Bottom feeder
• Cannibalism
• Coprophagia
• Detritivore
• Feeding frenzy
• Hematophagy
• Human cannibalism
• Insectivore
• Man-eater
• Mucophagy
• Ovophagy
• Paedophagy
• Placentophagy
• Scavenger
• Self-cannibalism
• Sexual cannibalism
• Trophallaxis

Within your terms of reference, all these articles are unsuitable for the wider community on Wikipedia; they are also clearly gratuitous and have been written merely for their sensational value. They, and many of the images that accompany them, are, I should think, the ones you will want to get deleted from Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Response by Trapzor (talk · contribs)

Absolutely not all those examples have suitable images for the topics covered. The only problem I have is that out of all of the possible images to show feeding, and sensational one was chosen and whenever an editor replaces it with something, it is always undone and that sensational image returned. A seal tearing into a penguin would be suitable, but for such a broad subject would it be appropiate? I agree the monkey image is sterile, however I simply followed the steps taken by previous editors. The worst part is the sensational image does not actually show feeding - no material is shown being injested - it's a severed mouse head being held in the beak. The head is not being consumed, nor is the body. This is why I feel the image is not appropiate and sensational.

I felt the need for arbitration - apart from a genuine curiosity on how it worked - as we'd simply end up in editing war. Where I or someone else would replace the image with something less sensational, and you or someone else would undo. --Trapzor (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

End arbitration. Image now in use acceptable to all parties and no movement for over a month.

Case closed.

Petition to reorganize the template

This could use a bit of an overhaul, it's a bit unorganized in areas. Mnidjm (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)