Talk:Clitoris/Archive 8

Policy votes and discussion
Two polls are open about the inclusion and censorship of images. If you haven't already, please see:
 * Graphic and potentially disturbing images
 * Image censorship

The Beautiful Clitoris
It's a wonderful vagina. A human body part. If you don't like it, don't look it up. End of story. Good night.
 * First you say clitoris then to say vagina. Are you confused? But yes that is exactly the problem. It does not depict the clitoris. It does not deserve to be on the clitoris page. - Robert the Bruce 15:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New vote option...
...added to Graphic and potentially disturbing images. All those who think we shouldn't be creating blanket rules for censorship of Wikipedia, feel free to vote with me. &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  03:12, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I think suggesting that applying an inclusive solution to potentially offensive material, without advocating its removal, is "censorship" is hysterical. I do not understand the notion that if you do not like a liberal orthodox view of the world you are not welcome to use Wikipedia, and I do not see where this notion is supported in Wikipedia policy. Dr Zen 23:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Check Proposition B on the page that Mbecker cited:

"Proposition B: To implement server-side filtering of all images of murder, injury, or illness. Giving the users an option to turn it off or on in their user preference."

And look at the alternative policy proposed by GeneralPatton: "This policy proposes that all images of murder, injury, or illness should be immediately deleted, and that instead links to external sites should be used for such content."

And an amendment to that by Anthony DiPierro: "To extend this to all images."

To me, these do look like unequivocal proposals to censor. This is why I question your statement above that "applying an inclusive solution to potentially offensive material" is being mislabelled as censorship.

As for "I do not understand the notion that if you do not like a liberal orthodox view of the world you are not welcome to use Wikipedia", you would have to first demonstrate that someone who opposes censorship holds that notion. Please do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "People who are likely to be offended by website content (IOW, are not able to guess that an article on the penis in an encyclopaedia will contain photos of an erect penis, even though other encyclopaedias do not) and cannot take the simplest of reasonable steps to avoid this happening should avoid using the internet altogether." My addition in brackets and I've had enough of this, Tony. Dr Zen 05:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but didn't anyone who voted in favor of that censorship participate on this page? In fact, did anyone even vote in favor of that censorship? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's try taking the brackets out. Shorn of the distortions, we'll be able to see what I actually said:


 * 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.

This is a general statement about using the internet. If someone is likely to be offended by website content and still does not take precautions then they will be offended. In my opinion someone who refuses to take reasonable precautions, in particular to avoid browsing websites whose owners state clearly that their site "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" should avoid using the internet. They browse at their own risk.

"and I've had enough of this, Tony." If your additions to my words cause you discomfort, stop doing it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Majority strike again
It goes without saying that chocolateboy represents the majority view. We all know that. And because he does, he and his cadres can outrevert those who want an inclusive solution or are willing to work towards one. Timbo, Theresa and Tony were able to agree to a temporary compromise so that we could find a lasting solution. However, some are so vehement that the majority should simply exclude the minority and ignore its views that there is no way to deal with them. It's very distressing. I believe in consensus as the way to write articles. I am willing to fight POV pushers up to a point. But when they are this obdurate, what can a person do?Dr Zen 06:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The views of Chocolateboy and others must also be satisfied if we are to reach consensus. We must find a solution which they will not object to.

As for reverting, you yourself have engaged in revert warring in the recent past, so it's not really on for you to point the finger at others who, in fact, may only revert once. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It's clear to me that if any form of censorship other than self-censorship is used, consensus cannot be reached. It's also clear to me that if the only sort of self-censorship that can be used is to avoid using the Wikipedia, consensus cannot be reached, with that in mind, I think consensus could be reached if the MediaWiki code supported a scheme like the following:


 * Just as we allow any user to add a category to an article, any user can categorize an image. Categories can be used to flag an image for a certain type of content.  It is clear from the last several months' revert war that consensus cannot be reached as to whether a particular picture of human genitalia is encyclopedic, objectionable, offensive, suitable for children, or any of such thing, because these are inherently subjective terms.  I would hope, however, that we could come to a consensus that a particular image is in fact a photograph of human gentialia.


 * Similar categories could exist for any class of image-content that some class of users might not want to look at, or at least want the choice of looking at or not looking at, whether this be diseased anatomy, explicit death, Nazi propoganda, or maps showing an independent Northern Cyprus.


 * Now, just as each user has a watchlist, each user could have a "linklist" of image-categories that they would prefer to be linked rather than directly displayed on the article. New users get empty linklists.  For those who prefer no censorship, nothing in the user-experience changes.  For those who don't want to see a certain class of content, they can shield themselves from it, with a certain small effort. Shimmin 14:45, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would endorse such a solution. Seeing an such a solution already exists using browser options as pointed out previously by Tony, I think it would be best to put the image back so that the article is in complete working order. Now, as a "comprimise" I will not seek to delete a censored version like Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored) if the removalists seek to create a censored version unti the MediaWiki software supports such a self-censorship option.   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  15:20, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

New image
I've edited the image as I indicated I would, as per the request of several other users. I put in the circles like some said they liked with the old photo. I've marked the other areas the article refers to. Let me know what you think. Do you like blue for the labels? Black blended in too much with the public hair. I have the Adobe Illustrator file on my computer, so I can make any requested changes. &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  04:03, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * We should restore the compromise that was agreed by consensus to be put on the page until we resolve the issues in question, which we have moved much closer to doing.Dr Zen 04:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Please point to said consensus, because it was my understanding that you were trying to get the photo removed. So seeing as this "comprimise" only satisfies one side here, I don't believe that everyone would ever have come to such a comprimise. From what I have read, the consensus is that the photo should stay. Therefore I am reinstating it. I will only do it once however, so if you want to fight over it, you can fight with someone else.   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  04:50, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

The discussion is above in Archive 5. There is no consensus for the photo. All parties to the discussion (but not outside editors, clearly) agreed on a compromise for a short while until we found a lasting solution. The link was put in by Theresa Knott, one of the pro editors. Now, please, we are trying to find a consensus solution. Let's stick to the task.Dr Zen 04:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alright, well I'd still like some comments on my labeling of the image. Once we come to an agreement as to how it should be labeled, I'll make similarly labeled images for the other pages dealing with the female reproductive system that it could be used for. Here are a few examples please vote for the one you like the most, and feel free to make any suggestions for improvement:

Image tests moved to Talk:Clitoris/Image tests for ease of reading.

Please vote for the version you like the most, and make any suggestions below (Note: the last three are not rendering properly in my browser...):
 * 1) Original 300px:
 * 2) Original 350px:
 * 3) Original 400px:
 * 4) New 300px:
 * 5) New 350px:   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  17:02, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) New 400px:

Warning.
We need to include a warning on pages that have content that a significant amount of Wikipedians would find offensive. It's not a matter of whether you think the vagina is beautiful or not, or whether Wikipedia is "censoring" you. It's just a common courtesy. It doesn't detract from anything to allow people to save themselves the offense, because to see it and leave, they have to see it first, and that's what they're trying not to do. Anyway, there are several ways somebody can wind up at this or similar pages by accident; random page, clicking the wrong link or a misleading link, or just hearing someone talk about a clitoris and want to know what it is. There must a warning of some sort on this page. Seriously. If this debate is not promptly resolved, I'm adding it regardless. Thank you. :) Cookiecaper 21:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well the problem is that we all have objections to this photograph or that. I find the picture of David Icke in the article about that charlatan extremely offensive and I avoid looking at it. I don't think it would be sensible for me to remove the picture or state in the article that I found it offensive. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be NPOV, which means personal opinions should not be represented or given special privileges by Wikipedia.

There is instead a general site disclaimer, linked on every page, to the effect that Wikipedia contains images that some people will find objectionable. I think that answers my problems with the repulsive Mr Icke (or God as he prefers to be known). And it ought to be good enough for anybody else who is unlucky enough to find disturbing and upsetting pictures on Wikipedia. That's what it's there for. If the worst comes to the worst I can just block the disturbing images in my browser. And there we are, a solution everybody can be happy with! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The difference between that and this is that there are very many people who would find this offensive and there are not very many that would find David Icke pictures offensive. David Icke's mug is socially acceptable, most religions do not have dictates regarding images of David Icke, and so forth. The volume of users and organizations that are likely to find this offensive is quite vast, therefore necessitating a warning. It's not POV, it's fact that there is a large number of persons who do not want to view images of vaginas. This page needs a warning. Truly. Cookiecaper 23:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We already have a general disclaimer for the whole encyclopedia linked from each page. The POV choice of adding an extra tag to any particular article is also a violation of our NPOV policy, and thus will not fly. --mav 20:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the content of an article is affected by the personal views of some readers, rather than simply reporting them, then it is not neutral. Whether the article contains a picture should be decided by neutral criteria, such as whether the picture illustrates the subject of the article in a useful way. A warning within the text, rather than in the disclaimer linked to all articles, singles out a particular article as potentially offensive, thus implicitly giving precedence to the views of some people over others. This is incompatible with NPOV. A warning serves no other purpose than to distinguish some articles as requiring special treatment because of the beliefs and feelings of some potential readers about their subject matter and content. But this is an evaluation to be made by the reader, not the encyclopedist.

Users of the internet in general are aware that they may encounter images that they may find offensive. All web browsers provide means of navigation to enable the user to avoid looking at content that they do not want to see. Nobody is forced to visit Wikipedia, no Wikipedia user is forced to visit Clitoris, and no person who visits Clitoris is forced to download the images. A person who finds the clitoris and its surrounding furniture offensive to look at thus is well aware that he should take special action to deal with situations in which he wishes to read about, but not look at, the female sexual organs. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Not all browsers include image circumvention, and many computers with safeguards to prevent tampering (such as schools) do not allow a user to turn images on or off. Wikipedia is a service for people; it doesn't exist to adhere to policies. It is not just some people that will be offended by these pictures, it's a whole lot of people, and Wikipedia needs to recognize that demographic. Sexually explicit or violent images are already heightened to an extra level of awareness by society and religion, adding something like Template:Censorimage only makes it easier for people who aren't hippies to learn without having to put a sticky note over their screen or something like that. Wikipedia is about free knowledge for everyone, and for everyone to get that free knowledge, they need to feel comfortable, etc. This page needs to have some notification or something like that.Cookiecaper 10:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You say "not all browsers include image circumvention." Really? Can you identify one that doesn't?

You say "many computers...in schools...do not allow a user to turn images on or off." That is a good point if it's true. The user should certainly point out the problem to the school and ask for their broken software to be fixed.

You say that Wikipedia is "a service for people." It's a service whose existence would be impossible without legally binding disclaimers. We tell people they mustn't add material unless they're prepared for it to be hacked about without mercy, we tell them we can't guarantee that a word of what they read will have any relation to reality. We tell them they browse Wikipedia at their own risk. We tell them we don't give medical advice or legal opinions. And finally we tell them there is content that they may find upsetting.

You say we need to "recognise the demographic". No we don't, I don't get paid for this and I don't know anybody who does. The demographic can learn to use its browser and/or go somewhere else because all Wikipedia content is GFDL'd and anybody can legally run a fork, so if there exists a "demographic" that doesn't want to see upsetting images there must be an opening for a commercial organization to provide our content in bowdlerized form.

I have no idea what the sentence about hippies means. Could you explain? Stickies were developed nearly two decades after the hippy phenomenon, so the sentence is severely anachronistic to say the least. And where do society and religion fit in? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to adopt a neutral point of view?

I understand that you think people need to be "comfortable" before they'll read Wikipedia and become informed. Well yes, they should certainly become comfortable with the basic operation of their web browsers before they start looking at websites of any description.

In short, all the arguments above seem to be attempts to shift responsibility from the user to the content provider. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * so if there exists a "demographic" that doesn't want to see upsetting images there must be an opening for a commercial organization to provide our content in bowdlerized form. Ultimately that's what will happen if we create an encyclopedia targetted solely at the narrow group of people who don't mind seeing anything (although I doubt it will be commercial, it will most likely be a noncommercial organization that succeeds).  For now, I'm hopeful that Wikipedia will adopt the neutral point of view, and provide both versions of the article.   anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:06, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * the narrow group of people who don't mind seeing anything. You don't know what neutral is.--Jirate 15:50, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)


 * I've read NPOV, so I know what it means WRT Wikipedia, "we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute". We should provide a version with and without the porn. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 15:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * we should provide a version with and without the porn. You don't know what neutral is.--Jirate 15:50, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * Just because I express my opinions on talk pages doesn't mean I don't know what neutral is. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 18:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No but it does give a good insight into your motivation.--Jirate 18:49, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * Really? What would that motivation be?  I'll tell you what my motivation is: I'm trying to avoid having a one group of individuals ostracized from Wikipedia because another group feels they are too prudish.  But I'd like to h--Jirate 23:56, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)ear from you what you think my motivation is.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think your motivation can be divined from your use of the word porno. If your not a member of this group can you point to some people who actually are? Can you show me where they have put forward this view themselves.--Jirate 21:51, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * I think your ability to engage in intelligent thought on this subject can be divined by your misspelling of the word "you're". But to answer your question, I'd need to know which group you're asking about.  I myself have been blocked from editing because I removed this image.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd like to explain how you get that from a misspelling. I wanted you to point me toward someone in this group that is being ostracized.--Jirate 22:23, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * I am being ostracized, quite literally. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 23:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You most definetly are not. You have not been excluded from any group. If you choose to with draw because your cannot agree with the rest of the group or don't get your way, then that's something less emotive.--Jirate 23:56, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * I was blocked from editing Wikipedia several times. I don't see how you can describe that as anything other than exclusion from a group.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Remind me, Anthony. For what specific actions with respect to Clitoris have you been blocked from editing? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not having all the priviliges of the group is a temporary sanction far short of exclusion. I was also blocked at the same time, so I must be in the same group, which means it must be pro picture.--Jirate 01:19, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)


 * We should fairly represent all sides of a dispute. We agree on that. Where we part ways is when you propose that we should produce content to suit one of those sides, instead of using neutral criteria to decide what content to produce. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Where we part ways is when you propose that we should produce content to suit one of those sides I propose that we should produce content to suit both sides.  You propose that we produce content to suit only one.  instead of using neutral criteria to decide what content to produce  I fail to see what is non-neutral about reminding users of our disclaimers and allowing them to click on a link to view a version of this article without any images.  Do you care to explain how this is non-neutral?  More importantly, how does this violate the NPOV policy?  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some forks or mirrors displaying Clitoris without images

 * Search Spaniel
 * Dictionary of Anatomy
 * E-paranoids
 * Free web template
 * InfoVoyager
 * StartPlane
 * Websters Online Dictionary

There seem to be plenty. I stopped looking after that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Just as well, since there's no clitoris visible in this WP article. What is labeled "Glans of Clitoris" in the photo is no such thing; it is in fact the edge of the hood, beneath which lies the clitoris, not at all visible in the photo.  Apparently a lot of the editors here have never seen one, so here is a photo that shows (below the v, with a dot on it) the tip of a clitoris:  http://www.pukka.net/snotsykims/temple/above.jpg 68.6.40.203 02:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please appretiate another comprehensive photo: http://www.aznewage.com/clt1.jpg it should be distinctly visible here.
 * The Wiki Clitoris's 2nd picture [[Image:Clitoris inner anatomy]] gives a perfect view on the subject; however, the view is fruitless, since the uncertain incription "Glans clitoris" given. We clearly see a small penis (shaft, body) enveloped by some transparent skin. Should one assume that the whole structure is called "a clitoral glans"? Meantime, this is the spotlight of the article and must be explained with a great detail. Getting into details of the anatomic structures, it would be more reasonable to appoint the skin as "a hood" and the glans as "a prominent tip of the shaft" (often missing). If this is correct, why not to state explicitly in the anatomic picture? The issue is that the article does not fulfill its purpose - the curious people leave the page with the same confusion they have in their heads and looking at the "topic" "down there".

this article needs to tell about the clitoral bulbs
these are probably the part of the clitoris i understand the LEAST. i suspect many other people are similarly in the dark.

Gringo300 05:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

A list of words which begin with cli

 * climax
 * clime
 * cling
 * clinic
 * clique
 * clitic

I stopped looking after that. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is that supposed to make a point? My list demonstrates that there are ample means of obtaining Wikipedia content without seeing images you may find objectionable, even if users are not willing to learn how to operate their web browser. We do not need to issue further warnings or worry about people finding the picture objectionable, because nobody has to come to Wikipedia to view our conten and nobody has to download the images in any case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * My list demonstrates that there are ample means of obtaining Wikipedia content without seeing images you may find objectionable, even if users are not willing to learn how to operate their web browser. No one ever denied that it's possible to get fucked up old copies of Wikipedia content. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * We do not need to issue further warnings or worry about people finding the picture objectionable, because nobody has to come to Wikipedia to view our conten and nobody has to download the images in any case. Likewise, no one ever said that a warning or worry was necessary, we just think it'd be a good idea.  Using your argument you could argue against the inclusion of anything.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 20:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with what we've got. If no change is necessary why have you and others repeatedly tried to impose your will on others in the face of overwhelming opposition? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If we had to wait for a change to be necessary in order to improve Wikipedia we'd be waiting forever. In fact, this image would have never been added in the first place, since it's not necessary. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hasn't this been resolved
... months ago? People want a clear image. People don't want a 'warning' or 'disclaimer.' If you hate vaginas so much, STFU and fork your own crazy wiki. --68.198.151.196 18:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please note that I have reinstated my post which contains my opinion. Tony Sidaway has no right to edit my opinion on a discussion page. If he does not share my view he is entitled to post his own opinion.

*No it was not resolved months ago. What we had was a badly worded poll question which has led to the imaginative interpretation of the results of the poll to suit suit their peculiar perpective. We have the following groups mixing it up here: (ignoring that there is a pic of the vulva on ... wait for it the "Vulva" page for those don't know where the clitoris is located). was available. should not be retained (even if thet means having no pic in the article until a suitable pic is found). - Robert the Bruce 15:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Those that want a pic, any pic, in the article even if it does not depict the clitoris itself
 * 1) Those who would agree to the use of a suitable and educationally valuable pic of a clitoris if one
 * 1) Those that do not want a pic used under any circumstances.
 * 2) Those who do not believe that current pic (which does not depict the clitoris) is suitable and

Tony Sidaway has no right to edit my opinion on a discussion page. Robert the Bruce 15:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That statement is incorrect. Represent your own opinion as your please, but do not try to force your palpable misrepresentations of others' opinions onto this discussion page again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I stated my opinion. If you have an opinion which differ then state it. If however, you believe that you are the sole arbiter of the truth then we have a greater problem that at first thought. -Robert the Bruce 06:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'''Note to Tony Sidaway. Don't edit my contributions again.''' - Robert the Bruce 19:27, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) (misrepresentations corrected) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the issue has been resolved to the satisfaction of most, but others still continue to attack the status quo. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that. - Robert the Bruce 06:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Misrepresentations corrected yet again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Censorship and vandalism  reverted yet again. chocolateboy 05:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your intervention. I would appreciate it if someone other than and in addition to me can attempt to engage with Tony Sidaway to help him correct his behavior. This censorship and vandalism must be stopped. - Robert the Bruce 06:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(sigh) What should have been a simple matter of copy-editing to remove obvious falsehoods has turned into a pointless battle. Here I present a corrected and NPOV'd version of Robert's list.


 * 1) Those who believe that the current picture is a useful and suitable illustration,
 * 2) Those who would agree to the use of a suitable and educationally valuable pic of a clitoris but do not think that the current picture is such.
 * 3) Those that do not want a pic used under any circumstances.
 * 4) Those who do not believe that current pic (which some of them believe does not depict the clitoris) is suitable and should not be retained (even if thet means having no pic in the article until a suitable pic is found).

I don't see why corrections on points of fact should become the subject of an edit war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I take personal exception to your false claims of vandalism and censorship, Chocolateboy. The history list shows that I gave Robert multiple examples of corrections to his false statements before deleting them altogether when he insisted on reverting every single edit I made, falsely claiming that I had no right to edit his false statements. When someone claims that people want "a pic, any pic, in the article even if it does not depict the clitoris itself " it amounts to calumny, a personal attack on the integrity of the opponent. Note that this was the *only* class which Robert allocates to the overwhelmingl majority who think the current picture is suitable. Personal attacks of this kind should not be acceptable in debate. This is not Usenet. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is another interesting article I came across, may enrich the article
 * Tony you are not the victim in this but rather the self appointed thought police. I am entitled to express my opinion just as you are. You are not entitled to delete my opinion and replace it with yours under my signature. Your behaviour is reprehensible and need to be moderated. Please seek help with this. - Robert the Bruce 06:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As an outsider to this debate, I'd say that the attempt to list the different factions is a good idea, but that the original list provided by RTB is flawed (it certainly contains POV items of personal belief - e.g. one might indeed claim that the pic doesn't illustrate the clitoris in detail, but to assert that it doesn't show the clitoris at all, and that everybody either agrees or needs a biology lesson is wrong). I would suggest that a section be started to see if we can arrive at a concensus on what the list of factions should be - this is preferable to editing someone else's list, as it does indeed then look like you are moderating the opinions of others. Such a list would then provide a useful grounding for the next stage of the debate - how popular each of the points of view is, what a suitable poll question would be etc. 82.41.5.165 00:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All of you are fucking crazy. Yes, I came to a page on the female clitoris and was shocked to find a picture of... a clitoris! For Christ's sakes, grow up. Information should be accurate. This is accurate. Leave the picture be. --24.200.155.103 01:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * But there's simply no clitoris visible in that picture! Here's a picture of a clitoris: http://www.pukka.net/snotsykims/temple/above.jpg 68.6.40.203 05:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

An outside view
I'm not offended by the image; I'm just worried that other people might be. The claims of 'hippie' do have some merit; the net.geeks that inhabit Wikipedia are primarily young and socially liberal (myself included, exceptions of course exist). The readers, however, are not. Wikipedia is not a forum to make a political statement about censorship. I don't see how including a schematic diagram, or a warning (Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse) or including a link to the image (Autofellatio) is censorship. In how many medical textbooks will this kind of image be present? Vacuum c 17:41, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm 48. Is that too young for you, old fella? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:03, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See emphasis above. Vacuum c 00:29, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it's just that I recall looking at the user pages of a number of other users who don't seem to have any problems with the image of a vagina and I would find it difficult to accept a definition of them that said that they were predominantly young. Were they socially liberal? Well perhaps they were, but as I find it very difficult to imagine a social conservative being in favor of the free dissemination of knowledge I don't find that particularly worrying. In any case these people seem to share the basic Wikipedian view that neutral criteria should be used to decide what is part of a Wikipedia article. In my view the current picture would be useful because the owner of a clitoris could use the picture as an aid to locating it. Thus the picture adds to human knowledge. I really don't care about the rest, that's all POV stuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * So you would be okay with the warning or the link? Vacuum c 01:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Re: your talk page comment

Very well. I'll repect the consensus. But I still disagree. To start, let me reiterate: I am not a prude, and I, personally, am ok with the picture. But, prudes do visit Wikipedia, and do get it on censor lists. Adding a warning is not censorship. If I look up clitoris in, say, World Book Encyclopedia, I am not expecting a picture of a real clitoris. As well, most users do not have the technical ability (shock! horror!) to turn off images in their browser. Vacuum c 02:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's not that I wouldn't be okay with the warning or the link, it's that I don't see the point of nannying people who cannot be bothered to learn how to drive their browsers. You press clitoris or penis on the web, you expect pictures of sexual organs. If puritans visit Wikipedia, perhaps they only do so because they do not realise that Wikipedia is not for puritans. Perhaps they have not read the content disclaimer. They can do so and make a decision. Nobody is forcing puritans to read Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no intent, as far as I am aware, to become an outreach group to puritans. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not for prudes. Wrong.  Wikipedia is for everyone. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Beat me to the point. What next, Wikipedia is not for non-geeks? Vacuum c 16:02, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Read the content disclaimer. Wikipedia is not for puritans. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Anthony got it half right. Wikipedia ought to be for everyone. But while guys like Tony fight so hard to stop it from being, it won't be. You know, Tony, I'm no prude. I don't blanch at strong pics. But I can have respect for others who do. That respect is thoroughly lacking from your comments in this debate. Since you're a big fan of editing other people's comments, I've edited yours to NPOV and a more correct statement of the truth. Dr Zen 11:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Where exactly does the content disclaimer say that Wikipedia is not for prudes? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll respond to the recent points in turn.
 * To Dr Zen: again you misrepresent me. I have never attempted to exclude puritans, but I don't demand that they look at what they don't want to look at. It follows that puritans will not find Wikipedia to their taste and Wikipedia (see content disclaimer) is probably not for them.
 * To Anthony: it tells people that Wikipedia contains content they will not like. Puritans are people who aren't prepared to ignore what they don't like but want the things they don't like to be removed.

As I have pointed out in another section on this page, the GFDL content of Wikipedia is still available on other sites without illustrations for those who prefer to read it without pictures that they consider shocking. You seem to be arguing that it is necessary for us to modify our standards so that they not only represent the viewpoints of puritans ("some people find depictions of the female sexual organs upsetting") but are determined by the viewpoints of puritans ("click here to see a picture of a clitoris; you may find it upsetting"); I can't see a way of doing this without violating NPOV. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * To Anthony: it tells people that Wikipedia contains content they will not like. I thought the reminder said that Wikipedia may contain content that some people won't like.  If not, would you object to something that says that? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

21:01 4 May 2006 - Some guy with no account said: ''# 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 depictions of human anatomy.''

Substitute?
Hmmm,... this page still confuses and befuddles me. I cannot believe this discussion is still going on. Instead of conflict, why not show pics that may be more acceptable(meaning, if you oppose the current pic, please do provide a substitute)? I also think that a detailed illustration (I'm trying to find an illustration such as this) should accompany the pic of the clitoris. One that provides detailed info and a real picture that would show a girl what she does really look like. CiaraBeth 05:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The discussion continues because the real issue is not being addressed in the discussion. The discussion continues because some are using the defence of an unsuitable pic at all costs as the battle ground for defending the use of explicit pic of genitals on Wikipedia. This is sad because defending the indefensible (in this case being a pic which does not display the subject of the article) plays into the hands of those who oppose the use of pics at all for the genitals. The solution is to delete the current pic until a suitable and defendable pic is found. Maybe that is too simple. - Robert the Bruce 09:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is the most pleasing pic, but it is suitable. What, exactly (be specific to the most minute detail) do you find wrong with the pic? I find nothing wrong with an explicit pic on Wiki and I am a rather prudish person, somewhat socially conservative. I would not care if my kids saw that pic, but I would also like to see a detailed graphics illustration pointing out where things are. I also wonder, in wiki, under the entries of Mons Venus and labia, would you object to the current pic under the labia entry? I do not think the the anti pic people have presented sufficiant argument. My children's school library contains a few encyclopedias that contain graphic images, I know because the kids showed me, while snickering. So, the argument that a school would not allow it does not quite hold. CiaraBeth 14:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Your response serves to highlight the problem as I see it. I am talking about the suitability of the pic for the Clitoris article and you and a number of others continue to see this as an issue of whether explicit pics should be used at all (hence your use of loaded words such as "prudish" and "scoially conservative" etc etc). I would like the discussion here to focus on selecting the most suitable pic/illustration of the clitoris for the clitoris article and leave what you are discussing for the other forum. My problem with this pic is that it is a poor pic of the vulva which does not depict the clitoris at all. Now I would have thought that a pic in the clitoris article should at least depict the clitoris, no? - Robert the Bruce 04:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Robert, repeatedly claiming that there is no clitoris in the photograph will not make it so. The hood is clearly visible, the external part of the clitoris, such as it is, is the little knob under the hood.  This is what a sexually mature woman or girl can expect to see if she's looking for her clitoris and the organ is neither particularly prominent nor in a sexually excited state.  The photograph with its markings shows a woman or girl where her clitoris is.


 * By all means look for a better picture; this one by itself is not ideal, I agree. But to claim that you alone are talking about the suitability of the picture is false. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You believe that the "bean" of the clitoris is to be found somewhere under the skin - which to laymen means it really is a picture of the clitoris only that it happens to be obsured by the prepuce (if you understand the logic). ...There is a difference between being anti this particular photo (which does not depict the subject of the article) and being anti- all and any photo. You do understand the nuance here don't you? - Robert the Bruce 04:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Extensively edited to remove the usual personal attacks and loaded language --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC))
 * I completely agree that much of the clitoris is covered by the prepuce. This is shown clearly in the picture. What I find  incomprehensible is that you seem to maintain here both that the clitoris *is* illustrated and that it is not.  I'll leave the solution of that conundrum up to you.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It is important to be honest in the representation of other people&#8217;s views, no? The photo does not depict the clitoris itself and as such the inclusion in the article does a disservice to Wikipedia. Does this worry you? - Robert the Bruce 03:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's something we'll have to disagree on. To me it seems that depiction of the clitoris is such that the owner of a clitoris wouldn't mistakenly expect to see a prominent knob, and wouldn't expect to see a naked glans.  You could argue on the same grounds that a picture of a penis with a non-retracted foreskin is not a picture of the penis at all.  I don't see much merit in that, however. Tony Sidaway|Talk
 * Not a good argument. As Dr Zen stated you don't use a pic of a man wearing a cravat to illustrate the "Adams-apple" just as you don't try to illustrate the glans penis when covered by a foreskin I seems obvious that the glans clitoris should be exposed for the "educational" purpose of a pic in an encyclopedia article rather than to say "its under there somewhere". - Robert the Bruce 22:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note to Tony Sidaway I suggest that you cease using this derogatory, demeaning and loaded word in your edits as this blatant attempt to belittle the genuine beliefs of others is nothing short of a disgusting personal attack. - Robert the Bruce 22:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why was it just protected?
I don't think one edit is an edit war. Vacuum c 16:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm mystified about this too. The article was edited and then reverted around 0200 UST, then protected at around 1500, over twelve hours later with no intervening edits. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not request unprotection at Requests for page protection? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 17:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Solution.
Okay, we have to come up with a compromise here. It's clear that there are two camps with regard to this topic, and neither will give up until they're satisfied with the article. We can't leave it as is; we have to do something. So let's make a decision. We can go the way of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse and offer two versions of the page, something I'm in favor of. We could do like Autofellatio and link to it. And I'm sure there are other options. But we need to decide here. Truly. Cookiecaper 05:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The article seems to be broadly stable at present. There is no pressing need to change. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a pressing need to change. However, if you don't want to participate, you don't have to. But you'll have to live with the decision. I think that there's a large group of Wikipedia editors that want something on this page, not to mention readers. We aren't going to go away, and this debate will continue on until something satisfactory to both sides is figured out. And maybe one day soon, we'll win an edit war and get to keep a disclaimer on the top, and you can be the petitioner. Man I need something that gives this authority. Oh well, I'll keep relying on the authority I have just for being a normal Wikipedia contributor. So that might work. Anyway, we have to resolve this. I think it'd be nice if you could help us out. And I mean really help us think of something everyone likes, not just keeping on without notification. :) Cookiecaper 06:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where was this "large group of editors" that wanted "something on this page" when the issue was voted and lost by 25/9/0? There is a site disclaimer warning all readers what to expect, and if that isn't good enough the name of this article should be a clue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But to address your point. You say "there is a pressing need to change." Why? Why now? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

25 to 9 is not a consensus. Votes do not create consensus. They avoid them. This page is not "stable". It's the centre of an intermittent edit war. Because some of your side are admins, and protect the page to their preferred version when it is reverted, and those with the opposite POV to yours are trying to resolve the issues by discussion instead of mindlessly edit warring, you can kid yourself that it's stable. This is rank, Tony. If it was being edit warred continuously, you'd be calling for trolls and vandals to be banned, blah blah, but because no one is doing that, you claim it is not disputed! I might have given up on any hope of your taking a more inclusive view of Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean I've lessened my opposition to your exclusivist hard line.Dr Zen 11:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I hardly see that 26% of those responding to the poll signals a pressing need for censoring this article. However, as I said in my comment below, I would not oppose a version of this article like the Abu Ghraib article. The burden lies with those who want a censored version to create such an article in a way that is satisfactory to those of us who seek an NPOV article.   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  17:40, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't think you should pay any attention to the views of a quarter of those who voted? I think that makes your view on the value of consensus very clear. Dr Zen 22:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope you are joking. I'd certainly think that something is wrong if at least half of those polled thought there was an issue. This wasn't the case.   &mdash;  &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  05:52, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

If it was being edit warred continuously, you'd be calling for trolls and vandals to be banned

Thank you for telling me what I would be doing. What surprises me about this amazing display of prescience is that you probably honestly believe it to be true.

You say that people have stopped mindlessly edit warring. Well I'm glad that they have finally come around.

You claim that I say the picture is not disputed. I do not say that. I have never said that. I say that the article is broadly stable at present. I say this because it seems to be as stable as any other article I have seen on a slightly controversial subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No one has "come round". That was my point, Tony. You take the lack of an edit war to signify progress. Perhaps we should go back to removing the photo whenever we can to indicate to you that there has been none.Dr Zen 22:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me what is controversial is not the subject but the images being displayed in the article. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I have said in the past, while I do not personally find a reason to censor the images on the page, and I am against censorship in general, I would not stop an effort to create a version of this page like the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse article. I understand the Autofellatio censorship since the subject itself is sexual in nature, although I have to say that I don't nessesarily support such censorship. However, this article is not sexual in nature. It's an anatomy article, and as such, I don't think it should be treated differently than any other anatomy aritcle. This is all just my personal opinion of course, and I don't think it should be taken into account when considering if an article is NPOV. The fact is, that for us to stay neutral as editors, we should seek to take a neutral stance when writting the article. In this case, neutral means we don't care if people are offended or not by a photo. Now, since I understand other peoples POV about the photos, I would not seek to delete a Clitoris (censored) like Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). I would of course not support such an effort either. However I think it is a good comprimise until an in-wiki software solution, or a completely censored fork of wikipedia is created. &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  17:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean "be neutral". It means "include all views". We are asked to represent all opinions fairly. NPOV would mean we do care whether people are offended. We take it into account. That's what you and Tony are being asked to do.

I agree with you that this article is not "sexual in nature" but I recognise that there are some who believe that any depiction of sexual organs is "sexual in nature". In just the same way as articles include views that we do not agree with, that view should be represented here.Dr Zen 22:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we all agree that all views should be represented here. I have a small problem (not a show-stopper) with the use of what I consider to be "shock" disclaimers and another small problem (again not a show-stopper) with use a kludges that make editing an article difficult. I think most likely clitoris will not have a warning because, well, as CiaraBeth said it's pretty much the kind of stuff they have in school books these days. As I've said in the past, I wouldn't die of shame if a further disclaimer were placed on clitoris; on the other hand I don't think it's necessary and from experience it seems that it would be very unpopular and problematic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consensus and debate
I think a lot of the "debate" has been unproductive. I resent being caused a "hardliner" by people who have performed multiple reverts on this article in one day. Three of us have tried to forge a consensus with opponents of the current picture, agreeing to replacement by a link for a brief period but the problem with that is that many others do not accept that. I've come to believe that this is the most stable clitoris will ever be, and that this isn't necessarily something to worry about. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony, Dr Zen's comments about your contribution to this article are accurate. There is no attempt at consensus all we see is "hardline" attempts to force a poor photo of the vulva (which does not depict the clitoris) into the clitoris article. This is indeed a bizarre situation. - Robert the Bruce 03:03, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've already addressed our difference of opinion on the picture. I repeat that I'm satisfied that the photograph is a useful depiction of the clitoris.

Could you give an example of where I have attempted to force any photograph into this article? As far as I'm aware I have only made two edits on Clitoris. In the only one in which I have inserted the photo (December 12) this was in response to Anthony removing it. Anthony had removed it with a rather cryptic comment "we already link to vulva." I restored it with the comment "see my comment on Talk page" and followed it up with a section in talk:clitoris, now in Talk:Clitoris/Archive5, "Explanation of Tony Sidaway's reversion of Anthony DiPierro's removal of photograph". I said: "Anthony, I think it looks as if you may be attempting to revive the reversion war over the picture. Nevertheless I'm open to persuasion if you can justify the removal of the picture. I've reverted your edit for now because of an inadequate explanation, but would not revert a second time on this occasion."

We then had a discussion which ended with my proposal, which was supported by Timbo, Theresa Knott and myself: "I am actively searching for a more suitable photograph. Meanwhile I'd like to see if we can reach a consensus to replace the current image with a link, as you suggest, until I or someone else can obtain such a photograph. I would rather have a link and an unprotected page that people can edit than the current protected page which cannot be edited."

I think that most fair-minded people would find it difficult to describe my actions in this case as an attempt to force anything; I bent over backwards to make a consensus on this point. The statements of some of the anti-picture people have in recent weeks been peppered with repetitions of false representations of this kind. I would not make much of it, but these false representations are being used consistently in what amount to personal attacks against proponents of the current picture, myself included. Consensus cannot be reached while these falsehoods and personal attacks continue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will say this, too. I will never insert the current picture into clitoris if it is removed. I had already agreed to, and still agree to, its replacement by a link pending it the provision of a better picture. The presence of the current picture is, I am confident, a result of a strong consensus, not any action of mine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Tony, Dr Zen's comments about your contribution to this article are accurate. There is no attempt at consensus all we see is "hardline" attempts to force a poor photo of the vulva (which does not depict the clitoris) into the clitoris article. This is indeed a bizarre situation." - First off, I think, from what I have read thus far, Dr.Zen's comments were directed at Tony's discussion on this page and not about his contribution to this article, so you are mistaken and are twisting words. I also think that Dr.Zen unfairly misrepresented Tony's participation in this article. I gather from his comments that he feels Tony is fighting to keep something indecent and bad in the article and that Tony is not giving consideration to the thoughts of those who are more prudish. Tony has pointed out that there are many other sites that show Wiki articles that exclude the pictures, so there are more prude friendly ways to obtain the article.


 * I also read this comment from him: "This is rank, Tony. If it was being edit warred continuously, you'd be calling for trolls and vandals to be banned, blah blah, but because no one is doing that, you claim it is not disputed! I might have given up on any hope of your taking a more inclusive view of Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean I've lessened my opposition to your exclusivist hard line." From Tony's comments in the talk and in response to these comments from Zen, he never claimed that the picture was unsdisputed, only claimed that it was suitable, as do I. I also feel that this is misrepresenting Tony. Zen is putting  words in Tony's mouth (figuratively). Just as I have seen you do, Robert. I have  read the misrepresentations and lies and personal attacks that you have written in response to Tony before they were edited. Quite frankly, I do not blame him for editing them out.


 * I am puzzled at why Tony has been attacked and figuratively gang banged in this talk when I noticed he only made two edits in the article, albiet one replaced the pic. I have also noticed that those crying the most about him seem to have had multiple reverts in one day... Pot...kettle?CiaraBeth 18:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You gather from my words that I think Tony is trying to include something indecent? I don't know how you gathered that. I've said several times that I do not think it is indecent.

If you actually read what I've written, you'll see that I am urging an inclusive solution, so that even "prudes" can access the article without being offended. Tony suggests that prudes are not welcome at Wikipedia. He also suggests that because the majority won a vote, the minority must bow the knee to them. This is the hard line we are talking about.

Tony claimed that the article was "stable", not that the picture was undisputed. These are different things. You are putting words in my mouth. Dr Zen 23:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It is almost surreal how this debate is playing out. Firstly we have people who just seem unable to grasp that there are two distinct issues here and those are. one, whether the genitals should be depicted in an article by a photo, and two, whether it is necessary when inserting a picture into an article that it at least depicts the subject of the article. - Robert the Bruce 23:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not putting words in your mouth. I was reading what I interpretted from that which you wrote. I was replying to Robert about what I interpretted your replies to Tony to be.CiaraBeth 23:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An end to the debate
I completely agree with Tony and Ciara's comments and assessments of the situation above. I myself was attacked unjustly by some of the "hardline removalists" just a few days ago for trying to help everyone come to a consensus. I hope that everyone involved with this article can follow Civility, and stop making false accusations to try and prove their point. I think we can all agree that we are all here because we want this article to be the best it can be. If you are not here for that reason, I suggest you take a break from the article. I am making a good faith assumption here, and I hope other editors can too, because at least the majority of us are here debating because we want this article to be as good as it can be.

The old image of the clitoris, the one that was removed did show the "knob" of the clitoris better than the current one. However, I think that since I have edited this image in a similar matter to the old one (which I had also edited), it is still quite clear as to where the clitoris is. While you can not view the "knob" unobscured in this photo, the area on the clitoris is unique even when obscured, and so I think that this image certainly helps to illustrate the clitoris. The fact is that the definition of the clitoris is still under debate. Some would say that since the nerves extend much further internally than the little "knob" that is external, it is defined as that large network of nerves. More commonly though when someone refers to a clitoris they are referring to "knob." While the knob itself is not viewable in the current image, the exact location of the clitoris is easily distinguished with the image. I feel confident, that if someone had a real set of female sex organs to compare to this image they would have no trouble finding the "knob" using this illustration. I believe that this illustration by itself is useful, but not as useful as it would be with the addition of a good picture of a vulva with the labia minora opened so that the clitoris could be viewed unobscured. I don't feel that it is useless as some people do. I agree with, I think, everyone when I say that we could use a photo that shows the clitoris unobscured.

It seems to me that the editors who wish to remove the photo have been arguing two points. The first is that there are people who would be offended by the image, and we should therefore seek to cater the article to them in some manner. The second is that the image is not useful because the "knob" is obscured. Other editors disagree with the first point, and feel that we should not seek to cater to every POV by censoring certain things that might be offensive to this or that group. They disagree with the second point because they feel the image is useful enough to warrant inclusion as I explained above. I think that everyone involved so far understands the other sides POV, even though they may disagree, and I don't think that either side is going to change their mind any on either of these points.

There have been several suggested solutions, some that have met with resistance leading to this page being reverted, some which haven't been tried or have been shot down by people who oppose them for one reason or another. In my opinion, there are a few options that haven't been tried yet which will meet with the least amount of resistance amongst both camps.
 * 1) Create a censored version like the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse page using templates.
 * 2) Link to an already censored version of the article (many exist as pointed out by Tony) in the header of the article.

If anyone else has any other suggestions to help end this debate, please add them to the above list. I don't think any of the other options put forth can bring about a "stable" article. I could of course be wrong. If I have misrepresented anyone&#8217;s view here, please let me know. This is the situation as I see it though. &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  20:42, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of pointing to an off-site unillustrated version, provided it is a reasonably up-to-date and well maintained one. If one is not already available I could provide a proxy that could serve wikipedia articles without images.

I'm still mulling over the template method. Apart from the small technical problems (more complex procedure for editing, breaks cache), the only stumbling block for me is the wording. A fairly neutral wording of the following kind would be best, I think:
 * this is an illustrated article. A version without illustrations is available.

It is not up to Wikipedia to tell the reader that he may find a picture of a woman's vulva upsetting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)--


 * I appreciate MBecker's attempt to sum up the debate, but of course he is not neutral. I'm sure we do understand one another's POV. The problem is, I feel, that the includers, if we can call them that, have not been genuinely willing to compromise. For instance, Tony agreed to a link, but when it was reverted, he did not support it and I believe he indicated that he preferred it not to be there. The excluders have suggested compromises and solutions but for whatever reason these have been very hard to put in place.


 * I have assumed everyone is acting in good faith. I deplore MBecker's suggestion that some -- presumably some of those who don't agree with him -- are not. That just isn't helpful.


 * I do not like the idea of linking offsite. I think we should provide the Abu Ghraib solution. Given that it is simple to effect, I don't know why that hasn't already been done. I believe it was Tony's objection to the warning that caused it to stumble.


 * Tony, I don't believe the editing procedure is any harder for the Abu Ghraib solution. CHL's solution simply allows the pictures to be suppressed but uses the original article. I have no idea what the "cache" problem is. I think it is a matter of fact that the picture may be offensive to some. We are not telling anyone they should be offended. We are saying some may be offended. Wikipedia reports views, Tony. And not just those of its creators but all views. This is the foundation of this dispute, I believe. Some think that Wikipedia should take a stance. I and others believe it should not. It should represent all views fairly. This picture is offensive to some. Represent that view fairly.


 * I might add that Tony has at least tried to batter away at the problem and I appreciate that. Other editors have not contributed anything to the discussion but have reverted to their own POV; in some cases, protecting the article to their POV. That's not been helpful in resolving this issue at all.Dr Zen 23:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No Tony has been involved in a debate and neither have you. Tony seems to think he's representing others but will not say who. You claim some people are offended. I want numbers/percentages /reasons etc.--Jirate 23:40, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll begin with orthodox Muslims. They're all going to be offended. At a rough estimate, we'd be looking at, what, half a billion people. Their reason? They believe women should be "modest". Many parents. My friend Michelle, for example, is outraged. Her kids cannot use Wikipedia. Her eldest is 9. I don't know whether she's clear on where her clitoris is. But Michelle believes that the public display of sexual organs, even if presented as simply a part of the anatomy, is offensive. There's probably at least another half billion like her because her views are not at all extreme. They would at least be shared by many practising Christians, not just in the States, but most notoriously there. Add in those nations where this page would actually be illegal, although there are relatively few of those, one must presume that people there would be offended. A quarter of the editors that voted on the issue, and one might presume there are others. Anthony's girlfriend. More precise numbers you'll have to find for yourself.Dr Zen 23:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * THere is one question that I have, if one is so offended about female modesty, why would someone so religiously convicted about female modesty be compelled to look up the article to begin with. When I was devout, I would never have dared look up such a dirty thing as the clitoris, let alone penis or vulva.CiaraBeth 00:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That's what you did.Dr Zen 00:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I know there is nothing in the Koran, Bible or Tora which has anything to say on this matter. So why do you say ,'They're all going to be offended'? and also like some evidence for the 'half a billion people'. The basic problem is you don't have an argument just a POV which your trying to justify, when you argument amounts to "my mummy say's"--Jirate 00:23, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)


 * You are not worth discussing this with further. Sorry.Dr Zen 00:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * From your point of view that's true because I will not let you get away with the propaganda.--Jirate 00:56, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * From my talk page --Jirate 01:23, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * Mate, trying to dispute that anyone is offended by pussy pics doesn't look too smart. You know people are. Maybe not you, not me and not anyone we know (although my friend Michelle is a real person and does feel that way) but you know those people are out there.
 * You're not arguing that we should ignore that minority view, which is a standpoint that is at least understandable, but that it doesn't even exist. Man, did you not notice the fuss when Janet Jackson displayed her tit on American TV? It wasn't even completely nude! Jackson even had to apologise to the people offended.
 * As for whether it's in the Bible etc, that's the kind of smartarsed comment that really pisses people off. Are they manuals for how to be a Christian/Muslim/Jew? No, they are not. Each religion has traditions that are quite separate from their scriptures.Dr Zen 01:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * People are scared of spiders and all sorts of things on an irrational basis. It is also an encylopdia entry called clitoris not a TV sports show. The people who would complain about a tit on TV would not necssariy compain about tits in disatser coverage, they would recognise the context. You can't go around citing a head count of muslims and then say well it doesn't have anything to do with the holy because but social tradition, it invaldates the numbers. Don't say I'm not worth talking to and start threads on my talk page it looks dishonesr.--Jirate 01:23, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)


 * I put a comment on your page to explain to you why I wouldn't discuss this any further with you. No other reason.Dr Zen 23:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony agreed to a link, but when it was reverted, he did not support it and I believe he indicated that he preferred it not to be there.
 * That is categorically false. I not only agreed to the link, I did everything I could to support it short of getting into an edit war. When Chocolateboy and User:Raul654 both reverted the link to a picture 15 Dec 2004, I went to their talk pages and wrote the following on both:
 * Hi, I noted your recent revert to Clitoris. Please read the talk page on this; some of us are temporarily agreeing to a period of linking to the image as part of trying to reach an agreement that satisfies all parties. There is no intention to permanently remove the inline image; this agreement expires first thing Monday am. Please take this into account when viewing edits on that page.
 * You write: I deplore MBecker's suggestion that some -- presumably some of those who don't agree with him -- are not.
 * Well, look at it from my point of view. These repeated misrepresentations and outright fabrications have gone on for days if not weeks.  Every time one is debunked you or Robert come out with yet another, which we have to go digging to disprove.  You can utter ten falsehoods in the time it takes me to disprove just one. I'm trying to assume good faith, but it's difficult to do that in the face of this barrage of distortions of fact on your part.


 * Given that it [[the Abu Ghraib solution] is simple to effect
 * Actually there are a couple of small technical problems. I'd rather wait for a site-wide capacity to turn pictures off.  Meantime, as I've already indicated, puritans can learn to drive their browsers, just like the rest of us, and there is no shortage of off-site copies of the same article, some of which are without pictures.


 * Some think that Wikipedia should take a stance. I and others believe it should not. 
 * I completely agree. I believe that the only way we can avoid taking a stance on this is to make our choice of content solely on whether it makes the article more informative. That alone is compatible with the neutral point of view.


 * Zen, I think you're confusing the reporting of people's views with letting those views drive the content. Go in the latter direction and yes, you'll have to take account of Muslims who object to pictures of women that appear immodest according to whatever their version of Sharia says.  Same with the Jews.  The Pentecostalist Christians, too, would have their own ideas. All of these people's views should be reported, but none of them should be taken into account when deciding whether to include an illustration. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Although you disagreed with Schneelocke's vandal-protecting the article, you defended his doing so with a spurious argument about two reverts being a breach of the "spirit" of the 3RR that justified protecting to his (and your) preferred version. You did not revert to the compromise version, but you have in the past reverted to your preferred version. You supported Chocolateboy's reversion, even though he did not bother with a note to Talk.
 * I believe that the only way we can avoid taking a stance on this is to make our choice of content solely on whether it makes the article more informative. That alone is compatible with the neutral point of view. You need to go and read the policy, Tony, really. NPOV does not mean "be neutral" or "be objective". It means "include all views". Read the policy, I implore you.
 * I believe we should take into account the views of those who object to whichever images they object to.
 * It is a misrepresentation of my views to suggest that I am not for including the illustration. I am in favour of showing common courtesy to those who would be offended by the photo by allowing them to suppress the images. Those who don't mind looking at vulvas -- and I am one of them -- can see them. Those who mind can also read the article without offence. You have not at any point given a cogent argument why we should not do this. Dr Zen 00:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"I have assumed everyone is acting in good faith. I deplore MBecker's suggestion that some -- presumably some of those who don't agree with him -- are not. That just isn't helpful." Here you go misrepresenting other people again. I said "I think we can all agree that we are all here because we want this article to be the best it can be. If you are not here for that reason, I suggest you take a break from the article. I am making a good faith assumption here, and I hope other editors can too, because at least the majority of us are here debating because we want this article to be as good as it can be." I was simply stating that I am making a good faith assumptiong (meaning I assume good faith) of the other editors. I never once sugested that this assumption was not all inclusive. I simpllely said that if my assumption was wrong, and some people are not trying to make the article as good as if can be, meaning they are arguing for other reasons, such as arguing because a picture of a clirotis/vulva goes against thier morals, etc.., then they should take a break from the article. I never implied or stated that this was the case with anyone. I was simply telling everyone that I am trusting that they are here to make a good article, not to simply censor everything they find offesive/potentialy offensive. &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  05:34, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I read "at least the majority" as implying a minority might not be. I am suggesting that this article would be best if it represented all views. I am suggesting it could do that by allowing those who hold the views in question to suppress the images. It is not a question of my own morals, nor, as it happens, is that a motivation for Robert, nor Anthony, so far as what they've said here indicates.Dr Zen 23:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)