Talk:Clitoris/Archive 7

OK, I oppose the picture
Let me make something clear: I think the naked female body is very beautiful. I think the vagina is very beautiful and immensly pleasure-inducing (to put it mildly). But I also think images of said vagina have their place. There are many web sites where people in the internet can freely enjoy looking at the wonderful beauty that is the vagina. In fact, I have no problem with Wikipedia also having pictures of the vagina (and the penis, and other things).

I agree completely with Theresa Knott when she said we have no place saying that the vagina is a shameful thing that should be censored, that women should be made to feel ashamed about.

That said, I do not support the picture being here in its current form, not without a warning at the top, or by making the picture a link.

It's a matter of boundaries: There is a time and place to look at the vagina, and a time not to do so. I think we should minimize the chance of someone accidently finding themselves gazing at the beauty that is a vagina.

I'm not trying to censor anything. I'm trying to say "Hey, look, this is not a thing we can always look at." So, let's give people a little warning. I'm thinking of people looking at this encyclopia from work, or of people hitting on the "Random page" link, or of people who are looking at this from a public terminal. Samboy 14:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Why is it something we cannot always look at?--Jirate 16:56, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you wish everyone would not be offended by the picture. Samboy 17:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think most people are offended. The vote long ago demonstrated that.--Jirate 17:30, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

There is already a warning. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking of something along the lines of the warning in Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse. Samboy 17:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the Abu Ghraib warning is way OTT. Let's get real. Put a button to turn off photos on every page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Please use English, not acronyms. What does "OTT" mean?  (You're also free to add an "OTT" entry to the Wikipedia) Samboy 17:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am English. Wiktionary OTT --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. Samboy 17:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that far over the top (and I'd never heard that acronym either), but I would like any message to say something brief and factual like "This article contains photographs of human genitalia, for a version without these photos see here ", which should fit on one line. Cool Hand Luke  23:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think your suggestion is worth a try. I can live with it. It's certainly better than linking to the photo IMO. I also Like Tony's suggestion of putting a button on every page to turn off photographs. But that would need a developer, whereas your idea could be implimented right now as a tempory solution until Tony's one can be done. Should we give it a go? Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 23:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think this becomes a non-issue (for me at least) if we develop a tab or button to remove pictures. Cool Hand Luke  23:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How about "Reminder: Wikipedia may contain objectionable content. A version without images is available."  But, this is only meant to be a temporary solution, until it can be coded into Wikipedia that images can be turned on or off for any page.  At that point we have a preference which can display images off by default for all pages, or for any page containing this template (only one template, which hides all images on the page, no need to get finer grained then that or even bother mentioning which image(s) it is that are likely to offend some people).  I suppose if you had images on by default for all pages (which is the default), you could even choose to hide the message (but the default would be to show the images, and the message).  The last sentence will then become " Hide images ." or " Show images ."  I could accept that (yes, perhaps a similar compromise was already voted against, but I for one would be willing to change my vote). anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:50, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we can agree that as a matter of fact:
 * * 1. There is a site disclaimer linked to every page, stating explicitly that the encyclopedia contains "photographs of human anatomy." (content_disclaimer)
 * * 2. the current photograph correctly locates the clitoris, such that a female unfamiliar with its location would know where to look; the hood is shown and clearly labelled but there is no explicit depiction of the glans.
 * * 3. the current photograph is a ""photograph of human anatomy."


 * As a matter of opinion:


 * * 1. I would therefore argue that the photograph is a useful part of Clitoris and is completely and utterly within the bounds covered by the content_disclaimer


 * * 2. Remind me, what are we arguing about? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * For me this is about making the encyclopedia more useful to a subset of users (call them prudes) who would be (and in some cases demonstrably are) offended or otherwise upset with the image. The reason site forks are unacceptable is that I would prefer we keep eyeballs here; users are likely to become contributors, and we want every last one of them. The disclaimer is not a viable solution as it applies to all wikipedia articles without honestly informing prudish users of the content here. Moreover, it's fairly difficult to find and at the bottom of each page (on the default skin). I believe some sort of compromise solution might yield a more useful and harmonious article for the low cost of upfront disclosure about what the article contains. Cool Hand Luke  10:06, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Where ae these offended people. What about all the prudes you will produce by putting the warning on.--Jirate 12:29, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
 * No answer yet from Mr Integrity free.--Jirate 11:20, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
 * and still No answer yet from Mr Integrity free.--Jirate 12:12, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)


 * The disclaimer also says that "there may at any time be graffiti present on Wikipedia", and "Wikipedia is a work in progress, and many articles contain errors, bias, duplication, or simply need tender loving care", and "ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND ON WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS OR ILLEGAL." Having a disclaimer hidden at the bottom of the pageis completely irrelevant. Personally, I suggest we remove the site-wide disclaimer completely.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is linked at the top in my skin. This is a matter of user preference and skin programing. I don't understand the reasoning behind your suggestion that the disclaimer should be removed--in fact I find it difficult to believe that you are seriously suggesting this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it's linked at the top or bottom I don't see the point of having a disclaimer that no one is going to read. It's like the boy who cried wolf.  If you remind people on every page, even pages that don't even have images, that Wikipedia may contain objectionable images, spoilers, insane medical advice, copyright violations, untrue facts, etc., people are going to stop believing you and see the disclaimer for what it is, a stupid attempt to limit liability where no liability exists in the first place.  The way to avoid losing a lawsuit for negligence is to not be negligent, not to warn people that you might be negligent.  Wikipedia isn't the publisher anyway, and it's not negligence to display objectionable content.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 02:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting all this from--you seem to be arguing against points that nobody has made. The purpose of having the disclaimer on a link is to save having to put it in the text--which is what you seem to want us to do. I remind you again that the proposal to put yet another disclaimer in the text, in addition to the linked disclaimer, was massively opposed in a vote a couple of months ago. It isn't going to happen. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I made an offhand comment that we shouldn't have a site-wide disclaimer. You didn't believe that I was serious, and then I explained my reasoning. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I support the picture

 * "Let me make something clear: I think the naked female body is very beautiful. I think the vagina is very beautiful and immensly pleasure-inducing (to put it mildly). But I also think images of said vagina have their place."

This is the kind if reasoning that I find incomprehensible. In order to find this article, someone has to type the word "clitoris" into the "Find" box on Wikipedia, or in some search engine, or else click on that word in an article. If they come to this article and are surprised to find a picture of a woman's sexual organs, what could they have been thinking when they typed the word "clitoris" or clicked the link?

This is the one place in Wikipedia that a girl might visit to find out what her clitoris is for and how to use it. This is why this article exists. The target audience is people who want to know about the clitoris.

Worried that your local library might not permit access to Wikipedia? Tell them why you think they should carry Wikpedia, and stop trying to tell Wikipedia to behave in a manner that might not upset your local prudes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't reply to your comment, but I just have to say cheers, I feel the same way as you, and I couldn't have said it any better myself. &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  04:37, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hear hear. Timbo 04:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you're being too much of idealists here. I'm a little more practical.  Attitudes like this can end up putting wikipedia.org on net nanny lists, causing the entire on-line encyclopedia to not be accessible to certain people.  Is it really appropriate to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to endorse a political statement like "I think we should allow pictures of vaginas to be something to not be ashamed of"?  I don't think so.  Samboy 11:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's irresponsibly idealist to suggest that the programmers of net nanny should not be permitted to dictate Wikipedia policy (and I'm sure they wouldn't want to either). As to whether pictures of X or Y are anything to be ashamed of, in my mind that is completely orthogonal to this debate. I may be ashamed of or proud of lots of things but this has nothing to do with whether I think they should be depicted in an appropriate encyclopedia article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It isn't Wikipedia's problem to work around the crippling, fatal bugs in censorware. If a user chooses to use software that cannot distinguish an encyclopedia article about anatomy from a piece of pornography, that's indeed too bad -- but it is beyond the scope of Wikipedia to solve that problem. The users should take it up with the scammers who sold them the defective censorware, or the scam-victims who chose to install it.


 * For what it's worth, it's been relatively well-documented by Peacefire, EFF, and others that censorware is not only inaccurate but provably biased with regards to political and religious views. The promulgation of political and religious censorship is directly opposed to Wikipedia's purpose of spreading knowledge, so it would be counterproductive for Wikipedia to give in to censorware. --FOo 02:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template for censoring images
After a bit of experimentation I've just created template:censorimage. This could be used to remove specific images from a page just by clicking one link but while still maintaining consistency between the two article versions. I've thrown together a little example at my user page and, while it currently has no decent image parameter options and requires a slightly more specific image naming convention, it shows the possibilities.

Perhaps this idea won't appeal to everyone but I think it is at least a move towards compromise. violet/riga (t) 10:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I like that. It's a much cleaner-looking solution than Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, even if it does constain the filenames. Am I to take it you also believe a template alternate version compromise is appropriate? Cool Hand Luke  11:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It's obvious that there are some people that want an (any) image and others that don't. This enables both versions without having the inconsistency of two articles.  It's the best way, in my opinion, though the obvious next arguments are: How do you choose which images should be censored (in general, not in this particular article) and which version should be the main one? violet/riga (t) 11:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think any pictures that offend should have a solution. I know this can be very broad but I think that it's the right way. And I think that there is general agreement that the default should be with pictures, so that anyone who doesn't want to see them must censor them for themselves.


 * Thanks for making the effort, BTW. If this discussion actually leads to a consensus solution, I think you'll be well deserving of credit.Dr Zen 10:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good compromise. However, there are a lot of people on this talk page who don't want to make any kind of compromise on this issue.  BTW, Merry Christmas! Samboy 11:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, added 2, 3, 4, 5, parameters for the template that allow options as I showed on your user page (hope you don't mind!&mdash;5 needs to be filled in because is the caption otherwise, but leaving the others blank is harmless, I believe). I'm struck by the relative simplicity of your solution along with the fact that you apparently came to it entirely independently. User:Theresa knott and User:Dr Zen have already made comments generally supportive of a template alternate, so I think this would be a wonderful comrpomise. Cool Hand  Luke  11:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I quite like this. There are some technical problems--in particular you have to follow special instructions to edit if you're viewing the censored version.

I really like this though:

This article can be viewed with selected images: present or omitted

Great work. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Most edits on this article appear to be section edits anyway, which do not require special instructions. Just put a comment in the alternate version if they try to edit the whole thing. So the only bit you objected to was the the phrase "This article contains..."? Why didn't you say so earlier? Is this your only beef at Abu Ghraib as well? Do articulate it there if it is (that warning message, unlike this one, has been stable though).
 * Until now you appear to have suggested that applying it to only some articles was non-negotiably POV. I would have loved it if you offered this compromise earlier. But I think this should be fine. I'm going on vacation now. Be back January 6. Cool Hand Luke  03:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea to have a template that people could apply, containing neutral words similar to the ones I wrote--it would be less likely to provoke opposition by people who see this as POV-pushing. I do think it's still potentially intrusive, and it's a bit of a pig to set up.  I am uncomfortable about it being used at all, but I can live with it if the wording is the absolute minimum required to advertise the existence of a bowdlerized version. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:45, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, please... why don't you just leave both pictures, one showing clitoris itself and another one showing it inside vulva? What are you trying to prove or what?


 * I'd like to reiterate that I only support this if the wording is something to the effect of "Reminder: Wikipedia may contain objectionable content. A version without images is available." Just saying you can turn off images isn't enough if you don't even hint at what those images may be.  Even this is only a temporary solution, though, as it seems too much of a hassle to ensure that images don't display in the first screenful of content. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not being facetious when I say, frankly, that it would be better if the person using the computer were to take a post-it note containing the words "Reminder: the World Wide Web may contain objectionable content." It really isn't our business to act as a substitute for net nanny software. People who are likely to be offended by website content and cannot take the simplest of reasonable steps to avoid this happening should avoid using the internet altogether. I'm trying very hard to express this in a moderate way. This is the bottome line. It isn't negotiable. We're being asked to cater for people who are incapable of operating their own web browsers. I can only go so far in that direction. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes the web contains objectionable content. It also contains kiddie porn, copyright violations, goatse images, and patent nonsense.  Just because it's on the web doesn't mean we should include it in Wikipedia. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested that this article should contain any of that. Nobody has given a reason that I can understand why an article on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses should not contain the pictures without which there would be no article or why we cannot have an article about the Clitoris that would permit a girl easily to find and use her clitoris. This is what this article is for. People not interested in the vulva and the clitoris don't have to read it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * So why the comment about about what the web contains? People expect a higher standard from Wikipedia.  We should remind them that we don't actually reach that higher standard. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 01:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jeez, man, all Anthony is suggesting is that we allow those who would be offended to censor the article themselves. You'd think he was advocating the censorship of the whole article! BTW, the article is not for permitting girls to find their clitorises. That's a possible use not why it exists!Dr Zen 23:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. I don't think we're arguing about whether a user should be able to censor the article themselves. I've been advocating this for some time. 2. An article about the clitoris that left the owner in some doubt as to what it was talking about would not be a good article on the clitoris. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(in answer to point 2)Sorry, how is what anyone has suggested here going to lead to that? This from a proponent of a picture that doesn't even illustrate the clitoris! (which would one presumes leave them in some doubt as to what it was talking about -- I accept we differ over whether the picture does)Dr Zen 01:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well you yourself said that in your opinion "No picture at all is much better" than the current one. (22 Dec 2004 (UTC)). You have repeatedly used this transparently spurious claim that the picture "doesn't even illustrate the clitoris" to justify the proposal that the picture should be removed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are suggesting that I'm in favour of censoring any picture. You do this by claiming that my claim is "transparently spurious".Dr Zen 01:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This picture, Tony. I voted in favour of the other picture, which was unfortunately a copyvio. (I explain that I am not in favour of censorship but do not like this particular picture.) You've descended into misrepresenting my views (by making out that my claim about this picture is "transparently spurious", in other words, so obviously contrived that I must have some other motive) because I don't agree with you. Feel free to remove the comments in which you do so. Dr Zen 00:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we're both talking about this picture. I'm not sure why you think your reference to the other picture is supposed to related to my observation that your claims about the current picture are extremely difficult to fathom. You claim I'm misrepresenting your views, yet we both agree that you are referring to the current picture. How am I misrepresenting your views? Have you or have you not claimed that the current picture "doesn't even illustrate the clitoris"? Have you or have you not claimed that "no picture at all is much better" than the current one? If either of those claims is false I'll gladly remove the claim with apologies. I've no intention of misrepresenting your views, I'm trying to understand them so we can reach agreement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have added comments in brackets to clarify what I feel you did. Please refactor as you see fit.


 * My views could not be clearer. I am not personally offended by a photo of the clitoris. I do not want it censored and I believe the article should carry an accurate picture of the clitoris. I want a means of not displaying it to be made available to those users who are offended by it in the name of inclusiveness and to create a consensus among the editors. I do not believe that is censorship, any more than any decision about appropriate content is. I do not believe the current picture is a good illustration of the clitoris for the reasons stated many times by several editors, in particular because it does not illustrate the subject of the article, and I believe it should be removed.
 * On a quite subsidiary note, I do not believe the primary purpose of this article is to help girls find their clitorises but to inform any and all visitors to the page about clitorises.Dr Zen 01:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well that is precisely what I thought your position was. You claim that the current picture "doesn't even illustrate the clitoris" and "should be removed" for that reason. I'm glad that we do, contrary to your claims, seem to be agreed about what your position is. I'm still trying to understand why you think that. I don't think the question of whether a girl reading the article could find her clitoris can be so easily set aside. While it isn't the primary purpose, it is a very considerable one. I wouldn't expect to emerge from reading an encyclopedia article about my adam's apple without a clear idea of where it is and what it does. If my adam's apple wasn't particularly prominent, it might help if I could see a photograph in which the location of that part of the larynx was shown. I would probably look askance at those who claimed that, without endoscopy, the adam's apple could not be seen. Why should I regard the clitoris in any other light? In my opinion, the current picture fulfils the task admirably.

You believe that I have suggested that you are "in favour of censoring any picture." Let me assure you that I have suggested no such thing. I want to know why you think this picture is so poor that it should be removed. I want to know why you have gone so far as to claim that the current picture "doesn't even illustrate the clitoris."--Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you wanted to find your adam's apple, you wouldn't want a picture of a man wearing a cravat.Dr Zen 06:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Please stop speaking in riddles. Do you not agree that the current picture would enable a viewer easily to locate her clitoris?  If not, why not? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Could you supply a source that suggests that young women do not know that their clitorises are in the general area of their vulvas?Dr Zen 23:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * For one thing it's far too small. You can't even see what is being pointed to without clicking the link, which supposedly is the thing which it is so horrible to be forced to do. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've edited the page to see if anyone likes the image more if it is bigger. I agree with Anthony that it was pretty useless being so small that yuo couldn't read the labels. It's at 300px right now. I think this is an improvement. Comments?   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  16:48, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * How odd. The labels were (and remain) perfectly legible on my rather small laptop screen. Still, there current larger size is not too obtrusive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like to remind you that the page is protected and you shouldn't be making edits to it. I agree that the bigger size is more useful (but you should unprotect the page or revert your change temporarily).   Changing the line to include a circle (like the old picture I believe had), and removing the advertisement from the lower right hand corner would be other improvements.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, I know it's protected. I only changed one thing to try and help everyone come to a concensus. I'm not the one that protected the page, and I'm not entirely sure as to the reason for it's protection. I think however that it has been protected long enough for everyone to cool down enough to not get into edit wars. If everyone can agree to discuss here any changes regarding the photo (which I think was the subject of this edit war) then we will be alright. I'll unprotect the page if there is a consensus that it doesn't need to be protected any longer.   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  17:43, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * You're not supposed to edit protected pages. Don't be a dickhead. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There is no need to call names here. I only changed it for illustrative purposes so that people could come to a concensus. I think my edit follows with the spirit of Protection policy. In any case, if it's such a big deal to you, then we should just unprotect the page, because pages aren't meant to be protected for such long periods of time, and I place trust in my fellow wikipedians that they will be civil, although this trust might be misplaced.   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  22:21, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * It should never have been protected in the first place.Dr Zen 23:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a reason to call names. You are being a dickhead.  You edited a protected page and refused to either reverse your edit or unprotect the page.  It is a big deal to me, and we should "just" unprotect the page.  I agree with Dr Zen.  It should have never been protected in the first place.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 00:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm going to unprotect the page, since no one has objected, but I don't appriciate the uncalled for attacks by Anthony. Calm down, take a deep breath, I said I would unprotect it if people agreed it should be unprotected. So it is done.   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  03:10, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * If you re-read what I've said you'd realize that my problem was with the fact that you edited a protected page. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm adding editing Image:HumanVulva-NoText-PhiloVivero.jpg for this article to my todo list.   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  17:50, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's been on mine, but my copy of gimp is currently broken. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)