Talk:Clitoris/Archive 6

Abuse of admin powers
Has Schneelocke taken leave of his senses? Reverting an article and then protecting it is a flagrant abuse of his adminship.Dr Zen 00:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think he's following the protection policy outlined here:

''Additionally, when protection is due to a revert war, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the version favoured by those more closely complying with the guideline on repeated reverts. See wikipedia talk:revert for the discussion on this.''

There is undeniably a revert war and Schneelocke clearly chose the version favored by the party that has more closely complied with the three-revert policy. You had reverted twice within the preceding hour and Schneelocke was therefore at liberty to choose the alternative version. As admins have gotten involved here I strongly recommdend that we politely inform them that their intervention may be counter-productive in this case. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bullshit. I have complied with the policy entirely. It is clearly intended for those cases where the 3RR has been breached. Two reverts are permitted. I am no closer or further from breaching the policy than anyone else unless I actually breach it, which I haven't, and won't. You support him solely because he supports the version you want, despite our having agreed a compromise, which he has not respected. I'm very disillusioned with the behaviour of the hardliners here, including you, Tony. Dr Zen 01:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Easy now. We always protect the The Wrong Version. The only thing I found objectionable here was one again marking it as vandalism. I don't think any of us were being vandals. Certainly not per Vandalism. Other than that, I suspect they were within their right. Cool Hand Luke  05:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I love that Wrong Version article! Especially this definition:
 * Consensus version ("kon-sen-sus ver-zhin") The version of a page that is not presently protected --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I love how people use that description as an excuse to intentionally protect a favored version. It seems to me the whole point was supposed to be that which version was protected was random.  That's clearly not the case here, where we have an admin intentionally pushing his favored version and protecting it, and don't have any admins reversing it.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Have you read that article? Also read the current protection policy. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Was that to me? Because I've read both.  And the protection policy was grossly violated without any reprecussions. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Far from supporting Schneelocke, I think he was wrong to protect, particularly to vandal-protect, the page. His actions were not an abuse of his administrator powers, however, because he is supposed to use his discretion and this is what he did here. Since you did very quickly do two reverts and nobody else did two reverts you were complying with the intent of Three revert rule less faithfully than others, even if you did not disobey the letter. I suggest that you join the Harmonious editing club; I find membership is a constant reminder to be frugal in one's use of the power to reverts another's edits. I have not accused you of breaking the 3RR. I am not a hardliner, I urge you to abandon this counter-productive and insulting term. [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I might remind everyone that Tony proposed the compromise. Let's not throw around accusations. Timbo 01:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * But admins are not following this policy:


 * Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with


 * This is a clear breach of policy, breached by more than one admin on this page. Mrfixter 01:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware Schneelocke has not been involved with the page in the sense described in that section:

"(involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page)"

Other admins may have done; feel free to submit evidence with a view to an RfC. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Right, involvement includes what you outlined, but does not exclude anything either. Look at the history of the page, there has been admin involvement, undeniably. The vprotect is also a little disingenuous. RfC's are all well and good, but some good faith shown by admins wouldn't be amiss, before "going to the mattresses". --Mrfixter 01:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well innuendo is all very well, but I think you really should get your accusations out into the open instead of being vague like this. Why can't you be specific?  The history lists are openly viewable. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think I need to spoonfeed anyone here. As you pointed out, the history lists are openly viewable. I don't like innuendo either ("Other admins may have done"), but I like admins abusing their power even less. If you don't like that, feel free to submit evidence with a view to an RfC! --Mrfixter 02:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In saying "other admins may have done", I'm simply allowing that, although I had ascertained that Schneelocke has not breached the rule, I didn't rule out that you may have been referring to other administrators who have protected this page--and there have been many. The history list shows protects on Clitoris by administrators Schneelocke, Raul654, violetriga, sannse, Ta bu shi da yu, Ezhiki, Haham hanuka, Silsor, Theresa Knott and Hadal. Since you are making an accusation it must be based on your experience of wrongdoing. Accordingly I asked you to be specific and give examples. Please do so. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Dr Zen makes a very good point here. This needs to be developed. I believe the misuse of sysop/admin powers is a greater threat to Wikipedia than random vandalism. There is a danger that "gangs" of sysops/admins are forming here where they band together to force "consensus" upon articles through "mobbing" of individuals and the use of "tag-team reverting". What is needed is a protocol which would bind sysops/admin to never use sysop/admin powers in articles that they edit. (For "edit" in this context read where they are actively involved in content editing and the discussions thereof.) This could work if a similar system like elsewhere on the web is instituted. This would require these people to specifically "watch" articles they want to actively take part in. Where they get involved in articles which are not "watched" their username would have a suffix "(A)" (indicating admin). With respect to breaches of policy or rules violation or (the current favourite) misuse of admin powers penalties should be most severe (on the basis that they should know better). One has to stop little grey people becoming little tin-gods on wikipedia at all costs. Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Robert the Bruce 03:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow this edit war has been on-going for about 3 months, let's try to be civil people. --198 03:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This clitoris affair is years old, not months. And it takes no prophet to predict clitoris and the sight thereof shall always be at the forefront of contentious spots. So conserve your strenght. We will still be hewing this article a year from now and beyond.


 * To Robert I would note that reversion is not an admin power per se. And as for admins being "against" his cause, it is a fact that several admins have "tag teamed" to try to delete the original clitoris image in the past. Apart from those incidents, both the editing, replacement of images etc. have been done by both admins and garden variety editors. So this article is a very poor example for his thesis. -- unsigned (was posted by 213.243.182.63)


 * View the history lists. That is the only evidence that matters, and can support/not support my claims. --Mrfixter 17:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * My experience has been that it is most often the admin types who hinder more than help to work out disagreements over content (especially when they are personally involved). Then we have admins who pick up "rv" in recent changes and just lay protection on the page without any understanding of the particular article and its history. There are clearly contentious subjects which will always be subject to heated debate, edit wars, revert wars etc etc and Wikipedia should understand and respect this. There should be a "moderated" tag placed on such articles whereby a specific process needs to be followed to protect the article (and thereby the reputaion of wikipedia) from hit and run vandalism and yes ... the sadly all too common occurrance of the abuse of admin powers. - Robert the Bruce 11:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have reviewed Robert's criticism of my behavior and agree that it was hypocritical to get into trading insults. I have edited this section to remove all personal insults and accusations of wrongdoing. I apologise to all concerned for my own. If you feel I've been overzealous in trimming, please accept my apologies and restore text. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK Tony thanks for that. I would request you take this further and reconsider the close attention you continue to give me despite my kindest and most earnest requests to avoid this behaviour. I would genuinely appreciate if you would give this matter serious attention. - Robert the Bruce 18:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If your public statements merit comment then comments will be made--by me and others.  This is what the discussion pages are intended for. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please enlighten me
I haven't edited this page in months, and I hesitate to get involved here, but why was the old image, which was agreed upon by MANY wikipdeia members to stay and which clearly was much better at showing where the clitoris actually lies (externally at least), removed from this article? Does it still exist? If not, why was it deleted? I also might be wrong here, but it seems to me that this page has become a fighting ground for users who wish to censor the wiki as a whole. Things clearly have changed around here in the few months I have been absent, however I refuse to believe that this sort of blatant censorship has become acceptable here. I'd just like to say, that there isn't, never was, and never will be anything to stop those who want a censored wikipedia from creating their own censored version; all the content is free (libre). If I'm coming off strong here, it is only because I'm not completely sure what is going on here. Now, to be a little more to the point; I think that any article on the clitoris will be more effective if there is a photograph of a clitoris in it. One which shows the external clitoris un-obscured by the labia of clitoral hood (like the current image). Also, the current image is far too small to be of any real use for illustration. If a person were to come to this article to try and actually learn about the clitoris, I feel that the 2 diagrams that are currently on the page would be more likely to confuse than to inform a person. My suggestion to those who are trying to remove/censor images that they feel are inappropriate is that they give up now, because it will never happen. I myself have argued in the past for the institution of a tagging system for questionable content. I think that the most productive thing that can be done on that front would be the creation of templates/tags for pages that could contain objectionable material. I don't think that any wikipedian would have a problem with a NPOV tag for pages some would find objectionable, like the image tag used for categorizing. However, I think that this is probably the only possible compromise that would even remotely satisfy both sides here. Now, I could be completely out of touch with the whole problem here, but if this is anything like what was going on last time I was involved with this page, I have a feeling I'm not. &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  06:45, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * We're still looking for a better image. The old one was discovered to be a copyright violation. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on tagging, and think your analogy to the NPOV tag is excellent. The way we determine if an article is disputed is that someone disputes it. The way we know an image is offensive is that someone is offended by it. The disanalogy is that NPOV flags are meant to be temporary, while this solution should be semi-permanent.
 * If there is renewed interest in a disclaimer, I would like to do something like I did at Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. Basically, you can use the article itself as a template to produce a censored version. The VfD on this solution is going very well in favour of keep. This solution, however, would make more sense at Penis where there are many such images. By offering alternative versions, I think there's almost no limit to the sort of content we can present, and lifting editorial constraint is much better for Wikipedia. We could change pictures without renewed calls of pornography; we would just point out that the alternative version remains available. Cool Hand Luke  22:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't go this far with tagging. If someone wants an alternative version, they are more than welcome to copy the article somewhere else. As I said above, the content is free. I was saying that most people and I would not have any problem with making some sort of category with a templated NPOV message like Category:Potentially Offensive Material. Obviously, and made apparent by the past conversations, this is subjective (but even free use is somewhat subjective).. So, it's only purpose would be to serve as a possible warning to potential readers who would be concerned with this sort of thing. I don't see anything wrong with a courtesy warning such as this, and I don't think many wikipedians would. However, once we are catering the article to possiblly offended visitors, we are going too far, and this I would consider censorship and non-NPOV.    &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  22:55, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * So offering a version of the article to diffuse the concerns of people here is censorship? Do explain. If we think the article is worth warning about, why would an alternate version not be useful? I think we must let even those that would be scared away by a warning message learn something about the body. Cool Hand Luke  01:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Removing an image from an article because it could be considered offensive to some is censorship. As I said before, there is nothing stopping anyone from forking a new wikipedia from this one with their own rules. There is already another fork out there that uses what is considered to be right by the majority rather than NPOV. It was forked by some people who didn't believe NPOV was the right way to go. Censorship is non-NPOV; therefore I can not support it in any way. I would not be against a NPOV warning system, and I think most wikipedians would not fight such an effort. However, when we start creating non-NPOV articles to cater to certain individuals most wikipedians, including myself, would say we are going too far. As I said before, I would support an effort to tag potentially disturbing articles. People could even go as far as categorizing pages by which culture an article/element is disturbing to. This could then lead the way to easy user options, or wikipedia programs that allow for the removal of items you do not want to see. Now, I can see how you could think my solution is the same as yours, since they could allow for the same end result. However, I feel that there is a distinct difference. My suggestion of a tagging system can be kept NPOV. Yours can't, because people will always disagree as to how much to censor. However, if you create different levels of tagging for warning messages, or whatever you decide on for a tagging system, as long as you keep the tags/categories NPOV, it can be up to the user to censor the articles, or not, and we as the writers do not have to censor ourselves. I think this is a much more desirable method, and I think it is the path of least resistance if someone was to try and implement any such system. Now, I have no reason to want the wikipedia to be censored, because I am an open-minded individual who is not disturbed by much. However, since I understand other peoples concerns, I would be willing to support someone trying to implement such a NPOV templating/categorizing system.   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  02:37, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, I absolutely oppose any warnings to chase readers and contributers away. I don't advocate a page or project fork, and I don't advocate removing the pictures from wikipedia: both are non-negotiable to me and against the spirit of such a radically free project. But I believe attracting as many readers and contributers as possible is a worthy goal. It's a fallacy to say we don't already disagree with how much to censor: that's why we're still talking about this. It's furthermore a fallacy to say that a tag is less NPOV then a template mirror. If we know the pictures that offend, why not offer the article without them? Allowing divergent groups to diverge releaves enough strain in this case that I think it's waranted. Incidentally, please lodge your vote at Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed. Cool Hand Luke  03:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, tagging items does not have be for warning purposes, there need not be any text based "Warning." Just a statement saying which catagory it is in, which is provided by simply taging an item with a certain template would be enough for most if not all cases. While I appluad your efforts, since you clearly are working hard to have this done the way you have come up with, I still think a method revolving around tagging would be easier, have a better end result (less pages, catagories allow for nice orginization, etc), and would encounter less resistance. In any case, I will have a look at the vote, and cast my vote/opinion there.   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  03:31, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh: this would just be a category? I had the impression you meant adding a disclaimer to the top of the article. In that case, I have no objection to a category, but I wonder how useful they would be. On the default style sheet categories are list at the bottom. Cool Hand Luke  04:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * One use for categorizing is simply to get a handle on how widespread these images are. It's similar to the reason we're currently tagging images based on their license status. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * A non-POV disclaimer would say "This article contains photographs of human genitalia" (like we voted on before). From there we just add "For a version without these pictures, see Clitoris (no pictures)". This makes a version which is as NPOV as the disclaimer. Cool Hand Luke  03:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You just said "I absolutely oppose any warnings to chase readers and contributers away." How is this proposal any different? In fact, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse page you edited has a warning on it itself. I'm not sure I understand what it is you object to? Is it the fact that it is different than your nifty templaying system that you are opposed to, or are you opposed to warnings as you claim above? Please clairify.  &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  04:13, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has a warning, but if anyone objects to the photographic content, they're merely redirected to a page which still shows them the text content. Someone who objects to a merely warned article has no easy recourse (sure, you can fork Wikipedia, or turn off images on your browser, but I suspect most people aren't knowledgeable enough to do this if they're even aware these possibilities exist). Therefore, if anyone actually heads a disclaimer, we've only reduced the number of potential readers and editors. I furthermore think that an alternate template-generated version (which I hope image tags will be able to accomplish automatically one day), would ameliorate the silly war here. Some editors propose we link to objectionable pictures allowing people to self-censor. However, this does in fact make the article less useful to the majority that does not wish to self-censor. By having a page like this, we produce the appearance of two complete articles: a full and censored one, with the uncensored one being default. Cool Hand Luke  04:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Some editors propose we link to objectionable pictures allowing people to self-censor. However, this does in fact make the article less useful to the majority that does not wish to self-censor. I neither see how a link is less useful nor do I see how linking to something is censorship.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear why you are choosing to do this on Wikipedia, Luke. If you think some of the people interested in Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse want to see a version that does not depict prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, why don't you put a bowdlerized copy on your website and tell people about it? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Because people on my site cannot edit Wikipedia. I want Wikipedia to have all the editors we can have, even prudes have something to contribute. Cool Hand Luke  08:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think your solution for Abu Ghraib is excellent. Showing sensitivity to users is quite simply not censorship. It's inclusiveness. If you want the version with corpses, you can have the corpses. It would be the same here. The readership that is offended by clitorises need not see them. Wikipedia takes no stance either way: it would simply allow both sets of reader to enjoy our content. Is that really such a bad thing?

I ask those who think it is "self-censorship" to consider that all works are "self-censored" in one way or another. They are fitted to their audiences. Columnists in the Times don't use profane language, even though they might in day-to-day life. Why? Because they seek not to alienate their audience. We even do it here. How? By writing only in English, the correct code for our project; by not using judgmental language; in many ways.Dr Zen 05:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Here we don't have any one audience. Guardian readers would be more offended if quoted profanities were censored.  This is an encyclopedia.  It *will* alienate most people in the world in parts, by failing to depict the core assumptions of their religious preferences and political dogmas as fact.  It isn't a newspaper, it makes far fewer assumptions about its readership.  It need not worry about alienating anyone because its material can be freely copied and edited to remove anything that might give offence. I think when we get into this censorship at source we're simply wasting our time. Let others, downstream, do that if they wish to. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't think we already do leave out things that could be included? Any text does. Pretending that we do not is ludicrous, Tony. You are aware that many contributors spend a great deal of time censoring Wikipedia through VfD etc? Dr Zen 06:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * True. As if calling something "encyclopedic" and "unencyclopedic" are NPOV facts of the matter. Cool Hand Luke  08:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Dr Zen, I think you misunderstand what Luke is suggesting and my objection to it. He isn't suggesting censorship at all, he's providing an ad hoc link to a bowdlerized version of an article within Wikipedia. I object to this on the grounds that it's "a waste of time".  People who don't want to look at photographs have many options, and providing this option only on a selected subset of our articles is not a good use of our resources.  In my opinion we should provide a button at the top of every article to hide all images on the current article, and a cookie-controlled user interface option  that presents all articles, or possibly articles belonging to certain categories chosen by the user, without images.
 * The latter part sounds a bit complicated. I can see fierce opposition to the "categories" you suggest, as people complain that they're POV (even if they are the most purely factual categories one can imagine, someone will argue that it's POV to select these categories as hideable and not those. This is the extent those who use "POV" as a means to push their own POV will go! As if every decision on Wikipedia did not represent someone's POV). The "hide all images" sounds like a good idea. Expecting people to know how to work their browser is a bit much. Not everyone is technically minded. Would the "hide all images" button only appear for articles with images? Would you be willing to have it coupled with warnings, if the cookie-controlled categories were not permitted? Dr Zen 00:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * not really true... the link is to the same article, not a different one, it just doesn't display the pics... and if the pics are the problem, well CoolHand Luke has fixed that, if you would take the time to see how he did it, you'd realise that. Pedant 20:07, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's my impression of what it does. As I said, I think we're wasting our time only providing this option on one or two articles.  It should be available on every single article, or none, otherwise we're infecting those articles with a POV that says "it's wrong to look at *these* pictures but not *those* pictures." You can say that Luke's template fix doesn't produce a bowdlerized version, but I think that's effectively a quibble.  The text is the same, putting the original page through the template mechanism to produce the bowdlerized version. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Trying to second-guess which images will cause problems for the reader is quite flawed, in my opinion. For instance I don't have any problems with the beheading photographs, torture photographs, pictures of grinning Americans giving thumbs-up signs corpses of Iraqis and whatnot, but  I have a phobia of caterpillars, so photographs of caterpillars can cause me quite serious discomfort.  Only I could be expected to know this and I'm quite happy handling the viewing of such articles by myself. In my opinion that is the right way; providing a copy of each caterpillar article without photographs would be less efficient than providing the button to press to turn off photos--and the latter solution would solve the Abu Ghraib abuse photograph problem, too.
 * he didn't second-guess the pics, thye were the subject of debate, by using his code the debate was made moot. The debate here is primarily about the pics.  Would you prefer to continue this edit controversy forever or use a solution that can satisfy reasonable folk on both sides.  If you are afraid of caterpillars, will you at least stipulate that it's not a common fear?  Unlike being offended by the human body in an unclothed state?

Pedant 20:07, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
 * Of course it's even easier than that. I can turn off image viewing on my browser at any time, so I don't have to wait for Luke to implement this solution across Wikipedia.  The same is true of those who visit the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse article and (for that matter) the Clitoris article.


 * Where there are many people who wish to view a bowdlerized version of Wikipedia, they can fork Wikipediaand perform the bowdlerization themselves. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It bears repeating that few people know how to turn of pictures in their browsers, if they're even aware they can&mdash;this applies doubly to a suggestion that they fork wikipedia. As for a waste of time, I think you are presently looking at one of the biggest wastes of time I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. I believe accomodating and compromising with these editors would be much more productive then antagonizing them. I believe offering an alternative would make prudish contributors feel less marginalized then they might be looking at an erect penis. I prefer this to endless reverts by disgruntled editors and passing prudes apparently totally unaware of prior discussions. An alternate version ameliorates all of these problems, and is in my view much less a waste of time than the hardline approach.
 * Incidentally, why do you believe "they can fork Wikipedia" is an argument? It can be used to justify any and all courses of action, including this proposal. If you don't like offering alternative versions to pages, you are free to fork Wikipedia. But to me, forks of Wikipedia are to be avoided. I want editors here, even prudes. Don't you? Cool Hand Luke  19:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That there are people who cannot work their browsers is a fact. Equally there are many people who are incapable of adding a column of figures in their head, remembering a shopping list or whistling in tune.  This has nothing to do with the provable fact that all browsers provide easily operable features enabling the downloading of pictures to be turned off.  It takes me ten second in IE and about the same time in Firefox. Nevertheless your solution doesn't help my problem with the caterpillars, whereas supplying a "no pictures" button on all pages would. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I was editing here for a very long time before I learned there was such an option, and I consider myself at least reasonably savvy with the computer. I knew I could view the source, that I could use the router to block certain sites (and pictures from them), but I had no idea that the browser itself could block images until I read these discussions. I also like to pretend I made some good contributions in spite of being incapable of "working my browser". I agree that "no pictures" is a better solution (especially if "no pictures" simply linked to each image so that a reader could selectively see them), but until that exists, I don't think this is a bad interim workaround. Cool Hand Luke  22:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * As someone who runs a fork of Wikipedia, I'd like to mention that such a thing is much easier said than done. Running a fork is very difficult.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. But I expect the Roman Catholic Church and the Government of China could manage it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * And that relates to this dicussion how? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem with the Abu Ghraib PA solution is that eventually the articles will diverge. People will edit one or the other but not both. Also the warning "This article contains pictures of human genitalia" was voted down. So why would "for a verson that doesn't contain picures see here" which says essentially the same thing not be voted down too. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The articles will not diverge. There is only one article. The censored version is created by using the the article itself as a template and inserting a template parameter that causes images to error out. Compare the appearance of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) with it's contents&mdash;the VfD header is more than half of the page! It's a very clever hack, if I say so myself. I agree with you about the disclaimer being voted down, though. I'm only bringing up this possibiity if there is renewed intrest in it. I also think it's more sensible for Penis which has many more images. Cool Hand Luke  09:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * really, try an edit to one 'version' of the article, then look at the "other version'... really it's the same article. Not a copy.Pedant 20:13, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)
 * That is really cool! I stand corrected. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a very clever solution, but I would like to see it available for all articles. I also have problems with the current template on that page, which contains the POV description of the photographs as morbid (the emphasis is in the template). --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Also the warning "This article contains pictures of human genitalia" was voted down. So why would "for a verson that doesn't contain picures see here" which says essentially the same thing not be voted down too. Well, first of all, even if we asked the exact same question I doubt we'd see the exact same vote.  But even beyond this, these are two vastly different solutions.  One assumes that it is a solution to have people who don't want to see the image not read the article at all (and even then, the image has to be placed very far down the page to ensure that no one has a screen resolution which would render the "warning" useless).  The other doesn't.  I don't particularly like the idea of having two different pages, but I suppose it would be an acceptable compromise, at least temporarily.  Putting a "warning" at the top I find totally unacceptable. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * But if we have no disclaimer, how are people to find the alternate presentation? We certainly don't want to link to it&mdash;all links should go to the full presentation of the article. Cool Hand Luke  22:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I strongly disagree with you that links should go to the "full presentation of the article". But I see a big difference between providing a "disclaimer" and then relying on people to figure out how to deal with it and providing a "disclaimer" and linking to a version without the images.  The latter is a much more paletable solution, and I'd support it while I've voted against the former.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Who asks anybody who doesn't want to see the pictures not to read the article? Anybody can read the article. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I never used the word "ask" nor did I ever say that certain people can't read the article (of course, certain people can't read the article in certain places, but that had nothing to do with this discussion). anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree about the template and fixed it. I did not write that text; it was on the header before. And yes, any article that has consensus for a disclaimer should certainly have this solution available. After all, this solution entials a disclaimer. However, I think Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse is almost unique for having a stable disclaimer at the top of the article. Your terror of caterpillars touched my heart, so I looked at Caterpillar. However, I did not see a disclaimer there. Nor did I see prolonged discussions about the pictures' propriety, so I'm afraid that article does not qualify for a disclaimer (and by extension, for this solution). Cool Hand Luke  20:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Having Caterpillarphobia really motivates you to learn how to work that browser. :) --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apology
Some vandal is being very naughty so at least one and sometimes two of the HTML proxies that my ISP provides on round robin have been blocked. This means I sometimes have to restart the browser and repaste a response. This evening I repasted a copy of this whole section and then noticed that two other users had added comments in the meantime (Theresa and Luke). I've tried to restore the changes. I apologise for the mess. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question One
IMHO, it appears question One that needs to be answered is whether there should ever be an explicit picture of the clitoris in this article. - Robert the Bruce 05:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IMO yes Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. One illustration, possibly two or more. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IMO YES. IMO that question was already decided, so it's up to Robert et. al. to come up with an appropriate compromise if they don't like it. Timbo 12:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes of course anything that makes an article more useful should be considered for inclusion, and a photo, or in your words "explicit picture" is of great use and should be included. &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  13:04, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. violet/riga (t) 13:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course. We should probably have more than one, but I also believe in a mechanism to suppress them for those that wish to self-censor. Cool Hand Luke  19:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Pictures of the subject of an article are recommended per wikipedia policy.Pedant 20:15, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Maybe. Depends on the picture. I'm not of the opinion that any picture will do. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, if a means is used to allow those who would be offended by it to suppress it. And not any picture.Dr Zen 00:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes. It is the subject, deleting all the text would be less of compromise the article less..--Jirate 16:52, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Question Two
IMHO, question two is whether the current pic (which does not depict the clitoris) should be retained until a suitable pic is found. - Robert the Bruce 05:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again IMO yes (The picture shoew where th clitoris is in relation to the other parts of the female genitalia Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to get into (IMO) fruitless semantic discussions of whether the clitoris is shown--certainly the clitoris is not excited and swollen so the glans is not visible. I ask myself "if a girl (or woman) visited this article, would the current photograph help her to locate her own clitoris?" The answer to that, in my opinion, is emphatically "yes". Therefore the photograph is useful, but not ideal. I would prefer to have this photograph and also a photograph showing a clitoris with a swollen glans, just as the penis article shows both flaccid and erect penises. Ideally several vulvas should be shown in various different states because they vary in appearance considerably from woman to woman, from age to age, and according to the state of sexual excitement. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It's this kind of posturing (it doesn't depict the clitoris, so it must be deleted) that leads many users to think that ulterior motives are at work. The depiction is fine. Should a different, better photo come along, let's use that one; however, this one is quite suitable as it is. Timbo 12:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep, it is useful, we just need to also include a picture of an unobscured erect clitoris. &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  13:08, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. A quick google image search (with safesearch turned off) will turn up the clitoris in all shapes and sizes. Some are huge, some are tiny, but all depict the clitoris just as the current picture in the article does. Let's have a few. Timbo 18:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep, as above. violet/riga (t) 13:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. It's not a good picture, but we have lots of bad pictures on articles. Considering the stuborn editors who refuse to allow it to be linked and don't use the talk page, we may as well leave it. Cool Hand Luke  19:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's stubborness as such. This debate has been going on forever. Many people appear to feel enough is enough, this issue has (for them) already been decided long ago.It's a little frustrating, when we are trying to resolve this, but I can see where they are coming from Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you agree they are stubborn, you just feel their stubborness is justifiable. anthony &#35686;&#21578;

Keep it. It's not perhaps the best pic, but it is useful as a general map of the surrounding terrain. Like Abu Ghraib, pictures are or should be a substantial part of this article, but since pictures of genitals apparently offend some people, a solution such as the CoolHandLuke solution would be appropriate for those who prefer not to see the clitoris, but who want to see other images. Other images might help to supplement this article as well. Pedant 20:22, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Not in this article. The picture is better suited for another article. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know what? I'm going to move on. I'm not going to debate the picture any more because I think it's been decided, for now, by the sheer weight of opinion in that poll a month or so ago. The article could use a better picture (sorry no luck yet) and I'll concentrate on getting a better one, better ones. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely not. As discussed above, the arguments in its favour are entirely spurious. No picture at all is much better.Dr Zen 00:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. No pic is better than any pic (especially one that does not depict the subject of the article at all). - Robert the Bruce 16:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question Three
I'd say question three is the important one. Is it acceptable to link to the image instead of displaying it inline? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, if the said image is in the article for illustrative purposes, this is IMNSHO censorship, and will never be acceptable.   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  21:24, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not censorship, but it's not a good solution. That's workable on this page now, but what if there was more than one image? What if it was like penis. We should not disect a half dozen images from the article; linking images makes the article impossible to see in entirity, impossible to print. This is too much to ask from the probable majority who are looking to this article with an intention to see this material. I believe at minimmum an intact version should exist. Cool Hand Luke  22:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's workable now, why don't we do it now until a more complete solution can be worked on? Allowing someone to view and/or print the article with the images inline, for instance, could easily be added to Mediawiki. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with CHL Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll say now what I think is in a lot of people's minds. What is the problem with a picture of a vulva in an article about the clitoris? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed ad nauseam. Anyone whose mind it is in can revisit the discussion above. Dr Zen 00:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll ask a rhetorical question which should provide you with an answer. What is the problem with an aerial photograph of Hawaii in an article about volcanos? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * For the 100th time, No. &rarr;Raul654 06:39, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's not a good solution but until there is another, I believe we should do it. Why are editors here so keen on offending some of our audience when it is entirely unnecessary? We already self-censor in many, many ways.Dr Zen 00:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Because it is necessary, lest we tumble down the slippery slope toward endorsing PsOV. We self-censor by deciding what is encyclopedic or not, sure. We self-censor by including only english articles, true enough. These are all foundations of the English wikipedia project. But do we endorse a POV by acknowledging and catering to it? Absolutely not, if we can at all help it. Sure, there may be places that need to be fixed, problem spots that need to be dealt with. But in an open discussion such as this, as opposed to articles that have just fallen through the cracks, it is our duty as wikipedians to defy conventional "norms" or "offensive" labels because they fly in the face of the open and informational nature of this project. It will be a sad day for the wiki when female body parts are deemed so offensive that they must be edited out. Good day. Timbo 03:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It is equally a "POV" that the public display of a clitoris is not offensive. When people talk about POV and the NPOV policy, they like to ignore that any stance, even a "neutral" one, is a POV! But do we endorse a POV by acknowledging and catering to it? Yes! You have endorsed the POV that there is nothing wrong with displaying clitorises in this encyclopaedia! You simply do not recognise that your own POV is a POV! Dr Zen 05:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't hide behind semantics. The inclusion of this picture should be judged by whether or not it is encyclopedic. That's the only acceptable POV. We shouldn't take into account any other POVs, which may or may not be diametrically opposed. And using four exclamation marks doesn't make it any more wrong. Timbo 06:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You're at it again. Instead of hiding behind "NPOV", you're hiding behind "encyclopaedic". But what is or is not "encyclopaedic" is not something objective, but a question of POV. Someone whose POV is that encyclopaedias should not include graphic pictures of sexual organs would have the POV that the picture is not encyclopaedic. They could argue that Britannica does not have such a picture, for instance. Are you so fiercely convinced that your POV is right that you cannot even conceive that it is a POV? Dr Zen 08:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see how anyone can hide behind "encyclopedic." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- an interesting one, with vastly different procedures from other existing ones, but nonehteless an encyclopedia. The characterization "encyclopedic" is obviously up to debate, but that's the only debate that is necessary and valid. As Anthony points out below, there is some disagreement as to whether it is encyclopedic. IMHO it is quite distinctly encyclopedic, taking an encyclopedia to be a compendium of knowledge. The clitoris article should indicate where the clitoris is in the most effective way possible. Could the clitoris in the current picture be bigger? It sure could. Is that nonetheless a real clitoris on a real woman that shows where it is on the woman. Yes. IMO we should have multiple pictures to show some variation. Also a picture of a disembodied clitoris to show its full extent, not just the external portion. Now all this should emphatically NOT be affected by taking into account a POV. One could say "I'm offended by an inline picture of the clitoris." I'll reply that I'm horribly offended by the implications of taking it out or attaching a disclaimer. Once you try to satisfy a particular POV because it "wouldn't hurt," you're heading for disaster. I don't play that game. Timbo 17:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * IMHO it is quite distinctly encyclopedic, taking an encyclopedia to be a compendium of knowledge. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base.  The clitoris article should indicate where the clitoris is in the most effective way possible.  Not if this is already handled in another article.  Besides, whether or not the article links to the image or displays it inline has no relation to the effectiveness of the description.  In fact, having a separate article on the location of the clitoris would be more effective.  Could the clitoris in the current picture be bigger?  It's not just about bigger/smaller.  The clitoris should take up more of the picture, and more of the clitoris should be shown.  IMO we should have multiple pictures to show some variation. Also a picture of a disembodied clitoris to show its full extent, not just the external portion. Now all this should emphatically NOT be affected by taking into account a POV.  You just said that it's your opinion that we should have multiple pictures.  How is that not a POV?  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 17:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It seems it is a POV to say there should be no picture but it is not a POV to say there should. It seems quite clear to me that there is absolutely no merit to the argument that it is "NPOV" to include pictures. An honest acceptance from Timbo and others that they believe they should impose their POV on all (because they are the majority, I'm not disputing that) would be far more palatable.Dr Zen 22:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this image is encyclopedic. Does Britannica or Encarta or Columbia Encyclopedia have an image like this?  The issue here is making a respectable encyclopedia.  In my opinion linking to the image accomplishes this without removing any information.  Ultimately we can come up with better technical solutions, but for now it seems to me like something that both sides should accept as a compromise.  Unfortunately, it's hard to convince the majority to submit to any compromise, especially when there are a number of admins in the majority who choose to protect pages and block users to force their POV on the rest of us.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Why should they compromise? They have the power. They do not believe in true consensus and it's practically useless to talk to them as though they were people who do. I have to point out yet again that personally I do not see anything wrong with having a picture but I understand that it upsets some people, including editors on this project. I believe the spirit of Wikipedia is very much to work for the enemy, to try to achieve NPOV. I've certainly learned, though, that that's not by any means a common goal here.Dr Zen 22:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Why should they compromise? To keep the page unprotected.  To waste less time reverting and protecting and threatening and blocking.  In short, to get back to building an encyclopedia. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Your last sentence resonates with me. The renegade element amoung the sysop/admin fraternity needs to be brought under control. It is clear that they (as a group) are unable to reform themselves. SeeAny ideas what needs to be done? - Robert the Bruce 16:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The image should be in the article, at the top in full view. The picture should be treated no differently to any other picture. It is not special in any way and neither is the subject. Doing anything else will be giving in to ignorant jack ass faction--Jirate 16:58, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be treated no differently than this picture (photo of Nick Berg beheaded). Treating it differently from that picture is giving in to ignorant jackasses. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In your case it is belief and not reason. Which is why no sane HSap will listen to you.--Jirate 19:15, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
 * Would you mind showing what "reason" was involved in your pronouncement? Are you in fact suggesting that this encyclopaedia should contain any and all photos or are you not? If I place the goatse photo in its article, will you support me in that? If not, why not?Dr Zen 22:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is this, a picture of the subject matter and it's context is madatory as far as I'm concerned. If a subject is suitable for article then a picture is acceptable. An item called "X's head" is not a suitable subject for an article. Which is what I assumed you where attempting to ask for, with "showing what "reason"".--Jirate 22:32, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should clarify your statement then. This picture should be treated no differently from any picture except [insert your list of insane choices here]. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Which bit is unclear to you?--Jirate 20:54, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
 * Why do I feed the trolls? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Lets get this correct you've taken my statment and than added a caviate and you want me to explain! and you calling me a troll?--Jirate 21:07, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
 * English isn't your first language, is it? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Changing the subject. Typical troll behaviour.--Jirate 21:48, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
 * Actually if it isn't I'll just chalk this up to a misunderstanding. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 23:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: "giving in to ignorant jack ass faction"? Excuse me?!?

I was hoping the dialog had improved. I've never seen such persistant abuse toward a minority group on any talkpage. Cool Hand Luke  07:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Then you obviously haven't read many talk pages.--Jirate 14:46, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Just remember
You think Clitoris is bad? Wait till you take a gander at Prince Albert piercing. Some of you are going to have apoplexia! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well there is a fundamental difference and that is at least the pic shows the Prince Albert while the one in question on the Clitoris page does not depict the clitoris. major difference. - Robert the Bruce 16:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The picture's not as good as it could be anyway.
It would be better to have a picture in which the clitoris is actually exposed. Imagine if Abraham Lincoln had a picture of a wall with the caption "Abraham Lincoln (obscured)". Posted by 70.22.31.237
 * This has been my point all along. I'm afraid we are up against the mindset that there has to be an explicit pic (any pic) of the genitals at all costs. Pretty sad for Wikipedia really. - Robert the Bruce 16:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"It would be better," yes, I think that is the only place we all agree. However, I agree with the majority here that what we have is better than nothing. It gives a general idea of where the clitoris is, even though it is not exposed and erect. I agree an exposed and erect clitoris would serve us better, but I also think a obscured picture also helps as it helps to give a before picture, where as the erect, exposed clitoris would be a good after picture. It helps put things in context. I think the only problem with this article at the moment is the lack of such a exposed erect clitoris photo. &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  18:22, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

It thought the part which is pointed to which says "clitoris" is the actual clitoris, in which case the clitoris is exposed (just a very very small part of it is). If the part that is labelled clitoris isn't actually the clitoris, then this photo is much worse than nothing, as it is factually incorrect. Otherwise, I'd say it's slightly worse than nothing, but mainly because of the advertisement in the bottom right hand corner, which needs to be removed (and if my copy of gimp wasn't broken I'd have done this myself by now). anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * At least the clitoris is correctly labelled on that diagram. This image is acceptable as a stop-gap until someone finds a good, clear, copyright-free picture of a clitoris. A general cross-section of the lower human female abdomen isn't really ideal. Dan100 14:54, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * This image is acceptable as a stop-gap until someone finds a good, clear, copyright-free picture of a clitoris. Image:Clit.jpg. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:38, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly endorse including that image in the article. However, it does not accomplish the same goals as the current photo. In the ear article, there is a photo of the external portion of the ear, although there is much more to the ear than can be seen externally. In the eye article, the external view of the eye is pictured, and the total, disembodied eye is diagrammed. Ditto for the mouth. Removing the current picture detracts from the article. Timbo 04:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly endorse including that image in the article. And if this page was unprotected I'd respond by putting it in.  But my response was to Dan who made a specific comment implying that this image would be unacceptable if someone finds a good, clear, copyright-free picture of a clitoris.  Well, I've found one, let's see if he is going to change his mind.  My opinion that removing the current picture would enhance this article has already been made clear. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusations
Some users have been glibly throwing around accusations that those of us in favor of a picture are in favor of "any picture" at "any cost." Apparently wikipedia has been overrun by immoral perverts who want to jam in as much pornography as possible, according to them. Perhaps said users should save their polemics for the truth, because as far as I know that has never been the case. I sign my name here as a testament to the fact that I believe there should be a photo illustrating the clitoris and its external context, that I am satisfied with the current one, and that I am open to changing it to a better one. Feel free to sign/comment with me to show exactly how many users embody the rational majority.
 * Timbo 17:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  18:12, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * --Jirate 19:17, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
 * This picture is OK to me, but this statement is not Cool Hand Luke  20:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To my mind, I see no specific accusations that the above parties are willing to accept a photo "at any costs." Instead, I see individuals declaring that they will not accept a photo at any cost. It therefore appears that we're all in agreement on that point but that some disagree on what cost is acceptable.

I do, however, regard it as curious that the above statement declares the majority rational. This comment is interesting because the above parties apparently feel insulted by declarations that others will not accept a photo at any cost, the implication being that they will accept any photo. Applying similar reasoning, the minority ought to be insulted by implication of being irrational. As a reminder, all parties here appear rational, contra many comments in the talk archives.
 * On behalf of the rational minority, Cool Hand Luke  20:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm just astonished that after so much careful explanation of what is at stake, the hardliners are entirely unable to understand. It is exactly the suggestion that people who are offended by explicit photos of genitals are not "rational" (whatever that is supposed to mean) that is the problem. The point of Wikipedia is that the "majority" takes care of the "minority", that all views are represented. Well, it's the point of my Wikipedia. It clearly doesn't even feature in Timbo's or that of the others who have signed his personal attack on the minority.Dr Zen 22:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't believe your offended by the image, but by the breaking of a rule which you think exists. The public protestation of offense here are simple learnt responses with no under standing of the subject.--Jirate 22:41, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't understand what you're trying to say. I've never claimed to be offended by the image. I take it amiss that a man who can't even spell "understanding" sees fit to lecture me about what I do or don't understand.Dr Zen 00:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * grate excuse.--Jirate 00:20, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
 * It's in poor taste to attack someone because of their spelling. &mdash;MikeX (talk) 01:22, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * But not in poor taste to attack someone for being a/ not rational or b/ unable to understand the subject?Dr Zen 04:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * or apparently to make things up.--Jirate 12:40, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)


 * What I really should have said was: "It's in poor taste to attack someone". a/ ask the person politely what their justifications are, as is it's often easy to see someone with a different viewpoint to you as irrational. b/ Help the person understand the subject! If someone "doesn't understand", quote relevant parts of the article and policies. If there's a lot, you might want to do that on the person's talk page. Remember: peace, love, and clitorii. &mdash;MikeX (talk) 05:18, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * When the subject is the English langage and basic logic there's not exactly much you can do over such a medium. Maybe if Irate would give us some more information about emself we could better help em.  I tried asking if Irate didn't speak English as a primary language, but got no response.  Now I'm starting to think Irate is just a child or mentally disturbed.  I'd be interested to know which, but until then there's not much useful conversation that's going to occur.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I doubt any usefull convestation with you can ever occur, as you seem not to be at all rational and will engage in politics and propoganda in order to get your way.--Jirate 14:43, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Dealing with unwanted images without imposing your views on others

 * In Opera 7, go to File > Preferences > Multimedia, and set Images to "Show no images".
 * In Internet Explorer 6, go to Tools > Internet Options > Advanced, and in the Multimedia section, unmark Show Pictures. Unfortunately, this does not hide the puzzle graphic at the top-left of every page.
 * In Mozilla Firefox 1, go to Tools > Options > Web Features and unmark Load Images.
 * In Firefox you can also fix images from any given site using the right mouse button menu item "Block images from..."
 * In Netscape 7, go to Edit > Preferences > Privacy and Security > Images and select the Do not load any images option.

Hope this helps --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I tried this, and it seems to block all images, not just unwanted ones. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably very hard to effectively screen out "unwanted" images without ever seeing them, due to the horrendously subjective nature of such a concept. If one is so sensetive as to not want to ever see an "offensive" image, one is better off browsing in a text-only manner. Timbo 04:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There's nothing subjective about it.  Either an image offends some people, or it doesn't.  That's completely objective, and I suspect a very small percentage of our images offend people.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're suggesting putting it in a header on the page, so I don't think that addresses our concerns. Would you object to a disclaimer on the article that links to a wikipedia page about turning off images? I think you would oppose any such unique notice on pages. Even then, I don't think this addresses our concerns, certainly not Anthony's. Cool Hand Luke  18:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have a real issue with the idea of a disclaimer, but I believe it's already been pointed out that we have comprehensive site-level disclaimers, so another disclaimer would be superfluous.


 * As for the fact that the browsers turn off all images, well that's the way the technology works. I don't see this as a problem.  If people don't like looking at pictures of clitorises, they either shouldn't be typing the word "clitoris" into the Find field or clicking on the word "clitoris" in a link, or failing that they should have images turned off permanently just in case they accidentally type in something like "pictures of people being beheaded in a very bloody manner", or "penis", or something. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that they can't click on random page. In any case, telling people that they shouldn't use an encyclopedia just because they don't want to view offensive images is unacceptable. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that's exactly acceptable. The same could be said of textual passages. What if I'm offended by discussions of the clitoris in minute detail? Or offended by graphic passages such as those explaining sexual intercourse? Or by descriptions of sex positions? You've got to leave your "offenses" and dislikes behind in the quest for knowledge. This is what wikipedia is, take it or leave it. Timbo 04:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of Wikipedians agree that you have to draw the line somewhere. We just disagree over where that line is drawn.  Personally I've never been offended by text, I've been offended by the concepts being described by the text, but never by the text itself (I include ASCII goatse pictures).  I suppose it's possible, though, but I don't see the point of discussing it when it's so hypothetical.  Actually, I guess I have been offended by text before, and that's when the text provided me with information I didn't want to know (i.e., a spoiler).  Of course, in my mind you've gotta expect spoilers when you read a Wikipedia article, and I don't think we need spoiler warnings.  But you know what, the spoiler warnings don't hurt anyone, and I'm not going to get involved with edit wars and page protection and threats of bans to keep them out.  I'm willing to compromise, and leave the spoiler warnings in.  All I'm asking is that those who aren't offended by images accept a compromise and link to the image rather than display it inline. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this is really the heart of the issue. I could be wrong, but I don't think including a spoiler is actually offending anyone. You could think it's useless or a waste of time, but not be offended by its inclusion. However, I and many others here (over the months) have voiced our offense at the thought of linking to pictures of the vagina or putting a disclaimer in, because of the implications such actions carry with them. Saying we should link the picture or put in a disclaimer because it doesn't hurt anyone validates one POV while neglecting the opposing PsOV. Timbo 16:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Putting a warning at the top (or replacing the image with a link) is not saything that the image is offensive. It is saying that some people are offended by the image.  I don't think it is Wikipedia's place to try and make the world one where everyone can look at a picture of a vagina in any contaxt without being offended.  I think we need to acknowledge that a good number of people in the world would be offended by looking at a picture without warning.  Samboy 16:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I don't think including a spoiler is actually offending anyone. Do you mean spoiler warning? Because telling someone the end of a movie they haven't seen when they don't want to know it is certainly offensive.  Saying we should link the picture or put in a disclaimer because it doesn't hurt anyone validates one POV while neglecting the opposing PsOV.  What POV is being validated?  The POV that we should respect the views of others?  The POV that we should try to find a solution which addresses the desires of everyone?  I don't see a problem with validating this POV.  If someone wants to view the image, they can still view the image.  For those who want to print the article with the image in it, we can even provide a version which allows that.  We just don't surprise people with the image by putting it in a place where most people aren't going to expect it. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 03:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * WRT a disclaimer being superfluous, I don't agree. If our disclaimer said that Wikipedia may break your computer would that justify having an image on a page which breaks certain versions of IE?  99.9999999999% of people never even see that disclaimer.  It means absolutely nothing.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, take the erect penis. Even if one takes as likely there will be a penis, the erect photo may still be very surprising (as it was to me). Incidentally, since you obviously watch this page, could someone in the majority repuke User:Irate for hir insults? Or do you all agree with him on the "ignorant jack ass faction"? I find the silence at his behaviour unnerving. Cool Hand Luke  21:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They should never, under any circumstances, click on Random Page, true. Also they should never click on "I'm feeling lucky" in Google. I don't think people who both have a problem with looking at certain pictures and aren't prepared to do something to stop their browsers downloading images should be using any website. In particular, they should never type the word "Clitoris" in at the "find" box on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think people who both have a problem with looking at certain pictures and aren't prepared to do something to stop their browsers downloading images should be using any website. Well, fortunately not everyone is as intolerant of others as you are.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Intolerance is not the issue. We could be tolerant all the way to an encyclopedia which is of no use to anyone. Tolerance implies catering to specific PsOV. That's to be avoided at all costs, especially because, as here, catering to a certain POV is in direct opposition to another. Timbo 04:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see how someone can be tolerant and suggest that anyone who doesn't want to see certain pictures shouldn't browse the web. My comment about tolerance was not a general one about anyone who believes we should keep the image inline.  I should mention, though, that we are forced to cater to a specific POV.  Keeping the image in caters to one POV, leaving it out caters to another.  My hope was that we could keep both POVs happy by linking to the image.  Then you can see it if you want, and not if you don't.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is just anyone who doesn't want to see certain pictures. Call me a hypocrite, but I don't want to see pictures of mutilated dead people, torture, etc. I don't even want to see spiders. Looking at a high-quality, up-close picture of a big spider can make me recoil in a kind of fear and disgust that will take me a while to get over. Does that mean I want all pictures of spiders edited out of the wikipedia? No. If you're not willing to come across things that may upset you, you shouldn't be surfing the internet. You shouldn't even leave your house. In my case, I could still have a spider crawl on my face in my sleep (shudder), so I should have a strict extermination regimen in my house as well. Obviously that's not feasible, if I'm to live my life in any fruitful way. Anyone who doesn't want to see certain pictures can take reasonable steps to avoid them. They can avoid articles on genitals if they can't bear to look at them. They can browse the wiki in a text-only manner. But they can't cry bloody murder when they see an upsetting picture by accident. That's just par for the course, especially if you're browsing here, which has info on practically everything. Timbo 16:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If you're not willing to come across things that may upset you, you shouldn't be surfing the internet. Sure, it's a risk you take.  But we're not talking about whether or not someone should be willing to see images.  We're talking about whether or not we should surprise people with them.  It's an overused analogy, perhaps, but do you really think we should be displaying the goatse image on goatse?  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 03:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if people don't look at disclaimers. If they could only be more parsimonious about which encyclopedia entries they look at, we would not be having this conversation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes we would. Telling people not to view an article is not a sufficient solution.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I do not simply tell people to not view the article.
 * I have given clear instructions enabling anyone to view the article without looking at the pictures.
 * The site disclaimer says "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or photographs of human anatomy.".
 * I have also suggested that institutions wanting a bowdlerized version of Wikipedia can do so by forking.
 * Alternatively a non-picture version can be accomplished by mirroring the content but not the pictures.
 * Finally, if someone is absolutely determined not to make any effort to view articlea without pictures, and still finds a picture of a human vulva unacceptable in an article about the clitoris, there is always the alternative of not looking at the offending article.
 * Thus there is no problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Would you be willing to inform readers and editors how to do any of those things in the actual article? You've informed people who care to dig through a lengthy talk page (soon to be buried in another archive). We tell people they might be offended through a small disclaimer at the bottom of the page and then only through an additional link-click. This of course does not say that penis contains a full hard-on. Why not be upfront about an article's content? Offering users alternatives and informed choice makes wikipedia more useful. Cool Hand Luke  08:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not simply tell people to not view the article. You said that people who are offended by any image and are not willing to turn off images in their browser shouldn't be browsing the web.   For one thing, that's telling me not to view the article (even though I'm not even offended by the particular image in it, but because there might be an image in it which does offend me).  As I've said, a site disclaimer is completely useless.  It's something thrown in there by lawyerly-thinking people to try to protect themselves from liability (which is ridiculous in the first place, but that's a different discussion).  No one reads the site disclaimer.  No one should have to read the site disclaimer.  The site disclaimer is nothing but a red herring.  Ultimately forking Wikipedia will probably be the only viable solution.  It's a shame forking is such a monumental task, but it'll be accomplished eventually.  You and your friends can keep your pornopedia, and the rest of us can have a respectable encyclopedia which doesn't try to make social change by shocking people just for the hell of it.  I'm not going to stop arguing for what's best for Wikipedia in the mean time, though. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 13:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In general I'm prepared to trust people to operate their browsers as they see fit. If they ask for help I'll provide it happily. One could hardly be more upfront about an article's content than giving it the title "Clitoris". One of the erections in Penis looks like a real stonker to me, but I'm in my late forties so perhaps my expectations have been blunted by time and the effects of ageing. The position of the disclaimer is a matter of skin design--IO wasn't aware that some skins put the disclaimer at the bottom. The skin I use has the the ABOUT link at the top. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is clitoris, not vulva spread out and open for your viewing enjoyment. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The clitoris is an integral part of the vulva. What is the problem with spread out vulvas? They're enjoyable to look at, true.  So what exactly is the problem? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I just wouldn't expect to find the picture that's in this article in an encyclopedia article on this topic, that's all. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 03:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * And the title of penis doesn't mention scrotums or pubic hair, but the photos present over there include those all the same. I think it's quite reasonable to expect to see the structures immediately surrounding the subject of a photograph. Indeed, including the surrounding structures helps make the photos informative; editing the photo so that only the clitoris itself was visible would leave just a little pink blob. Bryan 03:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * And the title of penis doesn't mention scrotums or pubic hair, but the photos present over there include those all the same. What's your point?  I'd rather we didn't have those images either.  I think it's quite reasonable to expect to see the structures immediately surrounding the subject of a photograph.  Obviously you do.  I think having an image where the subject takes up less than 1% of the image is not a good solution.  But I certainly don't think many would expect to see this image in this article.  I didn't expect it.  Indeed, including the surrounding structures helps make the photos informative  Either way the photos would be informative.  The question isn't whether or not we should have the photos, just where we should put them.  editing the photo so that only the clitoris itself was visible would leave just a little pink blob  Which is why I think the best solution is just to leave this image out of this article.  People can go to the vulva article if they want a diagrammed picture of the vulva.  That's a much better solution than repeating this image in the article of every single identified part. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reading the above is frustrating. It's as if I was getting one half of an explanation. "People can go to the vulva article". Well, no, they shouldn't have to go to another article to view the vulva and locate the clitoris. You don't explain why it is so important that this article should not be illustrated in such a manner that a girl reading it will be able to find her clitoris easily. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "People can go to the vulva article". Well, no, they shouldn't have to go to another article to view the vulva and locate the clitoris.  You say we should have a photo of the vulva in the clitoris article, I think it's more appropriate to have in the vulva article.  I'm not sure it makes sense to argue this further.  You don't explain why it is so important that this article should not be illustrated in such a manner that a girl reading it will be able to find her clitoris easily.  So important?  I never said it was "so important", I just think the vulva article is a more appropriate place for a labelled picture of a vulva.  It just makes more sense.  I also think such an image should be linked to rather than displayed inline, because many people will be surprised and disturbed by having the image displayed inline.  I think I've made all of this abundantly clear.  Is there something else you think I've not explained? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 02:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Dealing with unwanted images without imposing your views on others
Personally, I am in favor of deleting this entire section, since I think this section contributes far more heat than light. Samboy 14:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think there are other sections which have far more trolling and argument for its own sake than this one. Maybe I've been watching this page for too long, but I think this section is pretty civil; we're just dealing with strong opinions. Browser-based image exclusion is a topic that has been raised before but never fully explored, so it's entirely relevant. Timbo 16:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cunt
Note: heading copied from my (CHL's) talk page, in re: this comment

If you want to talk to me about a subject you do it in the talk page of that subject or where I have written, you don't split it off into a sperate thread. You attempt at moving subject around will not be put up with. Never ever contect me again in anyway.--Jirate 12:43, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
 * I figured I'd take Irate's advice so that I'm not moving a subject out of the talk page. Has anyone else tried and failed to resolve problems with this user? Cool Hand Luke  18:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I could ask the same of you. You seem to be of the opinion that your grovelling for a compromise, is in someway admirable.--Jirate 19:56, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
 * I do think that compromise would be instrumental for consensus, which I regard as very admirable. Do you have problems with me that you've tried and failed to resolve? Cool Hand Luke  20:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No I'm just a bad tempred intolerate bastard. The level of my lanaguge is I feel appropriate for the general level of debate on this page.--Jirate 21:15, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)


 * As for you RFC a more dishonest document, I have never seen.--Jirate 21:26, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
 * There is no RfC. I wont post it until I've had time to cool off and someone else volunteers to co-certify it. Maybe I'll think your "Cunt" heading was witty in 24 hours, who knows. Cool Hand Luke  21:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me try this one more time (here, as you prefer I'd not contact you). Please do not insult people on this talk page for any reason. Cool Hand Luke  08:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Same goes for you, and bear in mind I find most of you uterances offensive and an insult to inteligence, so you'd better say nothing. --Jirate 13:28, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly believe these sorts of comments are not insults? Cool Hand Luke  23:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Jirate if you find CHL's utterences offensive, then you'd be best off removing this talk page from your watch list. If you wont do that, then please stop trying to insult him ( or anyone else for that matter) Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Good point Theresa. I wonder if you would offer the same advice to Tony Sidaway with respect to his actions towards me? - Robert the Bruce 05:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)