Talk:Clitoris/Archive 5

New Picture
Do those who thought of the old photo as pornography feel that this new one is any better? Personally, I didn't think the old one qualified as pornography, but the new one does seem even less so, appearing more clinical (without the fingers in it) and illustrative. Timbo 22:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have serious concerns about the sanity of some people around here. This so called new picture shows nothing of the clitoris but provides a full view of the female external genitalia. I would support the deletion of the image on the basis that it does not depict the clitoris and probably is onlt there because of some puerile motivation to include explicit pics in Wikipedia. If the pic indeed displayed the clitoris then it should stay. This one does not and should be removed. I propose a three day period where those who are so desperate to include a pic find one that actually dipicts the clitoris or the current pic gets deleted. This insanity must stop. - Robert the Bruce 11:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay. I propose that you supply a new photo within three days or this one stays.Dr Zen 11:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? A picture, any picture will do. Especially one of the external genitals. Houston we have a problem. - Robert the Bruce 11:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Why not read the discussion? I gave my opinion of the picture. I'm glad you agree there's a problem with it and I look forward to your suggested replacement.Dr Zen 22:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I look forward to a suitable replacement myself. None seems forthcoming. Everyone seems to think freely available images of these things grow on trees, but no-one is able to find one. I found one. When you find a better one, put it here, and we'll all applaud and replace my image with yours. (this is addressed to anyone like Robert the Bruce) PhiloVivero 10:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)"
 * What possible reason would there be to retain a picture which does not even display the clitoris in an article on the clitoris? Proof that there are those who are desperate to have in your face pics of human genitals in articles on the basis that any pic will do? Sad, really sad. _ Robert the Bruce 07:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * [[Image:InterstellarDoilies-1024.jpg|thumb|120px|right|Recommended replacement image for Human Vulva]] This isn't going anywhere productive, so I go off on a humorous tangent. I think any picture will do. I hereby propose that the image to the right, CREATED by me (not just recorded by me), should be used as a replacement for the Human Vulva picture! It doesn't clearly show the clitoris, either, but being the egotist like I am, I think everyone will agree with me. Let the voting begin! PhiloVivero 09:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes it is an improvement. Not only does it not display the clitoris but as an improvement the vulva neither. Great! Why vote? Just get a tame admin to insert it for you. - Robert the Bruce 11:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The new picture is lovely, however cannot be used due to copyright reasons: "Interstellar Doily" is my porn name. Back to sunrise over Mount Fuji [[User:MikeX|MikeX (Talk)]] 18:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

The new picture is much better. We should certainly keep it, as it avoids the porn-star offensiveness of the old picture (with or without the Photoshop removal of the nail polish), and provides a good clear view without any overtones. Tannin 11:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A good clear view of what? - Robert the Bruce 02:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sunrise over Mt Fuji. What do you think? Tannin 11:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a girl who just recently read the Penis article, having a picture of the external genitalia with helpful pointers to all the important bits seems quite appropriate. The penis article had a fully erect boner which also seemed appropriate in its context, I mean really, that is one of the penis' two functions. As a girl, I am pissed that there isn't more to this article, Penis had more words and pictures. We shouldn't confuse biology with pornography. God help us if the only way you boys have of finding the damn clit is with real hardcore porn. Revmachine21 14:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Revmachine21 makes a good point and quite frankly (being a guy) agree with her.


 * I assume that means you are going to assist with the development of the article? - Robert the Bruce 16:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There are lots of great illustrations on The-Clitoris.com  showing the external as well as the internal parts of clitoris and its similarity to penis. I will try add some of them to External links (see below). There are more links to good photographs and illustrations on Myvag.net  but unfortunately we cannot include any of them directly in the article without an explicit permission from their respective copyright holders. Of course such a permission wouldn&rsquo;t be impossible or even surprising (see Images used with permission), but would require some research and contacting the authors and publishers. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 20:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Great! Go get their permission, upload an image, and let's get this fixed. PhiloVivero 10:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you must have misunderstood me. I have never said that I didn&rsquo;t like your clitoris picture. I think it&rsquo;s great&mdash;otherwise I wouldn&rsquo;t have bothered translating your explanation in pl:Image:VulvaDiagram-800.jpg in the first place. I was talking about an illustration showing the internal parts of clitoris, explaining its functionality and development, and illustrating its equivalence to penis, which I believe we should have in addition to photographs in the Clitoris article. I have already added external links to the best pictures I know, so the permission to use them on Wikipedia is not so important, for it would only save one mouse click. Still, I am looking forward to the rest of Gray's Anatomy images with missing articles being uploaded to Wikipedia or, better yet, to . Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 12:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Easy for me to misunderstand people, because I don't think my picture is adequate. But true, true, it would be good to supplement the picture with other diagrams/photos to get more detail. From my picture, I think someone who hasn't seen a couple of vulvae wouldn't know which end is front or back. PhiloVivero 05:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Saying that the image is inadequate is an understatement. It does not even display the clitoris (which after all is the subject of the article). Now may I ask a simple question here. What is that point of inserting a pic of the vulva in an article on the clitoris (which does not depict the clitoris itself)? You produced this pic. Why don't you delete it then? Or are you one of the school which is fighting for the insertion of pics of genital anatomy regardless of the suitability and ability to inform on the basis that "any pic will do" and the more in your face the better? Delete it! - Robert the Bruce 06:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Saying the image is inadequate isn't an understatement. Deleting it would be a disservice. I reiterate, more bluntly this time: put up or shut up. PhiloVivero 07:38, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A disservice to whom? The picture does not even display the clitoris. What possible justification could there be for retaining it in the clitoris article? Things are getting stranger and stranger. - Robert the Bruce 07:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The picture shows where the clitoris is in relation to the vulva. Now put up or shut up. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That is a very poor response Theresa. It is not up to me to put up an alternative picture. My comment on the current image (called the "new" one) is that it is unsuitable. It does not show the clitoris. The use of a picture of the vulva to indicate that the clitoris "is in there somewhere" sadly indicates a lack of judgement (and dare I say it a lack of maturity as well) by those so insistent to force the insertion of gratutious in your face pics of human gentitals into articles. I say that it should be deleted until a suitable replacement is found rather than maintained so as to allow its supporters to save face. This is just not good enough. - Robert the Bruce 14:59, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * And I say it should stay - your move Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 16:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You can be constructive, and make the wikipedia better, or you can whine incessantly and annoy those who actually are being constructive and making the wikipedia better. You seem to've already chosen. I'm now asking you to reconsider. PhiloVivero 09:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I will say it again, the current picture is more than adequate and is of value in this article. Without getting too explicit, there are quite a lot of important biological bits in a geographically small area and it can be confusing for a young woman (speaking from experience here!) to understand how they all fit together and in which order from north to south and east to west.  Without the current photo, it would be like trying to drive from Seattle to East Wenatchee without knowing the route and only having a city map of E.W.  In other words, too detailed and completely useless without the larger picture.  Once you get to E.W. only then does having the city map have any meaning.   Whether or not the current picture is sufficient, maybe not, and if so, let's try to find better pictures to accompany/replace the current.  Where to find such uncopyrighted material, I have no clue.  Regardless of whether we find a better picture the current should stay. Robert the Bruce, do you have more detailed photos available to augment the current photo? I don't... Revmachine21 02:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If someone is looking for detail on the vulva they should go to the Vulva page where there is a better pic of those "important biological bits". In the meantime while everyone seems to be desperately searching for a pic why not make use of this anatomical drawing? Can someone please explain to me why it is necessary to have a pic on the clitoris page which does not show the clitoris? - Robert the Bruce 05:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with you adding a link to that picture if you want. Just dont remove the current photo. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Adding an inline diagram equivalent to the the-clitoris.com would be good, but you have to find it. Diagrams are often clearer for anatomical or species identification because they are simplified and skip the parts unimportant for the diagram. However, for same reason, a photo on top of the diagram is needed.  It shows all the messy bits which a real-life speciman has attached to it. User:nereocystis 11:03 05 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much with being fine with that Theresa. Now please show me where consensus was reached that the pic should remain at all costs and not as the poll question asked whether it was preferred over that other specific anatomical drawing? I believe that it is important that we confirm that you are not misrepresenting the result of the vote. - Robert the Bruce 17:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Let's not rewrite history. Timbo 20:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about. The vote was an either or affair, how on earth are you able to misintrepret the findings as consensus to maintain that pic at all costs? - Robert the Bruce 04:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No - your move Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa I will not take the bait on this. However, I challenge your misrepresentation of the consensus arrived at through the vote. What I am trying to establish is whether it is deliberate or that you did not understand the process yourself. - Robert the Bruce 04:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not really particularly qualified to add much in the biological / medical topics. But I do guarantee to add "qualitative" wording where I think appropriate. You will note I tweaked the "Female Circumcision" bit. Revmachine21 12:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I checked the site Rafa&#322; Pocztarski added, quite good. Revmachine21 10:08, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think someone with a camera, and some good taste, might be able to solve this problem adequately. Pedant 03:57, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

NPOV and female circumcision
I direct Mirv to the policy on NPOV. NPOV does not mean "no point of view". We are guided by the policy to include "all points of view" in due measure. I can't be bothered fighting over this issue. POV pushers will always win ultimately because they care more.Dr Zen 02:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dr Zen, I am quite familiar with the NPOV policy. I am aware that we should try to include verifiable points of view, and I believe that this statement:

"[Version 1] Amnesty International estimates that over 2 million female circumcisions are being performed every year mainly in African countries. In certain of its forms the clitoris itself is removed . It is regarded as highly immoral by most Western societies. There is a growing movement in the West to see it prohibited throughout the world. Opponents argue that this is an example of Western cultural imperialism, while proponents of a ban reply that human rights are universal and not subject to cultural exceptions, and that the practice is a severe violation of human rights."


 * more closely conforms to the requirements of NPOV, not to mention factual accuracy and good English writing, than does this statement:

"[Version 2] Female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris and/or labia (for cultural rather than medical reasons). It is widely practiced today in some societies, mainly in Africa. It is regarded as highly immoral by most Western societies."


 * Version 1 includes a number and cites a source (Amnesty International) for that number. It states that "in certain of its [FGM's] forms the clitoris itself is removed", which is more accurate, better-written, and more relevant to the topic of this article than "Female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris and/or labia (for cultural rather than medical reasons)". It describes the impetus for a ban on female circumcision, the reasoning used by proponents of that ban, and the reasoning used by opponents of the ban. Whatever Robert's past editing history might be, this version is, in my view, superior. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 02:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree a number is much more useful than a vague assertion.
 * However, I based my opposition to the edit on the following. First, you'll note that RtB went on to remove part of the quote you endorsed. Second, perhaps your knowledge of female circumcision is broader than mine, but I'm not aware of any culture that practises it but does not remove the clitoris My apologies to MIRV. I should have written "part of the clitoris" and so should the editor of the edit in question. I realise in retrospect that the same wording applied to penises would have me claiming that no one is circumcised who doesn't lose his penis or labia. Can you source this assertion that there are other forms? Third, are females ever circumcised for medical reasons? Fourth, the topic of this article is the clitoris, not FGM as such, so it is more pertinent to point out that some remove it, not that some mutilate genitals. Fifth, is the "movement" in the west growing? Can you source that? I believe it is entirely uncontroversial that it is considered immoral in "western" societies (none of them permit it, for starters, and representative bodies such as the WHO condemn it in extremely strong terms) but the idea of a "growing" movement needs foundation. Sixth, the version you have, because it gives equal space to the two views, implies that they are equally held. (You will note that the NPOV policy specifically states that views need not be given the same prominence.) They are not at all.
 * I'm not concerned enough, though, to chew over and over these points. I think what is there is POV but I don't want to be involved in a war over what is a relatively minor point.Dr Zen 03:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What is really sad here is that after having kicked up a lot of dust around here is that you admit that you do not know a lot about FGM yet are willing to slug it out with all comers. Have you read read the FGM article? Please do so. - Robert the Bruce 03:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I presume you mean the "female circumcision" article to which the term you use redirects? Yes, of course I have and I'm well aware what you're alluding to. I know enough about female circumcision and, more pertinently to this article, plenty about the clitoris. What I do know is that if you "scarred" a foreskin, you wouldn't call it circumcision. Now, you're not addressing any of the points I made but making a personal attack on me instead. That, Robert, is "sad".Dr Zen 04:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Please don't play the victim now Dr Zen. The only way the Clitoris article connects with the female genital mutilation article is through the forms where the clitoris is removed. My position from the outset has been to refer readers of the clitoris article to the female genital mutilation article if they wish to learn more about that rather than just repeat text in the clitoris article. I really find it hard to understand why that got your nose so out of joint. - Robert the Bruce 04:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Please note the edit by Violetriga. I agree fully. - Robert the Bruce 15:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Much better edit. Thanks, Violet.Dr Zen 23:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg
The last edit by Robert the Bruce has just reminded me about the pictures of the internal parts of clitoris I was talking about in the past. Please see my comments and links in Talk:Clitoris/Archive3. If those or similar pictures cannot be included directly in the article, then maybe they should be at least linked to in External links. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 19:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have added three links to the best illustrations I have found to the External links. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 20:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts. I for one certainly appreciate them. - Robert the Bruce 04:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Public domain illustrations
I have found illustrations originally published in 1904, 1866 and 1844. The copyright of new editions of books they were printed in is more recent than the original publication dates of those illustrations, which means that even though the books themselves (at least the recent editions) may still be protected by the copyright, the illustrations copyright may have already expired and they may be in the public domain now, depanding on when did their authors die. See: Public domain copyright tags.


 * Atlas of Human Anatomy Vol. 2 by Johannes Sobotta, Originally Published circa 1904, Copyright: Urban & Schwarzenberg, Munchen - Berlin - Wein 1974
 * Gray's Anatomy by Henry Gray, Copyright 1977 Crown Publishers, Inc., Originally Edition Published 1866
 * Fragments for a History of the Human Body, Part Three by Michel Feher, Copyright 1989, Urzone Inc., Original publication dates of 1651 and 1844 on the drawings

If there are no legal issues, then maybe some of those illustrations might be used in addition to photographs in the Clitoris article, either in the original form or after some editing, or possibly new illustrations based on the above ones might be drawn by someone skilled. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 21:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Once again thanks for your efforts. I suggest that these external links will give those interested the necessary additional information. What we really need is a pic (the "right" kind of pic (or drawing) to place in the article itself. Can anyone help? - Robert the Bruce 04:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be the best solution. For anyone who would like to help, I have an advice: when photographing clitoris, remember to not include any obscene body parts, like fingernails, especially when they are covered with disgusting blue nail polish. Needless to say, it would make the picture pornographic and the blue nail polish would have to be digitally replaced with less obscene pink one, like the last time, to make the picture suitable for children. It would be perfect if we had a picture of vulva with visible clitoral glans, provided it does not show any pornographic nail polish. Let everyone keep that in mind while taking vulva photographs. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 07:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we've used Gray's anatomy pics here on Wikipedia before. I knid of remember there being a page full of them that someone uploaded, but I can't remember where that page is :-( Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 09:10, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the hint, I think I&rsquo;ve found it: Gray's Anatomy images with missing articles. I can&rsquo;t see any clitoris, though. But only 300 out of over 1200 images has been uploaded so far. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 10:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons
One note about uploading new pictures. When anyone uploads a new picture, uploading it to Commons instead of the English Wikipedia will make it directly available on every language version of Wikipedia automatically without any copying needed. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 21:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Picture of vulva
16:03, 29 Nov 2004 Raul654 (rv - consensus is to keep it on the page, as it was.)

Please show me where this consensus was reached. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you check Talk:Clitoris/Archive4. --Jirate 20:56, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)


 * I've seen that. I don't see any consensus that we should keep this image on the page.  In fact, I myself voted against replacing the old image with this link, which is the only decision which had anything remotely like consensus. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the issue here is that the vote was to replace the image with a link to something else. There was never a vote to replace the image with a link to the image, but considering that even putting a warning on the top was voted down, I don't think people want a link either.  They want the picture there.  I disagree with them--I do think there are moral standards that many people have that the picture violates--but do bow to consensus.  My concern is that yes, Wiki can keep the image, but that having it here will make the encyclopedia lose respect with a lot of people.  And, yes, it is a good picture.  Samboy 02:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The vote was to replace a different image with a link to something else. Not only was there no vote to replace the image with a link to the image, this image wasn't even uploaded at the time the last vote started.  A majority (not a consensus) don't want a warning.  But I am in fact part of that majority.  We can all guess as to whether or not there is consensus for leaving the image as is, but I honestly don't think there is.  I really don't see the argument against leaving the image as a link.  It's not like those who want to view the image are harmed by having to click their mouse button one extra time.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 06:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Note that this user has taken it upon himself to continuously remove the picture in the vulva article as well. Timbo 22:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * My, my what a naughty boy he is! Personally I can't blame him myself. That pic on the Vulva page is poor as well. But I do understand the frustration of those who want an "in your face" pic of the genitals on that page at all costs. - Robert the Bruce 04:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I mean no offense, but I think describing these photos as "in your face" is hilarious. "Vaginas IN YOUR FACE." Even if someone is offended by seeing an anatomical picture on the internet, I doubt the reaction would be akin to "AHHH, get this out of my face!!!" Timbo 06:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not necessary for either image to be directly included in the article, and having the image directly in the article is offensive to many. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Anthony you will find that you have consensus against you. The matter has been discussed to death. Most people want to keep the image on the page. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I challenge you to test the consensus. You are dangerously close to misrepresenting the consensus arrived at as a result of that either or vote. - Robert the Bruce 04:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not necessary for any image (or any text, for that matter) to be directly included in any article at all. Still, there are images included in all sorts of articles, unless there is a consensus to make an exception and not include a given image for some reason, and so far there has never been any such consensus to not include a photograph in the Clitoris article. See: Talk:Clitoris/Archive2, Talk:Clitoris/Archive3, Talk:Clitoris/Archive4. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 02:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The consensus arrived at was that the current pic was preferred to this anatomical drawing. Thats all! - Robert the Bruce 04:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Nope it wasn't. Read the comments as well as count the numbers. -take into account the revert wars that have happened and how many people were reverting - take into account the other polls - there are at least two more in the archives on clitoris - take into account the numerous talks on the village pump about this issue -take into account the uploading wars of the original clit pic - take into account the discussion of that picture at the time it was uploaded -take into account the discussions on other pages -penis comes to mind then you might get some idea of what consensus means. Dont bother to trot aout another toll answer where you accuse me personally for the fact that you are in a tiny minority, and the big bad wolf of the comminity is against you. I'm not interested and I wont bother replying Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What numbers do you think would represent a consensus? Not everyone commented their vote, and many of those who did made unclear comments.  At least one vote (mine), specifically said that we should be linking to this image instead of displaying it inline (even though I voted with the majority).  The other polls were even more closely split.  I'd really like to hear how you're defining consensus.  If we had consensus then we wouldn't need page protection, because anyone who insisted on removing the image would be permanently banned from Wikipedia.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Consensus is much different from "most people". If you show a consensus, I will stop making these edits. But until there is a consensus shown I will continue to edit this page in whatever manner I find most appropriate. There has been no consensus not to include the image, and there has been no consensus to include it. So until a compromise is reached there is nothing wrong with either position. I suggest a compromise that we include the image as a link. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 06:09, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Too bad that idea has been proposed numerous times before you and has not been accepted. Timbo 06:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It is too bad, if that's true. What were the concerns that people raised when they didn't accept this? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think people mostly felt that by linking to an image rather than displaying it we would be pandering to prudes. The arguments were that the human body is not something of which we should be ashamed, and not something that we need to hide away. There was also a suggestion of placing a neutrally worded warning - Such as "This article contains photographs of human gentitals" at the top of the articles so that the easily offended could choose not to scroll down. But this idea was defeted too.People argued that anyone who really was likely to be offended by the pictures would avoid looking at the page in the first place. There were also sexism issues. Most of the people who offended were men who didn't like the clitoris picture. Far fewser complained about the penis photo.Someone - could have been anther -could have been sansse - could have been neither (I cant remember) argued that it was sexist to link the clitoris picture and not the penis one. Personally i favour a simple disclaimer and having the picture on the page, but the community voted and didn't want a disclaimer.So that's that. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to make social change. You may not agree with "prudes" but we should be a community accepting of all people.  By linking to the image instead of displaying it inline I think you can be much more acceptable to a very large community while at the same time losing nothing.  It seems to me that the only argument for not linking to the image is that you're in the majority and you want to win, lest someone that you disagree with should get his or her way.  I'm intrigued by your use of the term pandering, though.  This is the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen on a wiki, and the ability for anyone to edit any page unless there is consensus against him is what is supposed to protect us from that.  I would think that including the image would be pandering, not vice versa.  I don't see how including a warning is any better than just linking to the image, and I feel it is much worse because it doesn't allow someone who doesn't want to see the photographs to still read the article (short of some complicated system involving turning off images and reloading the page).  I don't have a problem with linking to the penis picture as well.  In fact, we really should be doing that.  If the goatse image was GFDL would we be including that inline too?  After all, it's just part of the human body. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Anthony do you think it's acceptable to show feet in an article about them - or what about hair - is it acceptable to show someone's hair? Should we link every single picture that someone might not like or should we have a line and say - over the line it get's linked, under it it doesn't? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * For clarity's sake, would you please answer your rhetorical question yourself? &mdash; David Remahl 14:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Clearly a line needs to be drawn, but in my opinion (and apparently yours too), not every part of "the human body" depicted in any manner imaginable is on the inclusive side of the line. I would think that anyone removing an image of feet or hair in an article about them would be acting in bad faith.  Besides the fact that this isn't an article about the vulva (so really we should just be linking to that article and discussing the inclusion of the image there), you have agreed that you don't feel I am acting in bad faith.  Furthermore, feet and hair are regularly depicted in encyclopedias and other media in the US.  It's just not the same situation.  In any case, if a group of people wanted to remove an image of a foot from an article on feet and I thought they were acting in good faith, I'd support their right to do that until the point where there was consensus reached on the page that the image should be included.  Protecting pages and threatening bans just because some people disagree with you is highly inappropriate. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a US encyclopaedia, so practices in the United States carry no more weight than customs in Germany, Iran, China or Japan. It is quite believable that fundamentalist followers of Islam would find an image of a woman with the hair visible objectionable and make it a link; that would not be "in bad faith". I don't think there is a way to draw a line in an NPOV fashion. Since NPOV is the overriding principle of Wikipedia, no line should be drawn. &mdash; David Remahl 15:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So we should include the goatse image inline? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think we can have lines. Some things are pretty much universally accepted, some things are argued about. I would say that natural normal stuff isn't shocking to most people - I include nudity in that. Other stuff is shocking to almost everyone - murder is not natural normal stuff, and most people would find a photo of a murder victim after they had been killed to be shocking. Since there is no debate i see no harm in linking in cases of truly universally shocking photographs. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a bit more "shocking" than just plain nudity. And I should note that we link to Image:NickBergDead.png rather than display it inline, so it seems there already is a line drawn.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, unnatural death cannot be depicted. Lets examine a few edge cases: Can we show hunting trophies (e.g. a moose)? (Human) cannibal hunting trophies? An animal hit by a car? A mouse killed by a predator? A human killed by a non-human animal? A human killed by a human? A human warrior killed by a human warrior at war? A human civilian killed by a warrior at war? A human hit and killed by a car? A capital punishment victim? A (hypothetical) dead alien? Which of those things are "unnatural"? I don't believe there are any objective morals, and no matter where you choose to draw the line, there will be a considerable gray area. The default is to include images relevant to the article, as can be expected from an encyclopaedia. For the record, I naturally oppose the linking of the Nick Berg image (I have a vague recollection of arguing for its inclusion, even...) &mdash; David Remahl 16:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is not USpedia, but a large chunk of English-speakers are American, and a sizable minority (or even majority) of Americans would find this image offensive, though these people are under-represented among editors, I believe. Although I don't find this offensive, I know that it would turn many of my friends and family off to wikipedia. Some people would be shocked, which is not as ridiculous as some editors in the last debate imagined&mdash;many encyclopedias don't include a picture.
 * Looking at other languages, the Spanish version removed a picture without much fuss in July, and it appears several editors have looked over it since then. The French version compromised with a wikipedia link to the image because (according to babelfish) some editors thought the old picture was pornography. I agree that this information should not be surpressed, which is why I believe a wikilink to the image is a sensible compromise. It maintains the image, but doesn't shock those who don't expect it. At least one editor in the last debate said that perhaps some day there would be content control&mdash;a children's wikipedia&mdash;to prevent people from seeing what they don't want to see. In my view, a text link does just that. Cool Hand Luke  05:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anthony in some places showing the soles of you feet is considered an insult. It is perfectly possible that someone might remove a picture of something they find disguisting without acting in bad faith. I have seen pictures of genitals in children's biology books here in the UK. The only difference between you and me here is that I already feel that as good a consensus as possible has already been reached. You'd feel the same if you'd had this article on your watchlist as long as I have. I don't like having the page protected - and i am happy to unprotect it if you promise not to act unilaterally yourself. Revert wars do not buid consensus. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony in some places showing the soles of you feet is considered an insult. OK... It is perfectly possible that someone might remove a picture of something they find disguisting without acting in bad faith.  Of course it's possible.  I seriously doubt someone is going to remove a picture of feet or hair while acting in good faith, though.  It's possible, I suppose.  I have seen pictures of genitals in children's biology books here in the UK.  I find that interesting, but ultimately I don't think that's enough of a precedent to justify inclusion inline in this article.  The only difference between you and me here is that I already feel that as good a consensus as possible has already been reached. You'd feel the same if you'd had this article on your watchlist as long as I have.  I admit I've been a rather late participant to this discussion, and that's too bad.  But I really was quite shocked to see that the argument for including the image inline was winning.  I suppose it should have been obvious, after all we're quite a liberal-leaning website.  But I don't think it's impossible to reach consensus, just difficult.  I don't like having the page protected - and i am happy to unprotect it if you promise not to act unilaterally yourself.  I have not been acting unilaterally.  I am not the only person who thinks this image should be removed.  Revert wars do not buid consensus.  Not when you have a three revert rule, page protection, and admins who make sure to protect pages on their preferred version.  But if you just leave the page unprotected consensus is likely to be reached, as it is in the best interests of all parties, both the majority and minority, to come to the table.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think unprotecting and the subsequent revert wars will solve anything. And I don't think there's some liberal conspiracy among admins and page protection. Linking only to naughty vagina pictures or including disclaimers to alert people to their presence is disgustingly POV and wikipedia deserves better. Timbo 16:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Above all, having a revert war over an inline comment in an article is beyond silly. I hope we can let that minor thing go now. I tried writing it in a general way; one should always pay attention to talk pages. &mdash; David Remahl 17:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying there's a conspiracy (though in some cases there have literally been conspiracies involving page protection, where an admin works together with another editor to protect a page right after a favorable edit is made). But the vast majority of the time a page is protected, it is protected on a version favored by the admin making the protection, and most admins are liberal-leaning (at least with regard to issues such as sex). anthony &#35686;&#21578; 17:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anthony can i ask you a question - do you personally find the image offensive? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe what's at least mildly upsetting is gaurding one version of an article under the banner of upholding consensus when the discussion didn't actually produce consensus for any particular version. At most it seems we selected between two alternatives. On-site wikilinks are different from external links to a picture, but this alternative was not offered. Cool Hand Luke  23:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Because it's already been offered in the past and failed. There was a large discussion on the VP of this and penis and the result of that discussion was no to linking to images like this.But if you want to start a new poll that's fine by me. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 05:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes it was an "either or" question. It is really sad that the results of a "do you want this pic or a link to that drawing" type of question has spawned such imaginative interpretations of what consensus was achieved as a result. - Robert the Bruce 02:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not personally offended by the image, if that's your question. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought not. If you look over the all the archives of this talk page you will see that no one has actually said that they find the picture offensive. Everyone who views this picture as a problem is worries about other people finding it offensive.Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 05:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't find this surprising. Many comments on these talk pages ridicule anyone that would find it offensive, so I would have been genuinely surprised if someone volunteered offense.
 * vast majority of sane people are not offended by it
 * this is the 21st century right? Not the dark ages? Just checking.
 * Other than opinions based on faulty appeals to nebulous and shame-filled "moral standards", nobody has provided an argument for a disclaimer
 * I happen to know a great many people&mdash;perhaps a majority in my community&mdash; would take offense to this. At any rate, I believe a new survey is in order, ideally one that follows the polling guidelines. This means we announce it in advance, formulate the options with an eye toward consensus, and makes very clear what the alternatives are. Many people in the last poll seemed to believe it was a vote on the old diagram vs. the photo, and such manifest confusion doesn't reflect consensus on a well-drawn compromise. I agree that it's ridiculous to demand reliance on an outside site to host this important material, so I would have voted with the majority (as Anthony did), but a well-placed and prominent link to the image onsite allows access without as much potential to offend.
 * Incidentally, we should have a similar poll for penis, et al. I find it rather incredible that some editors treat the alleged consensus here as binding on other articles not even mentioned in the query. Cool Hand Luke  08:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Be bold CHL and start a poll then. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well I would, but considering the suggestions at Survey guidelines, I'd prefer we first agree on wording, alternatives, duration, and so forth. Before that, however, we should attempt to establish consensus. If renewed discussion is to do any good at all, we should first establish that this is a legitimate content dispute. Several editors here seem to view naysayers as simple vandals, and consensus seems hopeless if this is the underlying attitude. Cool Hand Luke  09:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's because the naysayers are newbies to the debate that's all. Also some people have created sock puppet accounts in order to have revert wars - which looks like vandalism to me. No one thinks of you as a vandal.Thinking about it - it's probably a good idea to see how the vote for offensive pictures pans out. If there is no consensus to link to truly offensive images such as murder victims, there would be little point in holding a vote on images like the clitoris one. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree it'd be best to wait at least until then anyway, although I suspect there won't be consensus for any policy meaning we have to continue deciding case-by-case. When my semester ends I'll try to find a good drawing. I believe that an article with a good drawing and a link to this image would be a much better compromise than anything offered so far. (Unlike that proposed link&mdash;yeesh!) Cool Hand Luke  09:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If you are university you might be able to get hold of a copy of grays anatomy. The images there are out of copyright and are very good in general (although i've not seen one of the clitoris so I don't know if there even is one let alone if it is any good or not. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see how whether or not I am personally offended by the image is relevant. You're not claiming that no one is offended by the image, are you?  Because if so I suppose I could show this article to my girlfriend and see what she thinks we should do about it.  I'd rather not do this, because I don't want my girlfriend to think I'm spending so much of my time working on a porn site, but I suppose I could do this if enough people would change their mind due to a direct statement by someone offended by the image.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page protection
Incidentally, although I'm certain this page needed protection, the boilerplate reversions remind me of Protection policy, which suggests we should not protect pages we are involved with. Please consider listing protection on Requests for page protection in the future. Cool Hand Luke  08:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Not in this case. In this case it was already clear that an edit war was going on and that's why it had to be locked. Also, I am not that involved in it. I have not made any edits in the main page except I think a few typos. I have discussed things on this talk page, but that's not a crime. So, sorry, but I disagree with you on this one. Especially when I feel you're implying that I'm deliberately stifling edits. Sorry if that sounds a little spiky, because you are a good editor CHL, and pretty neutral, but in this case I must vocally disagree with you. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, and it appears you protected Vulva, not this article, and I agree you're not terribly involved in this article. Cool Hand Luke  19:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Story of my life. I get confused between vulva and clitoris. Sigh. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No of course I don't think you're stiffling edits. This needed protection, and I believe a neutral editor would have quickly protected it&mdash;probably without judgement call on the vandalism issue. Cool Hand Luke  19:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anatomy
Can someone please explain why the human body is considered "offensive"? --Viriditas 11:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If you're going to do so, please do so in the nudity article, which already has a brief explanation. This page has a much more in-depth discussion, though. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disturbing images
Graphic and potentially disturbing images: &ldquo;This is a proposal to regulate the policy on graphic images that could be potentially disturbing to Wikipedia users. The policy shall be discussed for a period of two weeks, also giving users a chance to draft their own policy proposals, and the voting will start on December 15 and last for one week.&rdquo; For anyone who is disturbed by penis, clitoris, or any other body parts (including fingernails covered with certain shades of nail polish), that discussion and a subsequent voting seems to be a good place to voice your opinion in a way more reasonable than vandalism and edit wars like the one that is taking place on Clitoris. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 06:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * We don't need new policy. This is already covered adequetely by existing policy. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * A new policy is being discussed right now as we speak, and will be voted on December 15, which should be an interesting information even for those who want to maintain the status quo. Considering the number of your own comments there, many of them referencing Clitoris and Vulva articles where you keep removing the images, and your own Graphic and potentially disturbing images proposal, I don&rsquo;t seem to be the only one who finds that new policy relevant in the context of the situation we have here. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 17:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've participated on that page and I find it extremely unlikely that any consensus will be reached. So yeah, there will be a vote on December 15th, but then the page will be forgotten and we'll still have this problem to solve. As for "my alternative policy", it's really just a repetition of what we already have at Profanity.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * One can not reach consensus with a vote. One settles an issue where consensus has not been reached by a (winner take all) vote. So yes I agree with you it is unlikely that consensus will be reached on this matter and it will be settled by a vote. I just hope that no one claims that as a result consensus was reached (like with the previous vote here). - Robert the Bruce 03:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If a poll shows that there is an 80% or greater majority of people who believe that this image should be kept inline, then I will respect that. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The policy states that it wont apply to images like this, so it's not really relavent here. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 05:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I know that the policy is explicitly &ldquo;not about images identified as pornographic&rdquo; but the numerous references to nudity in general and the Clitoris article in particular, as well as literally tens of comments by people involved in removing pictures from Clitoris, Vulva and Penis articles, made me think that that referencing that discussion on Talk:Clitoris would be a good idea. Even if that is against the original intention, there is some support for the extension of this policy to &ldquo;all images explicitly pornographic&rdquo; nonetheless. Which I think should make that discussion relevant here, becasue the voting on December 15 will most likely include options that might affect photographs by Philo Vivero and Clawed. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 04:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The sad problem here is that those who advocate the use of photos (as opposed to mere drawings) are shooting themselves (and their cause) in the foot through displaying shockingly poor judgement (and maturity) in the selection of photos for the various articles. The basis of selection should be the suitability and educational value of the selected pics. Wikipedia is not doing well in this department and will continue to fail in this regard until those whose actions have led to the current debacle are reigned in. For the record I support the use of photos where they are both "suitable and educational" but cannot support the use of a pic of the vulva on the clitoris page where the clitoris is not depicted. This is explicit display for the sake of it. It is immature, it is indefensible. In fact the situation is so bizarre that I tend to agree with the anti-pic/anti-porn group that what we are seeing in these articles is the deliberate attempt to insert porn. Disgraceful. - Robert the Bruce 05:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm just going to have to call troll. To say people are showing "shockingly" poor judgement and maturity is just trying to rile everyone up. Sorry you're so obsessed over this, but I suggest you sit back for a week and consider who's being immature and displaying poor judgement here. PhiloVivero 08:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I am interested to hear an intelligent reason why it is perceived by some that a picture which does not depict a clitoris is suitable for the Clitoris article. - Robert the Bruce 09:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Human Vulva Image That's Annoying Text Free
As many have observed, the current image is annoying. It has a big, ugly copyright and text that isn't translatable or font/contrast fixable, etc. I have uploaded a new version without any text so that people can put whatever they feel like putting onto it. It is linked left, and you should see it pretty plainly.

On the "it doesn't show the clitoris" controversy: if you see a picture of a non-erect non-circumcised penis, would you say you can't see the penis because the foreskin is in the way? Well alright. You can't see the clitoris proper here, but the clitoral hood is pretty obvious, and is only obscured in the same sense that a penis is obscured by the foreskin. And besides, without cutting the woman open and destroying her genitals, you can only see about 5% of the clitoris on any woman, no matter how she tugs and pulls on the clitoral hood. So to supplement this image, we need only a diagram showing the internal (dissected) anatomy.
 * I really don't know why you bothered. It is not a good picture of the vulva. Where did you get it from? A cut and paste from some skin pic? As to the "it doesn't show the clitoris" issue. Yes isn't it hilarious. Sadly the argument just serves to make it worse. Using the penis analogy one would say that it like placing a pic of an uncircumcised penis (with full coverage) on the glans page and saying ... well its under there some where ... use your imagination. This issue has now moved from the bizarre to the ridiculous. Sad for Wikipedia. The Vulva article needs a good vulva pic and the Clitoris article needs a good clitoris pic. Common sense really. - Robert the Bruce 09:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the CLITORIS, not about the CLITORIS GLANS. You really need to quit while you're ahead. I have a suggestion for you. Take all the energy you're just now thinking of expending making some useless reply about how the image is destroying modern society, and instead, click "random page" ten times, and on each load, contribute something useful to the article you see. That way, people will think of you as someone who contributes to a community effort, rather than as someone who sits in the corner, bitching and moaning about how those who are contributing aren't doing a good job. PhiloVivero 13:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Be careful with the civility angle or you just might get Tony Sidaway on your case (interesting to see what will happen). With your convoluted explanations you are just digging yourself in deeper. Go on, delete the crappy image and be done with it. - Robert the Bruce 15:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Um, Bruce, he took it himself and went to lengths to establish that he did. For what it's worth, I thought the labels were OK if it weren't for the fact that removing the copyright box would leave an unbalanced white spote in the picture. Cool Hand Luke  09:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is little doubt that Robert is trolling. People should simply stop feeding him. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Consider Cantus
Persistent wardrobe malfunctionists deletionists might want to consider the case of Cantus, who was once handsome and tall as you.

chocolateboy 16:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Poll on the current photograph
In an attempt to end the edit wars by ascertaining without unambiguity the general opinion on the current photograph, which has been repeatedly removed and restored, I call a poll on the following question:

Question: Should this image appear in the Clitoris article?

--[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments

 * As I said above, the last poll was marred because it presented a bad set of options. Please give some time to construct polls with an eye toward consensus as polls are not the last word in consensus or even a very good mechanism. At the very least, questions alternatives should be clearly laid out and discussed before the creation of a poll as suggested at Survey guidelines. I move to scrap this survey and to work toward constructing a better one. Cool Hand Luke  04:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Scrap it. - Robert the Bruce 04:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Accepted. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed survey
See previous section for abandoned survey.

I think we need to ask the question "Should this image appear in the Clitoris article?" accompanied by the picture in the previous section, precisely because that particular image keeps being removed. It's as simple as that. A poll strongly rejected replacing it with a link to a particular diagram, but this poll cannot be taken to support the proposition that the picture should not be removed wholesale without being replaced. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I move to make any such survey last between one and two weeks. An alternative question I suggest is asking something like "Until user-directed content restriction mechanisms exist on wikipedia, how should the potentially offensive image of a clitoris and it's surroundings be handled in the article?
 * An un-provocative and labeled image of the clitoris and it's surroundings be displayed beside the text in the article such as exists currently.
 * This image should be placed behind a prominent wikilink for those wishing to see it, with a detailed anatomical drawing in the article, (only to be implemented after such drawing becomes available)."


 * Actually, I'd like to wait until I can locate a drawing. My school finishes in two weeks, and the content policy poll begins around the same time, so I move to delay this poll for at least two weeks becasue an alternative including a good diagram represents a better compromise. During these two weeks we'd have time to hammer out the question very well to everyone's satisfaction.


 * Until then, those repeatedly removing the picture should stop with an understanding that it doesn't help the long-term health of this article, and especially not their vision of it. Especially you, Anthony. Now that you've been warned very explicitly on your user page (I concur with that admin even though I agree with you about the article). Stop it please. Cool Hand Luke  04:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Saying that the image is un-provocative is too leading. These two choices also leave out too many other possibilities.  In my opinion, those adding the image should be the ones who stop, not those linking to the image.  In any case, if you wish to show consensus for leaving the image in as is, then the options should be leaving the image in as is, or any other solution.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If people have other ideas about what should be done with the alternative, we should discuss them to formulate the strongest possible compromise. A poll between "this image" and "something else (meaning a continuation of this edit war and uncertainty)" could only produce one result thanks to your persistant and sensless reverts. Incidentally, you've been blocked by me for violating the 3RR and your standing order per snowspinner's warning. Cool Hand Luke  17:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony did not violate the 3RR rule recently. My mistake. I'm sorry. Cool Hand Luke  20:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anthony - we have had a photograph of a clitoris on this page for over a year. People are not "adding it" they are reverting the removal of the image. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If there ever was one there isn't one now. What is the point in trying to defend the use of this particular pic? - Robert the Bruce 02:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Replace the pic with a better one, man. That's how editing is done. You improve, not just remove. Hey, I like that jingle so much I think I'll use it more often.Dr Zen 05:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protection
Due to the numerous edit wars going on, I have protected this page. I'll lift it when I've seen some substantive discussion instead of mindless reverting. &rarr;Raul654 05:34, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining what you would consider "substantive discussion"?Dr Zen 05:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Discussion that makes a good faith attempt at achieving consensus. &rarr;Raul654 05:59, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Raul. I'll be happy to kick off the discussion. I think the material Robert the Bruce cut was a good-faith addition to the article and was perfectly valid. Does Mr the Bruce think that people do not pierce any part of the clitoris? Does he think no one stretches it? If he does not, then he cannot be opposing the text on the grounds that it is not factual. There is no other ground for opposing its inclusion rather than editing it. Now could you please remove the protection so that this article can be edited and instead of preventing the wiki from working block Mr the Bruce from editing if he will not respect your request for discussion here?Dr Zen 06:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Robert the bruce aka friends of Robert aka Robert Brooks thinks that he is in charge of any article he takes a fancy to here on Wikipedia and that no one is allowed to add stuff to articles unless he approves of it first. Every page he edits has been the subject of revert wars, he thinks that revert wars are normal and that is the way Wikipedia works. So far he has been tolerated. Patient explaining on his talk page and the articles on which he edits has failed to improve his behaviour. An rfc failed to improve his behaviour. My offer of going to mediation was rejected by him. His deletion of factual material without explanation marks him out as a vandal who should be treated as one IMO. Theresa Knott (The snott rake)
 * Wow ... nice cheap shot there Theresa. I sense the outpouring of pent-up feelings are so strong in that tirade I need to formally request some mediation through a trusted third party to help you work out the hostility you bear. Who should we approach on this? - Robert the Bruce 04:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The mediation committee - the one I offered already and you replied "get off my case". I note how you didn't answer the question above - why did you delete the paragraph without explanation? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that it is you who needs some help on this Theresa. Clearly your behaviour towards me is neither rational nor normal. I would like to help you work through this (if we can find a suitable mediator/councillor. - Robert the Bruce 20:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am happy to go through mediation with you Robert. That's why I offered it before - I'll put a request in to the mediation committee. Um you appear to have forgotton to answer the question above. So i'll repeat it - Why did you delete the paragraph without explanation? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * About the article: What was wrong with the recent additions? Cool Hand Luke  04:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. I say unprotect the page and if he deletes it again, block him for a couple of hours. Protecting a page should be a last resort, surely? Dr Zen 23:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Both actions should be last resorts. I've asked him on his talk page to clarify. Cool Hand Luke  00:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the page was protected as a first resort, no?Dr Zen 01:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although I could say it's refreshing to have a non-photo-related revert war, I'd like to know what the objection to this new material is. Bruce? Cool Hand Luke  21:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should hide the vulva
Rickyrab 01:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LOL! If you stuck in a label to the clitoris, why not?Dr Zen 02:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jokes at the expense of other editors, if you must make them, should perhaps go into a talk subpage. Cool Hand Luke  04:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Purty! (Very nice indeed! But I don't think it's going to work on Clitoris... --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Horrible! but it raises my POINT the picture of clitoris depicted in the article is Pornographic. --198 04:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well that is a purty lady in my view. Whether the current picture can be viewed as pornographic is neither here nor there.  My first wank book was the Sculpture entry of an Encyclopedia Britannica; I don't suppose the habits of small boys have changed much in the meantime. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * To quote from the above link... "pornography is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal..." Nobody can say Wiki or any of its contributors have the goal or intent of getting somebody arosed in this article.  Furthermore, last time I checked, porn mags/videoes they didn't have labels to body parts.  Only invidividuals with an extremenly low threshold for sexual excitment are likely to be arosed from the current photo. The picture just ain't sexy.  Revmachine21 11:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Clitoris, The Whole Clitoris, and Nothing But The Clitoris
I'm a bit late joining the conversation it appears, but I believe this image meets everyone's criteria. --Pascal666 04:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)



Interesting - can you label it? I can't really see what it is. Intrigue 04:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I would have no idea how. Basically from left to right you have the hood, glans, shaft, and crura.  --Pascal666 05:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In spite of what people are saying, we have to give context to the clitoris. For example, ear doesn't feature an ear removed after autopsy. It shows an ear (on a head!) and has a diagram of the whole ear. What we need is not an entrail, but a really good diagram. Cool Hand Luke  05:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Try this one - Robert the Bruce 20:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What is the copyright status of that diagram Robert? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That is important for a link? - Robert the Bruce 21:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's already linked too. We are talking about a good diagram on the page. A nice PD or copyleft diagram is needed. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Robert's link is from the book Clinical Anatomy Principles Page 573. Author: Lawrence H. Mathers, Jr. ... [et al]. Copyright 1996 by Mosby - Year Book. ISBN 0-8016-6356-3 (hardcover) ISBN 0-8151-1749-3 (package) --Pascal666 23:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the various pictures. To me, all of them look very clinical. People who don't have sisters, wives, lovers, or cooperative "native informants" will be helped by three kinds of image. (1) A picture that shows as much of the clitoris of a real person as can be seen in nature. (2) A diagram that shows what is present under the clitoral hood. And, possibly, (3) the dissected image provided above. (That's the only image of a sex organ that's ever been even mildly upsetting to me, and that's only because my power of imagination links it to mutilation.) There is a slightly better image of the clitoris in its natural environment on p. 40 of Erwin J Haeberle's The Sex Atlas, ISBN: 0-8164-9124-0. If somebody wants a model of how to make a good picture, I highly recommend the one on the top of the page simply because the person pictured has managed to make the clitoris more visible than has the person in the second picture. &#37329;

Some people may feel very threatened or invaded by being shown what their authority figures deem "never to be shown in public." We may end up covering all female faces, male nipples, suspicious bulges in trouser crotches, etc., etc. But since it is the rare society that permits public nudity "downtown," I think it might be appropriate to make viewers go through some kind of "I am permitted to view sexually explicit pictures" door. Of course that can have the additional function of eroticizing components of the human body such as the anus. &#37329;

Sometimes human males go through a great deal of needless psychological trauma simply because they do not dare to ask, and so nobody can tell them, that the raphe (biological zipper on the underside of the penis) is perfectly normal and not a scar that has resulted from some operation performed on them in infancy. I wonder whether there are human females who may have similar fears about what are actually normal components of their reproductive organs. &#37329; (Kim) 01:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have said it many times, the existing picture on the Article page is FANTASTIC. I am not ready to say the piece of meat suggested on the Talk page is inappropriate although we don't have a severed penis on the Penis page.  The penis' are all intact and attached.  I guess the suggested pic could be of benefit but not in its current form, how long is the meat?  Where are the labels for the piece of meat?  Which end is the front and back?  Which poor woman lost this body part to give Robert the Bruce an actual clitoris?  Was she dead when it was removed?  IMHO, the complaints about the Article picture are from people who confuse pornography with biology and would like to censor information according to their standards.  The complaints about the clitoris page seem humorous because the penis page has 4 or 5 pictures of penis's in various stages of erection, and NO COMPLAINTS and NO WORRIES about children seeing the page.  I get the impression that a form of gender bias is coming into the page. Revmachine21 02:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You realize that's incorrect, right? There is in fact there is a very recent complaint on Talk:Penis. Furthermore, you should realize that complaints were raised about penis in October, but replies referred the editors here. In fact, at least one editor assumed that the consensus here against disclaimer here applied there as well, presumably because this is where the discussion was pointed.


 * Excerpts:
 * The sex warning seems reasonable to me, but aparently many other people don't like it. Why?   – Quadell (talk) (help)   00:48, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be public. But it needs to be all in one place. So can we all argue on the clitoris page please. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 21:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * (Crosspost to talk:clitoris, talk:penis, talk:vagina) - Ok, the disclaimer idea has been roundly rejected. I have unprotected all 3 articles (Penis, vagina, and clitoris). Let's try to keep it civilized now. &rarr;Raul654 00:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * For whatever reason, this article is the wikipedia sex test case. Therefore, the sexist claim your arguing, though possibly with merit, is not obviously true. It's moreover not helpful in this debate&mdash;apparently you're assuming complaints are made for sexist reasons as opposed to the actual reasons offered. Cool Hand Luke  21:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Come on, guys. No one says that the clitoris should not be shown in context. The complaint about the existing picture is that one cannot see the part commonly known as the clitoris. All the penis pictures show the penis clearly enough that one can distinguish its external parts. I think severed parts are probably a step too far though!Dr Zen 02:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Why are people so uptight over using pictures of private parts, anyway? What, they've never seen a cock or a cunt before? (And, mind ya, I'm using "cunt" because it happens to be "The Last Unprintable Word".) Censorship needs to get a fuck --err, frigging life. :) Rickyrab 21:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't want to overgeneralize, but a lot of it is religious. (I didn't see one until I was about 17, incidentally.) I'm not sure that it's terribly important why cultural attitudes exist, but that so many English-speaking editors will be turned off to this article (and possibly by extention the project), should be concerning enough. Incidentally, this is not censorship as no outside parties are forcing revision. Cool Hand Luke  22:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't see how it is "censorship" to suggest being sensitive to others' concerns. What exactly is wrong with trying to include all views as far as possible? I do believe that that's very difficult here and that we should include a picture but there's no need for some of the behaviour some of the pros are indulging themselves in. Winning a vote is not forming a consensus.Dr Zen 00:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well said. Of course this doesn't justify removing the photo repeatedly, but there are several editors with legitimate good-faith concerns. Cool Hand Luke  03:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there some reason not to do something like they have in one article somewhere on the web for the fistula -- have something that says

See Picture (Warning: Graphic content!)

or would that be perceived as self-censorship? I think the important thing is that people should have available to them all information. If somebody needs to how a starfish everts its stomach to consume its prey, they should be able to access pictures of that phenomenon. On the other hand, I would object to such an image appearing prominently in the menu at my favorite restaurant. &#37329; (Kim) 08:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I share your belief that this material must be on Wikipedia.
 * If there's renewed interest in a disclaimer, we can use the disclaimer box to offer a an alternate version of the page using template tricks to suppress images. I engineered a solution for Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse like this. However, I'm not sure we need something so dramatic here because there is at this point only one potentially offensive photo in the article. For one photo I believe you're right that it would be better just to put the picture behind a captioned wikilink that says "See picture". Along with adding diagrams I think this is a good compromise with people who dislike the image in the article. Cool Hand Luke  09:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you'd get agreement there. Note that the suggestion of puting a disclaimer "This article contains pictures of genitalia" at the top of the article was not accepted (see the archives). I doubt putting the picture behind a link would be sucsessful. Also adding diagrams would be great, but I doubt that people would want a photo to be replaced by a diagram. CHL could you answer a few questions please, it might help us liberal tyoes understand.
 * 1) How did you get to this page in the first place? Was it because of the debate at the VP etc or were you looking at the article for info on the clitoris?
 * 2) I take it you were shocked when you first saw the picture?
 * 3) Were you tempted to leave the project because the of the picture?

Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Requests for comment&mdash;recently, unfortunately.
 * No, RfC rather alluded to it, although I would have been mildly surprised to see it. The photos in Penis are actually much more surprising to me. I'm a liberal type myself, and see nothing wrong with images of the human body that aren't overtly sexual. For this reason I feel it's imperative to include this material. However, I come from a religious background (specifically, I'm Mormon), and I am sympathetic to concerns of people from such backgrounds. I know people&mdash;family, friends&mdash;that even if they denied being offended at the picture, would be very uneasy by it and possibly engage in the passing edit wars these articles currently attract. Such contributers feel marginalized, I believe. Even if they don't quit the project, I imagine they'd be discouraged. Social conservatives in the US tend to resent being told how simplistic and dark-age they are. They especially don't like being exposed to things they feel compromise their core values. Or to quote the anon that was reverting penis a little while ago: "After all, I feel that my culture has made quite a few cultural concessions in the name of "progressivism," and I think it's high-time the favor was returned."
 * 1) Of course not. But I do want to provide a charitable attempt at understanding this position. The talk page archives are incredibly abusive toward a common worldview in the English-speaking world which I believe is under-represented in Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke  10:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And this is why we should strong consider Graphic and potentially disturbing images, using tags to allow people to avoid disagreeable images. I have some understanding of the Mormon background as well. Allowing people to avoid seeing the image might be worthwhile, but the image has to be there for those who want it. A self-bowdlerized article isn't as bad a an article which is bowdlerized for all. User:nereocystis 12:04:11 11 Dec 2004
 * Yep. Cool Hand Luke  20:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to overgeneralize, but a lot of it is religious. (Cool Hand Luke, 9 Dec) If Wikipedia were to engage in censorship on religious grounds here, would it not also be appropriate to remove pictures of hatless women and women not covering their whole bodies? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No. First, this is not censorship, unless it's self-censorship. I'm not advocating removal of the picture, or even removal of the picture in the article (if we have an Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse-style warning/alternate version). The picture must be on Wikipedia. Furthermore it's not censorship because outside parties are not forcing the change. As Dr Zen put it, "I don't see how it is "censorship" to suggest being sensitive to others' concerns. What exactly is wrong with trying to include all views as far as possible?"
 * Second, it's not on religious grounds. This is a cultural argument. If images are liable to offend, say, 10% of the English speaking-world, we ought to strongly consider providing a means for that minority to get the article without the offensive images. As I said, it doesn't really matter why the attitude exists. I think it's wrong to allow that Nick Berg's severed head offends people, but to effectively deny that the significant minority objecting to these articles count. Cool Hand Luke  20:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * We'll have to agree to disagree on the point of semantics of the word censorship. Okay, it's not on religious grounds?  Then let me reframe it in a cultural context: if we conduct self-censorship on cultural grounds in the case of this picture, would it not also be appropriate to remove pictures of hatless women and women not covering their whole bodies out of respect for cultures in which such displays are taboo?  There are literally hundreds of thousands of my countrymen--culturally asian British people--who would find such displays of flesh offensive.  Should I not show respect for their sensibilities by going through wikipedia and changing pictures of women showing a bit of flesh to links? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:13, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced many of these people exist, but once a content management tagging scheme becomes available, they certainly should be tagged as such. As it is, there's only one image on this page that's seriously contested. Given that fully 1/8th of those who looked at the last poll were willing to replace the image with a gawd-awful link to a diagram, I'd say in this case the cost/benefit analysis wieghs more heavily than most any other example. (The cost is losing a clean, warning-free article, and the benefit is the accomodation of a significant minority of editors.) I believe it's sensible to offer an alternate version manually, at least until content flags can do it automatically.
 * You'll also notice I'm not a fan of unilateral controversial changes to articles. So no, you should never go through Wikipedia doing that sort of thing regardless of ontext. Cool Hand Luke  20:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:13, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The case of the low quality edit
Wikipedians will be aware that of the brouhaha that has arisen around the issue of the deletion of a poor quality edit to the clitoris article. Of course like all things in life one needs to look behind the obvious to establish what the real issue is. The edit was as follows: In various cultures, the clitoris is sometimes pierced. Piercings of the clitoris include a piercing of the clitoral hood, and the Isabella piercing, among many others. Some cultures at various times in history have practiced stretching, which can enlarge the clitoris, or can make it more visible. Note the first sentence. The use of the word "various" is not qualified. The use of the word "sometimes" is not qualified. So we don't know which cultures and the degree of prevalence. Very poor contribution to an encyclopedia. Now it may be lost on some that the name of the article is Clitoris so why would there be a reference to female genitalia in general rather than the clitoris specifically? Silly mistake made worse by the near pathological desperation to maintain this paragraph at all costs by others. Do we see a link to a pic of a pierced clitoris? Do we see a link to pic of a pierced clitoral-hood even? No! We can follow a link to a pic of a decorative "relatively new" type of piercing the "Isabella". We note that the neither the clitoris nor the clitorial hood are involved in this piercing. Off topic stuff should really be avoided one would think. On of course there are "many other" types of piercing the quantity and location of which readers are left to imagine. The last sentence continues with the use of the words "some" and "various" which sadly is just more of the same unsubstantiated trash which does not deserve to be found on the pages of an encyclopedia. Perhaps the first mistake is the changing of the title from "female circumcision" to "Altering the female genitalia". The original information accurately informed that in specific types of FGM the clitoris is pierced or clipped or whatever. The edit in question has not contributed to the quality of the article and the judgement and maturity of those who desperately defend this crap should be questioned. (Now I await my sanctimonious "friend" to claim this is a vicious personal attack on the person who made the edit). - Robert the Bruce 06:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Low quality edits are delt with by improving them, not deleting them. Clitoris piericing is not offtopic on the clitoris article, so the content should not have been deleted. Lack of sources are delt with by asking on the talk page where the contributer got the information from not deleting them.

.Piercing is an alteration of the female genitalia, as is stretching to make it bigger, so it is appropriate to go in the article, and shouldn't have been deleted. The real reason you delete the article, was becasue of who put it in. Otherwise you would have said the above when first asked, and not now, after being asked over and over and accused of being a vandal. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not a very intelligent contribution there Theresa. Like with the issue around the pic here once again you seem to lose sight of the fact that this article is about the clitoris. As such it is not a blank canvas for the insertion of anything and everything as the spirit may move individuals. Genital piercing other than that pertaining to the clitoris and or its hood is off topic here and as such the sub-section should never have been altered from "Female circumcision" which dealt with how FGM in certain circumstances involves the clitoris. This inability to comprehend comes as no surprise here as there is now a pattern of a lack of comprehension forming. The Isabella piercing (of which a link to a pic was so kindly submitted) does not involve the clitoris. Now why should that worry you (after all you have fought tooth and nail to retain a pic of vulva which does not display the clitoris)? Again no surprise there. The pattern continues to form. BTW here is a better pic of the clitoris - Robert the Bruce 15:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What is the copyright status of that picture? (Note that we alreadt link to the clitoris com - it's an excellent site) Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The edit in question is: ''In various cultures, the clitoris is sometimes pierced. Piercings of the clitoris include a piercing of the clitoral hood, and the Isabella piercing, among many others. Some cultures at various times in history have practiced stretching, which can enlarge the clitoris, or can make it more visible.''

This is specific to the clitoris. Why do you say "Genital piercing other than that pertaining to the clitoris and or its hood is off topic here"? It seems evident to me that DanP's edit is specifically about just that and nothing else. Your earlier statement that the edit should mention the cultures in question is valid; you could easily have expanded the edit to list the cultures. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Specific to the clitoris? I don't think so. I would like your man to flesh out "and the Isabella piercing, among many others." as they pertain to the clitoris. You seem to be doing the PR on this Tony, do you think you would be able to oblige or should we start the count down on DanP for failing to explain his edit? - Robert the Bruce 15:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've got a better idea. We just ignore your trolling, and revert anything you do that is not good for the article. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, allowing that Robert must be taken to be acting in good faith, Theresa, why not just say that he is welcome to edit the article to improve it? He may not demand that DanP explains his edit; we all know that. No one has to defend anything because whatever they put can be edited. If Robert would like the edit "fleshed out", why, he can do it for himself! Please, no more protection of the page. That simply prevents good-faith editing of this page. If Robert reverts edits, block him for vandalism.Dr Zen 23:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should not be protected over this. This article has been protected too much. And yes - if someone vandalises they should be blocked. But because I have a history with Robert, and because Robert and I are supposed to be going into mediation (although he hasn't indicated which of the mediators are acceptable, and in fact is demanding that they be qualified to deal with OCD - which probably rules out all of them) then I can't be the one to block him. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 07:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Altering the female genitalia"-> "Female circumcision"+"Altering the female genitalia". Why?
I'm trying to fathom why Robert made this change. Surely female circumcision belongs as a subcategory of genital alteration? Also it's not clear to me what particular text Robert is referring to when he says "I trust those so keen on retaining this excuse for an entry will flesh it out. Say within 48 hours or it gets deleted?". Assuming, Robert, that you're referring to the text you have now partitioned from female circumcision under "Altering the female genitalia", what exactly is the problem with this entry? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Elementary my dear Tony. Lets put the stuff that relates to FGM in its own sub-section and the other stuff about "altering" in its own sub-section. Makes sense now, yes? - Robert the Bruce 19:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If Robert things he can delete valid material after 48 hours he is mistaken.Naturally i woulds like to see the section fleshed out too, with details. But the material should stay until it is fleshed out. If Robert tries to delete it I will add it back in. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you would Theresa. I'm sure then you will explain why the non fleshed out stuff must stay. I notice no effort on your part to do the fleshing out yourself? Your job around here just to keep the plebs in line then? Self appointed of course. - Robert the Bruce 19:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Factually correct - even if rather sparce information stays in aticles. That's how things work in wikipedia. If everything had to be perfect within a short time frame, nothing would ever get writtem. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Removal of factual material - even if not perfect, is bad for wikipedia. Wikipedia is after an encylopedia. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's reversion of Anthony DiPierro's removal of photograph
Anthony, I think it looks as if you may be attempting to revive the reversion war over the picture. Nevertheless I'm open to persuasion if you can justify the removal of the picture. I've reverted your edit for now because of an inadequate explanation, but would not revert a second time on this occasion. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I would. Timbo 17:53, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Tony, Anthony has my sympathy. Why do we need a crappy picture of a vulva on the clitoris page? I would say that the people who keep reverting him should have a very good reason or maybe we need to escalate this? - Robert the Bruce 19:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How do you intend to escalate this? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps an RfC. There's no consensus for this particular picture and you're aware of that, Theresa. I don't want to offend PhiloVivero and I appreciate his effort but if it were a choice between this and nothing, I'd be voting for nothing. Not out of an urge to censor but because I simply do not believe that any picture is better than no picture.Dr Zen 00:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree and second that "I simply do not believe that any picture is better than no picture." Now shall we move on and sort out this mess? - Robert the Bruce 03:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * How can anyone honestly say that having no picture is better than the current picture? It baffles me. Timbo 03:05, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can help here. The current pic does not depict the subject of the article (the clitoris). - Robert the Bruce 03:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that because the glans of the clitoris is not shown explicitly enough that absolutely no encyclopedic information about the clitoris can be gleaned from the picture? I mean no offense, but I think that's ridiculous and seems to be in bad faith. Timbo 04:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The Vulva article has a picture of the vulva. What the Clitoris article needs is a picture of the clitoris. Placing a oblique shot of the vulva with no depiction of the clitoris on the Clitoris page and then defending its retention tooth and nail is not in the interests of Wikipedia. - Robert the Bruce 04:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not like I'm saying I want a picture of a doorknob in the clitoris article. The current picture has undeniable merit, and although it could show the clitoris glans more explicitly, it nonetheless does a good job of showing the clitoris in the context of the vulva. A picture such as the disembodied full clitoris on this talk page may have merit too, but said pictures are accomplishing different things. If one will recall the previous picture in the clitoris article, the vagina was stretched back with fingers to expose the clitoris glans more explicitly. There is something to be said for that, but there is also something to be said for showing the clitoris naturally. In any case, removing the current picture because one says it "doesn't show the clitoris" is ridiculous, detracts from the article and is, I suspect, a bad faith effort to remove a picture that is controversial for other reasons. Timbo 04:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This run around we are experiencing is as a result of the flawed process which included the vote over that badly worded question. There is a vulva pic on the Vulva page which certainly gives a better indication of where the clitoris is positioned than this one. What is needed is an illustration of the (external) clitoris (either a pic or a drawing). What other agenda are you alluding to? For the record I support the use of suitable illustrations (either pics or drawings) to depict the human anatomy (including the genitals). There are two issues here though. One is that the pic currently in use does not either depict the clitoris or indicate with any acceptable degree of accuracy the location of the clitoris. It should be deleted (and yes whether there is an immediate replacement available or not). The second is the fiasco of a process that led up to the vote and then the subsequent misrepresentation of what the vote meant in terms of consensus on the issue. This second aspect (IMO) is more important and more potentially damaging to Wikipedia than the use of a single inappropriate pic. - Robert the Bruce 03:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hope you understand that the reverse could be said of you, Timbo. How thoroughly insulting! I voted for the original picture and argued for its inclusion. I think "it's roughly here but sorry you can't actually see it" is not "encyclopaedic". You can call that a bad-faith objection if you like but you are beginning very much to resemble Robert's caricature of an editor who wants any picture so that the article remains confrontational to those who want none.Dr Zen 05:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As you have said yourself, "I propose that you supply a new photo within three days or this one stays", "I'm glad you agree there's a problem with it and I look forward to your suggested replacement", and "Replace the pic with a better one, man. That's how editing is done. You improve, not just remove." The latter just six days ago. At least Timbo gives some reasons, with which you happen to disagree, to keep the present photograph. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, given the discussion and further thought. There's no obligation to stick rigidly to a POV and ignore everyone else's! Besides, I was taking the piss out of Robert's presumption. You didn't note the context. I echoed Robert's words. I didn't feel his approach was particularly constructive. However, I noted a long time ago that I didn't think it was a good picture.Dr Zen 06:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey guys, I apologize if I've come off too confrontational. I don't mean to be throwing accusations around, but the logic employed in the current round of objections to the clitoris photo just irked me. To clarify, I'm not saying that "any picture will do" but that this picture is better than no picture. I know when tempers rise in discussions such as this one, it's often counterproductive, so I want to say that although I may have strong opinions I do respect those with alternative views. I know we're all trying to make wikipedia better. Timbo 05:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I totally accept that that is your sincerely held view. Originally, I felt that perhaps this photo should be kept as a placeholder for something better, but as time has gone on my view has hardened somewhat. I must admit that is somewhat a product of the insistence by some that this photo is supported by a consensus, a position I wish to distance myself from, but mostly it's that the arguments against it have tended to reinforce my view that it's not great and those in favour have not been all that strong in my view. Dr Zen 06:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think the picture is great - but it does show the position of the clitoris with respect to the vulva and so isn't totally worthless (which it would have to be to be deleted). I do believe we have consensus- but if you think not how do you propose we settle the matter? I'm kinda against a poll becasue I fear that if we have a poll over the inclusion of this picture and someone comes along at a later date with a better one, then we'll have to start over again because some people will use that as an excuse saying that the last poll was on the old picture so isn't relavent. But if you have read the archives of this page, and follwed the discussions on the VP and do not believe that the community thinks this picture is ok then I suppose a poll is the only way to go? Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 11:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * We had a couple already, didn't we? The issue has been settled, the majority has spoken, and those who can't accept that should be reverted. period. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone)   15:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * But they are argueing that the polls aren't valid. In fact they are as good as accusing me of POV pushing because I have argued that the consensus is for the picture to be on the page - not linked, and not deleted. I dont know, would another poll actually serve a purpose? Probably not IMO. I'll not start one myself. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa the main cause of the current situation is that the question on which people were asked to vote was poorly constructed and that you (and others) continue to misrepresent the result of that vote. This is sad for Wikipedia. - Robert the Bruce 04:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, the main problem is people like *you* who cannot respect the fact that the majority of Wikipedia users actually have common sense and don't agree with your narrowmindedness. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone)   16:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you wish to rely on polls, you need one that unambiguously states that it is about whether there should be a picture. It should not give options. It should simply say, picture yes or no. It should have the widest publicity possible, RfC, the village pump, the mailing list, whatever. If a large number of voters oppose it, you should accept that it is not consensual, regardless how many vote for it. Wikis are not democracies and a majority is not the same thing as a consensus. If the numbers opposing are not large, then you should be prepared to block anyone who removes the picture for vandalism. When that poll is done, if you have won it, which you might or might not, then there should be a straw poll here on this page without the wider publicity perhaps on whether it should be this particular picture. You cannot please everyone on this issue but you can do absolutely everything to try to. Here is the stumbling block for a wiki, Theresa. When they are small, they work as a community. Everyone knows one another, and they know what one another's boundaries are. When they grow large, this is almost impossible. You have to ask yourself whether you want a wiki or you don't. Why do I suggest the solution above? Because a community that purports to be based on civility, and on respect for one another, ought not to pursue paths that are broadly offensive. I believe that those who oppose the pictures are wrong but if I cannot convince them of that, I wonder what the right thing to do then is. I am not convinced that riding roughshod over their views is it. Dr Zen 02:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) ''Another editor indicated that he would revert. Anthony DiPietro, while he didn't post to supply a justification, equally politely refrained from pressing the matter.'' Well, I've been blocked from editing for the past day, so i haven't been able to either edit this article or discuss on the talk page. But I think I made my position rather clear. The clitoris is a very small portion of this image, and a very small portion of the clitoris is depicted in it. Furthermore, the image has a big copyright notice on it (which takes up more space than the clitoris itself. Therefore I think it's better for us to have neither the image inline nor a link to it.  We can link to vulva for those who are looking for a diagram of the vulva.
 * I agree that the issue of the use of photos to illustrate articles on the human genitals should be resolved. I don't believe consensus will be achieved. This vote should be uncluttered with issues relating to specific pics or drawings. It should be to establish the principle. The mess that was created through the earlier process needs to be fixed. - Robert the Bruce 03:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that there is a mess. For instance, I reverted Anthony DiPietro's change with a polite request for him to justify his change and promising not to press my reversion.  Another editor indicated that he would revert. Anthony DiPietro, while he didn't post to supply a justification, equally politely refrained from pressing the matter.  We've had a pretty polite discussion, Dr Zen said that he'd changed his mind and thought the picture should be removed, you say the same.  But I think the sense of the discussion is that neither of you is prepared to make an issue of it and you have little general support for the proposition of removing the current picture without any replacement.  Now things change, and in a few weeks if we still have the same photograph it could be that as a result of discussion we could agree by consensus to remove it.  On the other hand it could be that we will agree to keep it indefinitely.  This seems like a pretty normal Wikipedia editing process.  I felt earlier that a vote might help, but on reflection I think I'm happy with the way things are.  I will continue to listen to the concerns expressed here about the picture and make my mind up. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm willing to link to the image though, as a compromise solution. As for polls, if a poll is made which shows overwhelming support for keeping this particular image inline (let's say 80%), then I won't press the issue any further. If one day we come along with a different image, then obviously we won't have consensus to keep that image. But that doesn't mean I'd remove it. At the most I'd replace it with this image, if I thought this image was better. Making a poll for keeping an image is rather dumb. That's going to come down to two interpretations, both of which I think the answer is obviously clear. 1) Should we have an image on this page? Of course we should, this just isn't it.  2) Is any image better than no image? Of course not. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Compromise proposal
anthony &#35686;&#21578; writes:
 * I'm willing to link to the image though, as a compromise solution.


 * I am actively searching for a more suitable photograph. Meanwhile I'd like to see if we can reach a consensus to replace the current image with a link, as you suggest, until I or someone else can obtain such a photograph. I would rather have a link and an unprotected page that people can edit than the current protected page which cannot be edited. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with a link. Linking to an image implies that it is offensive, or immoral or bad in some way. I don't consider a picture of a female body part offensive and would respectfully ask that those who do - simply not to visit this page, or turn off images in their browser before doing so. I'm sorry if some people feel that that makes me a bad peson who is not willing to compromise - but it's how I feel. I was willing to add a neutral disclaimer to the top of the article, but i was outvoted on that. Linking to the picture is more drastic than adding a small disclaimer so I expect that the community will say no as well. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 13:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I for one don't think linking to a picture is more drastic than adding a small disclaimer. But that's cause I don't see how linking to the image implies anything other than the plain truth of the matter, the image offends some people. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually i dispute this. As far as I can tell no one has actually been offended by the picture. Everyone who wants something done (rather than just leaving it alone) appears to be arguing that they don't want someone else offended. Now that may be that people are unwilling to admit that they find a part of the female anatomy offensive - but if that is the case we have to ask why they are reluctant to admit it? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 13:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I could show this to my girlfriend and ask her if she's offended if that is enough to have you change your mind. I don't think it's necessary, though. 198 called the old image a porn picture, Itai said "If such pictures, without proper warnings, became commonplace, I myself would be unable to browse it publicly."  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The old picture was uploaded by someone who replaced the wikipedia logo with a penis photo. Also it had fingers in so it may well have been a porn picture. Itai's comment doesn't show that he finds the picture offensive. If he was offended by them he wouldn't look at them privately either. So yes please do show it to your girlfriend to see what she thinks. Please ask her to put her comments here. Ta. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 13:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My reading of Itai's comments indicate that he was offended by the image. But I did miss the meaning "publicly", so maybe I'm wrong.  Is whether or not my girlfriend is offended going to make a difference to you?  If not, I'd rather not show this to her, because I don't want her to think I'm spending my time working on a porn site. I have a really hard time believe that you honestly don't think anyone would be offended by this image.  Most soft-core porn magazines wouldn't even include something this graphic. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Let me make my position clear. I believe that if a person goes to an encylopedia page about a clitoris, and they find a labelled picture, like this - that is intended to be informative, that the overwhelming majority will not be offended. They might be surprised, even mildly shocked. But they wont be offended. Soft core porn magazines ar irrelavent because this picture isn't porn. Even hard core porn mags would not show this picture because this picture isn't porn. it isn't sexy or titilating. It's just an anatomy pic. I do not believe your girlfriend will think you are working on a porn encylopedia because of this picture. It's possible she might be surprised or embarrased, but I doubt that she would be offended. Will it change my mind if she is? I don't know - I suppose it depends on if she could explain what is offensive about the picture.
 * Another thing we need to take into account is the possibilty of offending people by linking to the picture. By linking, we are in effect saying - this picture is offensive. But I find the fact that people find a part of the body offensive offensive myself. My true feelings on this matter are - how dare others people (mostly men) say my body is dirty or ugly or offensive or something to be ashamed of. For the religious amoung them. Who the bloody hell are you for saying that God's creation offends you? For the prudish amoung them - women have for years been kept in the dark about thier own bodies -how dare you try to imply that an informative or educational picture shouldn't be shown in the article. Of course girls should learn about their own bodies, and should [shouldn't? -AD] need to feel ashamed about wanting to know. And they will feel ashamed about clicking on a link to the "offensive" picture. I've not really voiced these concerns because i do not want to escalate the argument. What I am saying above does however reflect how I feel emotionally about it. I dont want to imply that anyone here actually thinks that a picture of a clitoris is offensive. But I do accuse you of pandering to those that do. What's more you are doing it without them even making an argument - you are doing their dirty work for them. (I've hesitated over hitting the save button, but in the end i decided that if you understood how i really felt about the issue, you might understand why I am so uncomfortable about removing the pic. I doubt that I am the only one who feels this way) Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Theresa, as it happens I share your views about clitorises. I feel much the same way about my penis, although I'm not actually upset that others are offended by it. I just think they're rather unenlightened. However, I feel your disdain for others' views, however wrong they are, is misplaced. "How dare you"? Well, how dare any one of us differ with one another's views, when each of us knows that our beliefs are reasonable? Do I expect to see a picture of a clitoris when I click on the article clitoris? Come on, Theresa, you know damned well that at least some people don't and won't. Do you expect to see a picture of a fuck at that page? Would you endorse one? What if a child came here to try to find out what the word meant and what its place in the world was? Should we not illustrate the concept? (This is not to say that I think that article needs a picture; merely to try to demonstrate to you and to Tony that your argument, which you feel is entirely compelling, is flawed, because you would expect a picture, but we are not talking about you.) It is not dirty work to encompass others' views. It is the work we do here. We are not supposed to be pushing a liberal, Western view, however right you (and I) think it is. Dr Zen 04:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Dr Zen-please dont put your reply above anthony's without indenting. Anyone reading this comment will think anthony is replying to this comment of mine rather than the one before. If you have anymore to say then do so at the bottom of this section. Right on to the answer. I 'do not have disdain for other people's POV (and find your saying so offensive) I explaned above that my rather passonate comment were intended to give a feel of how I in my hear of hearts felt about this issue. It was not intended to be taken as an argument - but just to give those I am argueing with a feel for where i am coming from.(Anthony understood this, you do not seem to have done) I do not believe it unreasonable not to want to look at a picture of a clitoris. I do feel that those people who don't want to see such pictures wont actually look at an article entitled clitoris though. I am not pushing a liberal view, I am pushing the status quo and stating that those who think otherwise should convince the community. Do I expect to see fucking at the fuck article? No becasue if you had read that article you'd see see that it's about the word not the act - but yes if it's possible to show the act in a still photo then I would support it in asutable article copulation perhaps or mating or sexual intercourse(I haven't checked the articles).This is not a childrens encylopedia, but if a child came across a picture of a clitoris or sexual intercourse then no I don't think that would be a bad thing. I am not saying it's dirty work to encompass others views, I'm saying it's dirty work to censor this encylopedia because of it. Anthony thinks linking to the picture instead of displaying it inline is a sensible compromise. I do not ( I consider it mild censorship) I don't know what you think because you haven't said so as far as I can tell. This does not make me a hardliner. I am very willing to consider other compromises. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing someone being offended by an image appearing in an encyclopedia article and someone being offended by the existence of the body part that is being depicted. Since I'm not offended by the picture in this article (I was shocked, but not displeased by it), I'll draw an analogy to a picture of a penis on the penis article.  I suppose I need to actually check before I make this statement so I will.  OK, now that that's out of the way, I can say that I am offended by this image.  I'm not offended by my own penis, I pretty much ignore it.  What I'm offended by is the presence of an image of a penis in the that Wikipedia article.


 * You say that most people "might be surprised, even mildly shocked" when seeing this image, but "they wont be offended." If someone is shocked by an image (I was the first time I saw it, in that I never expected such a graphic depiction to be in Wikipedia), and that person wishes they hadn't seen it, i'd call that being "offended" by the image (I suppose the term "shock" can be used to imply being disturbed, but you seem to agree that being shocked is not the same as being offended).  Just to check, are we on the same page with that rough definition?  It seems we're not, because you said "It's possible [my girlfriend] might be surprised or embarrased, but I doubt that she would be offended."  But being surprised and embarrassed means that you are offended, as far as I'm concerned.


 * Even hard core porn mags would not show this picture because this picture isn't porn. Only because of intent.  If a porn mag showed this picture, it would be porn.  But my purpose was to say that this image is likely to be surprising to a number of people.  And I think you agree with that.


 * how dare others people (mostly men) say my body is dirty or ugly or offensive or something to be ashamed of Besides the fact that no one said this, I'm not sure why you think it is mostly men who would believe this.  In my own personal experience, I can't think of any men who would likely be offended by this image, but I can think of quite a few women who would (and probably an equal number of women who wouldn't).  In any case, as I've said above, being offended by this image isn't saying your body is dirty or ugly or something to be ashamed of, and unless you're the one being depicted in the image above no one is even saying that an image of your body can be offensive (which isn't the same as saying your body is offensive anyway, it's just saying that your body can be used to offend, which is true about anyone).


 * For the religious amoung them. Who the bloody hell are you for saying that God's creation offends you? Again, it's not God's creation that offends, it's a very particular image.  To say that this image can't offend would imply that no image could offend.  God didn't create woman with her legs spread and a camera a few inches away.


 * I've hesitated over hitting the save button, but in the end i decided that if you understood how i really felt about the issue, you might understand why I am so uncomfortable about removing the pic. I already pretty much guessed this.  It seems to me your explanation is essentially that you're trying to make a social change by including this image.  And that's essentially the reason that I oppose including it.  I don't think Wikipedia should focus itself on making social change.


 * 15:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for social change. it's already changed. You are the one who is trying to change it back. Also saying that you are only offended by this one image paves the way for another image. is there any photo of the clitoris that you would find acceptable (if not then it's the clitoris itself that upsets you not the one image) User:Theresa knott


 * A photo of a vulva is perfectly acceptable, just not inline in an encyclopedia article on clitoris. I therefore think your question is invalid, but I'll answer it anyway.  I would find Image:Glans clitoridis with adhesion of the preputium.jpg perfectly acceptable in this article, and I think it's a much more appropriate image anyway, as it depicts much more of the clitoris and uses much more of the image to depict it.  And when I said social change I meant social change, not changing what image we depict in Wikipedia.  Seriously, Theresa, you've had reasonable arguments up until this point.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 23:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I still can't make sense of what you're saying. Do you really think that picture of a couple of entwined shalots on a bit of cloth is a fit picture to illustrate a lay article on the clitoris?  What's wrong with a good picture of the vulva with the glans of the clitoris clearly visible? It's what most possessor of a clitoris, and most of their sexual partners, will see of the clitoris.  It's what a girl will see when she looks down and tries to find it.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I still can't make sense of what you're saying. Theresa asked if there was "any photo of the clitoris that [I] would find acceptable".  I answered that I'd find Image:Glans clitoridis with adhesion of the preputium.jpg.  Do you really think that picture of a couple of entwined shalots on a bit of cloth is a fit picture to illustrate a lay article on the clitoris?  I think it's the best we've got right now, and that it's better than nothing.  What's wrong with a good picture of the vulva with the glans of the clitoris clearly visible?  It offends some people, the clitoris is an extremely small portion of the image, very little of the clitoris is shown, it is redundant with the image in vulva, and there is an annoying copyright notice on the bottom. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 03:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * My feelings on this are pretty similar to Theresa's. If my daughter went to this article, I'd prefer that she see a properly labelled photograph like the one that is there now, or something better if possible.  I think we do have to take into account the fact that this is supposed to be an information resource, and will be used mostly by ordinary people, mostly children, who really don't know what an adult vulva looks like or where the clitoris is.  This is why the photograph is very important.  Those who, for whatever reason, think that a clitoris is a taboo or sacred thing, or conversely, a dirty and disgusting thing, that must not be depicted, are probably going to find problems using an encyclopedia properly anyhow, and that is the reason why Wikipedia has a disclaimer; in an encyclopedia, generally, the educational purpose of the work outweighs the sensibilities of the few who would be offended--who should avoid typing or clicking on the word "clitoris" in any case.


 * We should be able expect as a bare minimum that people looking at the clitoris article view this organ of the human body as an important part of the world around them, if for some a rarely seen one, and one that should be depicted in the article. I also think a lot of people will visit the article because they like looking at a woman's clitoris, and this alone is a good reason to incorporate a picture.  This may be their only choice apart from wading through porn sites.


 * I do still want to get agreement to the compromise because it would enable us to continue editing. Also I'm not wedded to that particular picture and I would love to obtain a better one and put it in its place.  I would expect to have a new picture, if thought suitable, incorporated in the article rather than linked.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If my daughter went to this article, I'd prefer that she see a properly labelled photograph like the one that is there now, or something better if possible. I don't think this is the right place.  The place for a photo of the vulva is linked from the vulva article, not the clitoris article.  We don't have a properly labelled photo of a face in the nose article, do we? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Most girls know where their nose is. Many girls do not know where their clitoris is, or what it is for.  I'm sorry, I've tried to see what you're getting at in this often-repeated point, but I still cannot get away from the fact that the labelled diagram is useful to a girl who wants to find her clitoris. Can you try to see why I find this argument so compelling and your argument so trite? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Many girls do not know where their clitoris is, or what it is for. I fail to see how that is a reason to place this image in a certain location.  If many people didn't know where their nose was, would we change to an image of a face on nose?  I don't see how that makes sense.  I still cannot get away from the fact that the labelled diagram is useful to a girl who wants to find her clitoris.  I never disputed that it is useful, I just don't think we're putting it in the right place.  Can you try to see why I find this argument so compelling and your argument so trite?  I just don't see it.  Your argument is a nonsequiter.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 03:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If many people didn't know where their nose was, would we change to an image of a face on nose? I have a funny feeling that you regard this as a rhetorical question.  My answer is, "yes, of course, this is an encyclopedia!"  If something as important as the location and external appearance of an external body part is not common knowledge, then a photograph depicting its whereabout is in my opinion the way to go.  I would find it very difficult to abandon this very basic principle.  An image of a face with the nose clearly delineated is a precise analog for the kind of photograph I think would be perfect for clitoris. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have a funny feeling that you regard this as a rhetorical question. My answer is, "yes, of course, this is an encyclopedia!"  It wasn't entirely rhetorical.  I think the proper place for a labelled face is in the article face, not in each article about every part of the face.  That you essentially disagree with this is useful information.  But saying "of course, this is an encyclopedia" is not very helpful, and it makes me think you're misunderstanding my point.  I don't deny that we should have a labelled vulva in Wikipedia.  I just think clitoris is the wrong place to put it.  Of course I'm not particularly strongly attached to that issue.  If someone wants to put a detailed description of the location of the clitoris complete with a link to this image, I'd be perfectly fine with that solution.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 05:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No offence meant, but do Tony's daughters not have a mother? If they need to come to Wikipedia to find out where there clitorises are, that's an issue for Tony's family to sort out, not us. Dr Zen 03:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Dr Zen your remark is offensive. Fortunately Tony didn't get upset by it. What about children who don't have a mother? For all you know Tony could be a single parent. Please stick to the issues. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree. An encyclopedia is a resource of human knowledge. I taught my kids the basics of programming, yet I do not decry the existence of programming manuals and a programming manual is what they refer to when they want to know how to code a lambda expression or a bit of DML.  We taught them to read and write, but we don't expect them to come to us for help when they fancy doing a bit of solo composition. An encyclopedia entry that purports to be about a body part that is not normally exposed should as a minimum enable a reasonably intelligent reader to locate that body part and distinguish it from other body parts, in my opinion. A neutral point of view requires the author to make as few assumptions about the reader's cultural background as possible, therefore we should err on the side of completeness, knowing that some of our readers come from sheltered backgrounds and will not dare to ask their mothers to show them how to find their clitoris. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are making a persuasive argument for describing where it is, Tony, not necessarily for showing same. And I do not at all agree that we must err on the side of "completeness". Sufficiency will do, I think. And I do not believe an encyclopaedia needs to cater for absolutely everybody. We do not, after all, strive to write in very simple English.Dr Zen 04:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that a good description of the clitoris is essential. A picture is also very important, too. I still don't see what is uniquely offensive about a picture of the clitoris when we already have flaccid erect penises all over the penis article. This is not the only puzzling thing about this affair, but it's one of the most puzzling. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It's also a strawman. Not only did no one ever say that this picture is uniquely offensive, I have specifically said that I am offended by the pictures on the penis article. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 06:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Tony, does this mean you'll join me in pressing for change to the way penis is presented? Cool Hand Luke  06:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, come off it. You know that there has been a similar discussion on the penis page. By all means, let's talk penis rather than clitoris. The argument to my mind is exactly the same. Yours is buggered though. Even the most sheltered boy doesn't need a picture to find his penis. Dr Zen 05:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In fairness, no one has raised the "doesn't show the penis/shows much more than the penis" argument at penis, and it's unlikely because the penis is dominant in those images. You are right that the pictures are controversial though. As I said, discussion there was apparently redirected here in September, October, and November. Cool Hand Luke  06:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll say they're controversial. I think the erect penis picture is directly intended to be confrontational. I do not think there is any argument for its inclusion. I don't personally find it offensive but I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with a due recognition that many would.Dr Zen 06:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not every person who looks up penis is a boy, and not every boy has a penis. Also, it isn't always appropriate to look at one's penis when at a public location. Note that hand shows a picture of a hand. Far more people have hands than have a penis. Most of those hands are visible even when in public, yet no one suggests removing the photos of hands from the hand site. Leave the photos. Nereocystis 06:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The hand article doesn't show a hand in an oft-considered offensive state (as an erection is sometimes considered even within nudism&mdash;the illustration for "hand" is not flipping the bird). What say we copy this discussion to Talk:Penis and link the erect penis? Cool Hand Luke  07:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are very few people on this planet who believe that the public display of hands is offensive. Do you truly believe you can say the same about erect penises?Dr Zen 07:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK. Clitoris, penis, and hand are all body parts which need to be described in an encyclopedia. If you find any of these offensive, don't look at a page which describes them. Just don't take my penis/clitoris/hand away. Note that the finger does show a picture of a hand which some consider offensive, as it should. The penis probably wouldn't exist if it weren't used for sex. Of course, it should be shown erect. Meanwhile, consider Graphic and potentially disturbing images for alternatives for protecting your eyes from offensive body parts. If enough people feel strongly about not wanting to see a penis/clitoris/hand, let's allow them to hide the pictures. Nereocystis 07:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Considering the most popular option in that (ultimately consensusless survey) says "Revist this if it ever becomes a widespread problem that can't adequately be handled on a case by case basis on individual article talk pages as it is now," I think we're the relevant people. It seems a significant number of people do feel fairly strongly about it. Socko 08:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On a related note, sexual positions probably wouldn't exist if people didn't use them; of course we should show sexual intercourse. Why is the missionary position a drawing? Shameful. Socko 08:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection
After seeing the discussion here, I've gone ahead and unprotected the article. &rarr;Raul654 13:01, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

No revert war
I won't indulge in a revert war with those who wish to impose their views here. I have attempted to edit the wiki in keeping with the policy and another editor has reverted my edit. If he is that keen to have this picture, I know that he will revert it time and again. There is no use in forcing the issue with a hardliner. Dr Zen 07:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, sadly another case of "any pic will do" even if it does not show the subject of the article. In fact really sad. - Robert the Bruce 15:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, sadly another case of "this particular pic is undeniably better than no pic" even if it does not show a part of the subject explicitly enough for one vociferous user (while showing the context and location of the subject wonderfully). In fact really sad. - Timbo 17:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but it clearly is deniable. Dr Zen 05:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Previous Poll Results
(moved from above Explanation of Tony Sidaway's reversion of Anthony DiPierro's removal of photograph section. Timbo 08:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, can we all go back to Talk:Clitoris/Archive4 and take a look at the vote? The proposition of replacing the inline image of the clitoris with a link to a specific anatomical drawing was defeated 56 to 8. If we do some vote archaeology, we can see that nearly everyone made comments in his or her particular vote. Looking at these comments, almost all votes seem to have taken the poll as a referendum on displaying the image inline. Some exceptions: From this analysis I conclude that 12 yes votes cannot be construed as supporting inline inclusion of the clitoris photo. 1 of those votes is against inline inclusion of the clitoris photo. Thus we've still got a 44 to 9 outcome, which is obviously very much in favor of inline inclusion of a clitoris photo. Let's not rewrite history, especially when it's staring us in the face. There is ample evidence in the archives. Timbo 06:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony DiPierro voted no in favor of linking to the image and displaying a diagram inline. (Vote #36). Other comments by him show that he is decidedly against including the image inline.
 * jguk voted a witty no in reaction to the horrible/scary diagram. (Vote #38) I can't tell from this vote or other edits whether he is for or against inline image inclusion.
 * Ditto for Ejrrjs (Vote #9).
 * User:Marc_Mongenet didn't provide a comment. (Vote #13)
 * Neither did User:Poccil (Vote #14)
 * Shimmin noted that "A good anatomical diagram could be better than a photograph. However, this anatomical diagram seems to be about the circulatory system, not the external genitalia." I'm going to conclude from this that he's fine with a picture being displayed inline, and he's fine with a better diagram replacing it. If you disagree, call it an ambiguous vote. (Vote #20)
 * Votes 26, 27, 44, 45, 49 and 53 were also commentless and thus ambiguous.
 * You forgot #16, #39, #47. Furthmore, you're ignoring the point that many people may have abstained from voting based on the terrible poll wording and the lack of a good choice. Finally, you have to assume that some people would be willing to compromise when presented specifically with a compromise solution - linking to the image itself. I'm going to assume that this image is considered better than the previous one. It solves a few problems, but introduces new ones.


 * The only ones trying to rewrite history are those saying we already had consensus on this issue. That said, it seems there is probably a large enough majority for me to give in. I won't remove the photo any more. I think we should have a much better diagram than the one we have now, in fact, I think we'd be better off removing the diagram and linking to a better one, but in the interest of not riling people up again, I won't remove the diagram. I think we should remove the copyright notice from the photo. I think the image we put at the top should be an actual clitoris (as in the clitoris should take up more than 50% of the image), something like Image:Glans clitoridis with adhesion of the preputium.jpg perhaps, but a zoomed in version of the current photo if not. I think the photo which is only useful for showing the location of the clitoris should be in a section on the location of the clitoris. We don't even have a very good textual description of what's in the photo. At the very least all the parts labelled in the photo should be explained somewhere in the text. We should either take off the labels or put descriptions in the text. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You either did not read what I wrote or you believe it is wrong to pay any attention whatsoever to divergent views. The latter is rather borne out by: "Wikipedia is not involved in social reproduction. If viewers want to perpetuate the view that a woman's body is shameful and profane, that's their business. But force it on everyone? I think not." Suggesting that you respect others' views is not the same thing as forcing you to share them. The former is part of creating a consensus -- which I take to be an accord in which all are satisfied. The latter is exactly what you are proposing, to force your view that a clitoris is a fit thing to be illustrated in Wikipedia on others. It's a view I share, but I abhor your disdain for consensus.Dr Zen 06:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Whatever Dr Zen, I was simply responding to Robert's and others' persistent assertion that the poll doesn't show anything. On the contrary, many voices were unambiguously heard. As for me supposedly pushing my point of view, I'm actually trying to resolve this dispute in the most satisfactory way. If this article is to be anything but the subject of an ongoing revert war, then decisions must be made by the majority of the community. If you're afraid of the tyranny of the majority, make a policy. In fact, you can help out and have your voice heard at Graphic and potentially disturbing images. And I think there's a difference between pushing my own individual pov regardless of the views of other wikipedians and pushing a pov that coincides with what the vast majority of those who voiced their opinions considers nopv. Timbo 07:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I concur with Timbo. Dr Zen, part of making a consensus is to recognise that convergence is possible by discussion. You can't build a consensus by sitting around and chiding people who have different views from your own, and whose views are in the overwhelming majority, as if the failure to have consensus is their fault. The view that you have highlighted, while couched in ostensibly inclusive and "consensual" terms, is irreconcilable with the majority view because it falsely equates the inclusion of pictures of women's sexual organs in an article about women's sexual organs with "forcing". During the debate it was remarked, firstly, that Wikipedia carries general and specific disclaimers, including (prominently) " Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable." I'd like to suggest that this specific disclaimer should be enough. As you know a second poll on a further disclaimer, to be imbedded in the content, was conducted. This also failed to find favor and was defeated by a wide majority.

So, for those who are likely to be offended, Wikipedia already contains warnings. How much further should we go, in your opinion? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Putting a vague disclaimer on some page which no one reads doesn't justify intentionally and knowingly offending people when it is completely unnecessary. Put another way, the disclaimer says that "many articles contain errors", but that doesn't mean we shouldn't remove those errors when we see them.  "Avoid profanity (words or images that could be considered offensive by typical Wikipedia readers), but not at the expense of accuracy." (Profanity)  I don't see how linking to the image reduces accuracy. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You what? I can't build a consensus by chiding people who have different views from my own that they ought to show respect for others' views? I should build it by entirely disregarding their views? Jeez, man, I thought I was working on a wiki. Looks like I wandered into something completely different from that.Dr Zen 07:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You feel that others are disregarding minority views. I'm sorry that you feel that way.  Look at the comment I wrote when I reverted Anthony Dipietro's deletion of the picture.  Does it look like I'm disregarding the views of others?  Here is what I wrote. Anthony, I think it looks as if you may be attempting to revive the reversion war over the picture.  Nevertheless I'm open to persuasion if you can justify the removal of the picture.  I've reverted your edit for now because of an inadequate explanation, but would not revert a second time on this occasion. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * A lot of others are disregarding minority views. Just look at the poll. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * A poll is an attempt to gather personal opinions. To accuse someone of "disregarding minority views" because he or she expresses a personal view when asked to do so seems a little counter-productive to me.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * To insist that there must be a picture -- any picture -- even though it is offensive to several editors working on the page is disregarding minority views, Tony, whichever way you cut it. Dr Zen 23:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that most of the arguments being made in the poll was that the image wasn't offensive to them, therefore we should keep it (without any mention of what can be done to come up with a solution acceptable to both positions). That's disregarding the minority view, in my opinion. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the argument that has persuaded me. The hardliners' approach is "we won the poll, so there must be a picture". This doesn't take into account the opposition at all. Solutions that do not include a picture are not harmful to the majority, unless the majority's position is taken to be that they will be offended by the lack of a picture (I accept that this probably is Tony's position) but solutions that do are harmful to the minority.Dr Zen 23:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I can only repeat that I think you're comparing apples and oranges. The poll question was of the form "should we do X or Y?"  Those who thought we should do X put forward their reasons for doing X, those who thought we should do Y put forward their reasons for doing Y.  It's in the nature of a Wiki that the natural majority in a poll does not have the whip hand; it only takes a small number of determined minority voters to stop the majority running roughshod over the minority view as would tend to happen in a democratic referendum. quod, as one might say, vides.--[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Not being offended by Y is not a reason to do Y unless you believe that the opinion of those who are offended by Y should be disregarded. it only takes a small number of determined minority voters to stop the majority running roughshod over the minority view as would tend to happen in a democratic referendum  As long as some of those determined voters are admins, I suppose.  Otherwise you're just going to be blocked for disagreeing with the majority and/or the page is going to be protected on the majority viewpoint.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The page is protected on the majority's choice. The minority is threatened with repercussions if it pursues its view...Dr Zen 23:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, that poll was so poorly conducted that it's not worth reconstructing the results for alternatives that were never offered. Almost no effort has been made to date on a consensus solution, and some of the comments from the archive reflect an incredible hostility to even considering compromise: To be fair, many of the "antis" haven't been compromise-minded either, but one of them was banned from this page. I imagine some of the resistance above was bred as a reaction to such hardliners. Thus, it might now be an ideal time to try working toward compromise again. Cool Hand Luke  17:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * vast majority of sane people are not offended by it 11-12 Nov 2004
 * this is the 21st century right? Not the dark ages? Just checking. 13 Nov 2004
 * Other than opinions based on faulty appeals to nebulous and shame-filled "moral standards", nobody has provided an argument for a disclaimer. 19:01, 26 Oct 2004
 * I cannot believe this is considered a matter for discussion in a modern encyclopedia. 20:43, 4 Nov 2004
 * No. This isn't the Dark Ages. 23:13, 13 Nov 2004
 * You may have a problem with looking at pictures of fannies. Do not presume that everyone has your problem. 19 Oct 2004 [Ed: emphasis not added]
 * User:Leif has said it better than most here, please do not give in to this disclaimer-silliness. 16:31, 25 Oct 2004 [Ed: "Give in"? Are we at war?]
 * Oppose. What next? Disclaimers on mirrors? Warning: If you stand in front of this mirror without any clothes on, you may see yourself naked. 01:24, 8 Nov 2004
 * I'm all for trying to come up with a consensus solution, but I don't see the point of running another poll. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 17:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it's an ideal time to work something out now. My analysis of the poll shows that many voices were already heard, though, and discounting them by calling the poll a "mess" is counterproductive at best. If the "antis" have any other ideas for compromise,etc., I am all ears, as are all other wikipedians (I hope). However, if supporters of the image are going to have to continually justify themselves to a minority of offended parties, then it's going to be very exhausting. Let's come up with a long-term solution. Timbo 17:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Their voices are heard. I don't think we should change the page until we can work something out, but the previous poll and spirit of consensus was poor enough that it doesn't put the lid on this debate. I agree with Anthony about not having another poll (that should be last resort, and only then after carefully crafting a poll), but I stongly disagree with his reverts. I took your comments above to suggest that there was somehow already consensus for this, which there is not. Cool Hand Luke  18:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I agree with you. I've been watching this page for months, so I suppose I'm more ready to accept the majority view rather than an elusive concensus. The "compromises" put forth haven't been very appealing, and there are a lot of people with strong viewpoints involved. However, I'm open to the possibility of a new, awesome compromise idea that satisfies everyone. Otherwise, a good poll should suffice. Timbo 18:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again with the compromise proposal
We already know pretty much how everybody feels. I would not support a proposal to exclude all possible clitoris photographs from this article, but as I've said earlier I'm open to persuasion. In the meantime I have proposed that we ask for the page protection to be lifted and replace the current photograph with a link to the same photograph for the few days that I think it will take for me to ask around my more exhibitionist friends and obtain a more appropriate GFDL picture. I suggest that this provides us with a way forward that grants concessions to all points of view except those who want to dig in their heels. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with you except for linking the current picture, however temporary. Call me digging in my heels, but I'm offended by linking the picture for any amount of time. The skeptic in me also fears that the current antis will find something wrong with any new picture, and thus prolong the debate indefinitely. Timbo 18:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We can't reach consensus without trust. The antis know they could not win an edit war at the moment and any attempt to do so will probably result in more serious sanction than has been used so far. In short, the pro-photo lobby holds all the aces. However this situation could sour relations between editors who probably will collaborate on other pages and so both sides should, in the interests of Wikipedia, try to reach convergence if it is possible. I don't see any downside to putting a link in for a few days and restoring the picture (and the protect, if it should prove necessary) if it should prove impossible to find a better picture by 00:01 on Monday, 20th. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Tony, this is not a pro or anti photo issue. There are undercurrents which you refuse to acknowledge. What about the sub-group that wants an "in your face pic" of the genitals at all costs and the other sub-group that is OK with a pic as long as it is suitable and appropriate? - Robert the Bruce 13:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In my opinion any picture that depicts a clitoris in the context of the vulva is going to be "in your face". As far as I'm aware the idea that there exists a subgroup that does not want the best depiction of the clitoris is a chimera.  There is no such subgroup. There are differences of opinion on the suitability of the current picture.  All agree that it is not ideal, some go so far as to claim that it is not at all suitable, others (myself included) think it will do for now because it shows the location of the clitoris quite well.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 21:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You make some very good points. I'd rather just leave the picture inline until a new one came along, but in the interests of wikipedia and conflict resolution I'd support linking it until Monday. Let's go for it. Timbo 18:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What exactly would be more appropriate about your picture? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 19:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would show the clitoris more clearly. The objection voiced most often, in my recollection, has been that in the picture the clitoris is obscured. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Even if it's not accepted as a replacement image it would probably be informative to have in addition to the other photo - not that I think either should be inlined, but I've probably lost that argument. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 04:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Click here to see a photograph of the clitoris in context above the vulva The external part of the clitoris amounts to a small, sensitive knob at the anterior end of the visible female reproductive anatomy. I'm glad you're also working for consensus and improvement of the article. If we do link to it, put it in a box on the side (like this) so that it's more noticeable. - Sockpuppet Socko

Hmm what happens on Monday? What happens when a better picture is found? What happens when someone tries it on penis and vulva and so on. What happens when someone tries it on breast or michealangelo's David or ankle or foot or hair or woman or a picture of a mixed race couple? Where will this compromise end? I am not happy with linking to this picture. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It ends when we have built an encyclopaedia that all of its contributors are proud of.Dr Zen 00:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You have to admit that seems very unlikely to happen in the near future. I think the only way that a true consensus is going to be formed is to give anyone the ability to automatically link to certain images rather than display them inline.  Even this is opposed by some hardliners, but I think we can get over that.  Then we get to fight over which will be the default for anonymous users, and that's probably something we can never come to a consensus about. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 03:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think giving the people the option show all images as a link rather than displayed is very sensible. If it's done for all images rather than "offensive ones" we stifle all argument over - "is this particular pic offensive or not?" I'll not comment on what the default for non logged in users should be - we can argue about that later. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what I was referring to by the "hardliner" argument. Giving people the option to link to all images which anyone finds offensive doesn't have to be controversial.  And if you don't intend to turn on the option you shouldn't be involved in any controversy derived from the option anyway.  Further, if people are interested in a more finely tuned system we could come up with one.  One thing I suggest we start doing now is start tagging images to describe the content just like we tag images to describe the license.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem would be coming up with a NPOV tagging system. This would preclude such labels as "content unsuitable for minors" and "objectionable", which are decidedly POV. "Photographic depict of primary sexual organs" on the other hand, is a possible. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's hard to come up with an NPOV tagging system. "Some users may find this objectionable" would be NPOV, just as "The individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, and subsequent persons who place it into articles, assert that this qualifies as fair use" is. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 19:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The latter statement refers to an identifiable set of people, whereas the former is very imprecise. On what grounds does this poorly defined set of unidentified people find the picture objectionable and, even more important, how does a given user know that he probably does or does not belong to that group? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This is crazy talk. NPOV does not mean "be neutral". Read the policy. It means "include all views". Tagging it "potentially offensive" is not POV if you know damned well that it might be offensive to someone; it's a statement of fact. Dr Zen 23:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've read the policy, but I'm not sure that you have read and understood my point. "Potentially offensive" is too vague.  How do I know whether a given image is "potentially offensive"?  Or rather, unless the picture is of kittens of puppies, how do I know it is not? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do agree it's highly unlikely to happen soon, if ever. But I don't think it hurts for all contributors to keep in mind that it's a worthy goal, and not to be quite so dismissive of others' concerns, even if they seem unfounded. Dr Zen 04:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It will never end. I don't see this as a problem. The process is an interesting one. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK let's try it and see.In the interests of compromise (although against my better judgement) I'm going to put the link in. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We may have been a bit naive to assume that we could link the picture, even temporarily, without a backlash. I guess it's a reminder that none of us speaks for a whole side of the issue, and that there are still a lot of people who feel strongly about its inclusion. I think it's a very slippery slope, but am OK with linking for the time being in the interest of doing something to resolve this. Timbo 22:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win. (Ford Prefect) And yes, I'm talking about them. Ejrrjs | What? 23:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You know that could apply either way? Personally, I don't mind a picture (although I do not like this picture). However, I know that there are people who do. I believe a consensual page would bring a solution that somewhat satisfied everyone. However, clearly, some believe there should be a picture regardless of others' views. There is a fundamental divide in Wikipedia, I fear, between those who believe it should be built on consensus as far as possible, and those who believe that the majority view should always prevail. Dr Zen 00:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course I know, I've chosen my words to that effect. Personally, I don't mind NOT having a picture. There's no picture here: es:Clítoris, but I won't bother to add one. However, I unconfortable with (other people's) stubborness. Should I yield for sake of "consensus"?. Consensus is not always possible. If that happens, it is better to rely on majorities, clear majorities as in this case. Ejrrjs | What? 12:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in what the "majority" decided as indicated by the vote? For the record the question was: - Robert the Bruce 13:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

QUESTION: Who would vote for replacing the second image on this page with this link? anatomical drawing


 * However, clearly, some believe there should be a picture regardless of others' views This is a somewhat loaded statement.  One could equally say that "some believe that there should be no picture, regardless of the majority view that there should."  Those who want a picture are seriously mischaracterized by you when you falsely claim that they want any picture.  Those who want a picture have shown considerable latitude.  Some who do not want the current picture have also shown considerable latitude.  The term "hardliner" would only properly apply to those, should they exist, who would flat-out refuses to consider anything but no picture at all, or (and I'm pretty sure these people don't exist) would flat-out refuse to contemplate changing the current picture.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, what can you do? Even some of the hardliners agreed we should link it temporarily but it seems there are some editors who really do want a picture, any picture, regardless of the ongoing discussion. Dr Zen 23:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well come on now. It's quite possible that they want this specific picture, not any picture. Casting yourself as against some crazy movement that's hell bent on absolutely any naughty picture they can find is not helpful to this process. Timbo 00:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Regardless, Timbo, both sides agreed not to include a picture temporarily. Part of the disagreement revolves around the unsuitability of this particular picture. The editors who are reverting the page did not even take part in the discussion. BTW, I call on you, since you are here, to help maintain the consensus page. Dr Zen 00:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agreed. Tony and Theresa agreed. Did the entire "side" agree? Obviously not, judging by the reverts on the page. You can fault them for not saying so on the talk page, but they've voiced their opinions in those edits. If they don't have a something to say beyond what has already been said here (for months), then I don't think refraining from repeating their edit comments in the talk page is inappropriate. And I'd love to maintain the "concensus" page, but we don't have one right now. Timbo 00:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Precisely. For days we've been berated for acting as if being in the majority meant that we could run roughshod over the right of others to revert our favored version of the page.  Now Timbo, Theresa and I all agreed that we would try a linked version, and Theresa even went ahead and produced the linked version.  Now other members of the majority, and administrators who took the poll as a mandate for having a picture illustrating the clitoris, step in and revert our changes, and then they protect the page when the minority restarts the revert war.  And now this is where the minority learns that the freedom to revert what others have done cuts both ways.  There is no way except by widening the discussion and convincing the others--including the admins--that ours is the right way to proceed, to get out of this deadlock.   In my view this propensity of some on the minority side to engage in revert warring is not helping matters.  The various accusations being flung around against the administrators isn't helping matters, either.  The majority side wouldn't need administrators to impose its will in any case.  If admins were not involved in protecting this page, we would just sit around and conduct a round-robin reversion of attempts to remove the picture, and wait for the minority members with enouth stamina to keep it up to be blocked for breaking the 3RR.  Having administrators around cools such open warfare and encourages discussion of the kind we have had. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hardliners
So much for consensus. Both sides here agreed we would use a link temporarily while we discussed the issues and tried to find a solution that all were happy with (or at least could live with). Unfortunately, there are some hardline POV pushers who simply do not subscribe to the notion of consensus and will oppose even the temporary solution because it is so important to them to shock and offend people.

Once again, I note that respecting others' views even when you do not agree with them is not "censorship". It seems that some here are so keen on showing no respect for others that they take the very suggestion that they ought to as a deadly insult. Dr Zen 00:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Have you attempted to contact the people who removed the link and replaced it by a photograph and asked them to participate in, or at least read, the discussion?
 * No, I haven't had a chance, Tony.
 * I have.
 * I thank you for that.
 * Are you interested in reaching a consensus that all of us are happy with, including those people?
 * Yes, I am, but I can't see how that can be said of them.
 * Pointing the finger is no way to build consensus.
 * If so, let's discuss the situation. If you're not interested, then carry on blaming others for the problem.
 * Erm, hello? Who exactly is to blame then, Tony? You, I and Timbo are discussing it here, but others simply disrespect that.
 * Nobody is to blame. There are genuine strong differences of opinion.  That we attempt to reach consensus is no reflection upon those who don't.  Let's not set ourselves up on a pedestal--it's a long, long way down!
 * We won't get consensus if we insist on blaming the other side, but if you want the easy way out, here's your opportunity. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If you believe ignoring the shared views of both sides is a good way to build consensus, then you have a peculiar idea of consensus.Dr Zen 00:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't claim that those people who aren't working to build a consensus are doing so. That would be silly.  I'm talking about you and me.  The fact that you and I are seeking consensus doesn't give us a right to look down on others who may have their reasons to oppose such moves, or are simply unaware that there is a significant minority that opposes what they view as consensus.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not wish to discuss this any further with you. I find it hard to believe you are discussing this in good faith when you support the actions of those who disregard the consensus, such as it is.Dr Zen 01:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have taken part in the discussion on this clitoris matter many moons ago, and still is not resolved, even though some movement has occurred. The original image has been successively doctored; first photo-retouching the nails and then adding an enlarged version. Now that has been replaced, and it continues. Fine. Just keep something there. Argue about how many images and which ones, but for Odin's sake, slot it inline. -- unsigned

Remember the old photo?
I believe it's not on en, but still in nl here. It's a bit more explicit. I know there were unknown copyright issues, but other than that? Timbo 00:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It's been established that it's a copyvio. In any case, the poorness of the current photo is only half the problem. Still, solving half the problem would at least be a way forward! Dr Zen 00:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "The poorness of the current photo is only half the problem," you say? Please outline your view of the entire problem so we can try to solve it. And the copyright issues notwithstanding, what's wrong with said picture? Timbo 00:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Please read the foregoing discussion, where the problem is outlined in great detail. Dr Zen 00:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could be so kind as to reiterate here so that I and everyone that happens upon this page will be clear on exactly what your objections are. Timbo 01:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. I'm tired of it. I've done my bit to try to help this page to a true consensus but the opposition is just too fierce. Trying to make me repeat ad nauseam the discussion above is not conducive to creating consensus at all. The discussion is there for anyone to read.Dr Zen 01:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Listen Zen, I and others have had to repeat our views ad nauseum for months. Months. In the interest of clarity and expediting conflict resolution I think it would be a good idea if we were to state exactly what our views are in as concise a manner as possible. Timbo 01:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry I cannot approve of that Picture, let's just stick to the current one.--198 23:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)