Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clitoris (censored)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Final vote tally was 42 votes to delete, 6 votes to keep. Joyous 03:46, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Clitoris (censored)

 * Delete, since the article adds no value nor new information to the repository. The picture in the main article is not that great... but it's better than nothing. It's certainly not pornographic. --Rnbc 00:48, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
 * Hard Delete. This is just another atempt by the mnority to force it's POV on Wikipedia by any means.--Jirate 16:41, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * Super-Keep. See the discussion at Talk:Clitoris. Cookiecaper 16:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * NB this person created the page and has deleted the VfD msg from the page at least one.--Jirate 17:14, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * I did not create this page, and the VfD marker was removed in the process of reverting the content back; content that shouldn't have been removed in the first place. Cookiecaper 17:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, bad precedent. Neutralitytalk 18:08, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * The precedent has already been set here. Samboy 23:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The end result may be the same, but the implementation is completely different. DCEdwards1966 01:26, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, fork. --fvw *  18:10, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to non-POV title (such as Clitoris (no images)) until a family-friendly imageblocking mediawiki option becomes available. JFW | T@lk  18:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary duplication and a bad precedent. The original article already has a content warning. That's enough. Plus I just noticed the censored version includes links to the uncensored version, so that renders the POV of this version somewhat moot. 23skidoo 18:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as is, fork. If a non-fork version is made then move and keep. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 19:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the "objectionable content" is anywhere on the site, the censorware people will block the entire site anyway, and removing "objectionable" but accurate content in the interest of pandering to censors is abhorrent. --Kelly Martin 19:22, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Xezbeth  19:25, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * delete as is, fork Concur with Anthony DiPierro. I expect this to be replaced by a transclusion version of some kind and will change vote if I see a suitable transclusion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) Changed vote. Still delete. Abrogating commitment to reconsider. See discussion on talk:clitoris. I will not fly a kite of speculative technology in the face of clear opposition., knowing as I do that the solution is in the browser of the person who doesn't want to look at the pictures. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)\
 * Delete K1Bond007 19:42, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Extremely Hard Delete. POV POV POV. Horrible precedent. Fork. Timbo 19:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the precedent already set by Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). What's POV is keeping one but deleting the other.  Both should be kept, or both deleted. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 12:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point, Anthony; perhaps precedent is the wrong word. To say that the use of a censored or abridged version in one instance validates another is faulty. The Abu Ghraib page is not a policy. IMHO it shouldn't exist. I suppose I haven't invested the time and effort to fight it because its existence isn't as offensively POV as in clitoris. POV, but of the view that viewing torture, murder, and dead corpses is something people might not want to see. It's the same thing, but I personally find the view that people will be offended/disgusted/scarred by an actual depiction of the female form much, much more offensive. So my view stands, but perhaps one should substitute "endorsement of POV" with "precedent." Timbo 01:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Pursuant to above, there's a telling comment in Talk:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). User:Rossami, the admin in charge of the previous VfD on said page comments: "You raise a disturbing point about the discussion for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clitoris (censored). The decision for this page was 'no clear consensus to delete', not 'clear consensus to keep'. This decision should not be used as precedent in other decisions. That article should be evaluated on its own merits." Timbo 04:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as invalid fork. Real encyclopedias don't censor themselves because some fundies don't like pictures of the human body. Perhaps they need their own nice clean white wiki. - Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  19:59, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia already censors itself. No images of pornography on pornography page, link on Autofellatio page, link on Nick Berg page, warning at top of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse page, etc. Samboy 23:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. As far as I can tell pornography doesn't contain any pornography due to copyright issues, rather than any kind of censorship. It has been discussed, but there's been no major feeling either way. David Johnson [ T|C ] 00:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete-- DCEdwards1966 20:37, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - use my suggested image censor fix (easier to maintain) as demo'd here, at least until a Wikipedia policy (or MediaWiki solution) is agreed upon. violet/riga (t) 21:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete How many times must a man(/woman) vote it down? Ejrrjs | What? 21:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep See Talk:Clitoris Samboy 23:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to think of a good reason why this should be kept, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Delete.  GRider\talk 23:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Invalid fork. We've been through all this before, and there was consensus not to do this. -- The Anome 23:52, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ba-leet. There are 442525 articles in the Wikipedia where you can't see a clitoris, there should be one where you can (and if we ever get a better picture the nominal one will be it).  (NB: this goes also for beheadings, in case anyone's sophistry knee is jerking towards call him a hypocrite in their weejee board.) Blair P. Houghton 23:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong deleteCiaraBeth 00:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - The utter stupidity of the fact that there is a debate about this just astounds me. Why don't these people go and start up www.wikicensored.org. Jooler 00:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The only difference is that in this article, it doesn't show you a picture of a clitoris? Well, that seems fine to me; I think it's perfectly reasonable to have secondary versions of articles that censor sexual or violent imagery. So keep. I'm no prude myself, but I want people to be comfortable using our articles in schools, and for parents to be comfortable having their children read them. Everyking 00:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Now this page has NPOV problems. s/parents/prudish parents who think biology is dirty/ Blair P. Houghton 06:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored for the 'protection of minors'. David Johnson [ T|C ] 11:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This is an encyclopedia. I refuse to believe that anyone viewing the Clitoris article is going to be unprepared for its content. Perhaps we could do with a template to warn about such content in articles, but having seperate censored articles is silly. David Johnson [ T|C ] 00:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Very strong DELETE. This sets an extremely bad precedent, suggesting that it is OK for people with non-mainstream views or unique agendas to create their own sanitised alternative articles instead of accepting the prevailing community consensus. --Centauri 01:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey Centauri, what happened to your stirring arguments of keeping every minute detail for prosperity on Wikipedia? If you want this deleted but the others kept, there is a lack of consistency in your arguments. I agree however that this should be Deleted on the grounds of it being a fork. Megan1967 02:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There's obviously a big difference between deleting valuable content which otherwise wouldn't exist at all on Wikipedia, and deleting a redundant sanitized version of an already existing unsanitized article.--Centauri 02:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If keeping every piece of trivia is "valuable" then I would disagree with you. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge database. Megan1967 02:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I would prefer other alternatives. See Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored). Sorry, but the 'They asked for it' argument doesn't work. I wouldn't be able to find a pic of a real clitoris in, say, World Book encyclopedia. It's not censorship, as it lets people choose which version they want to view. Vacuum c 02:00, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We cannot keep forking articles because people disagree with the content of other versions!!!  RickK 06:32, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as an abrogation of the principle of community consensus. Lacrimosus 08:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, pov we don't need. bbx 09:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. J OHN C OLLISON (An Liúdramán) 11:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, what RickK said. --Conti|&#9993; 11:59, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 15:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Redundant. Evil precedent, forking to satisfy someone's POV is a horrible idea. If you want to fork, do it outside the main project. Feel free to create the "Happy Shiny Kid-Friendly No Nekkidness At All"-opedia. But don't do it here. grendel|khan 15:15, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, unnecessary and invalid fork. --Oldak Quill 20:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * For crying out loud, delete!&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Tuf-Kat 00:20, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I am so sorely tempted to simply add the offending picture if only for the delicious irony of being accused of vandalism. Oh well, how about just a picture of a little man in a canoe? --LeeHunter 02:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme Delete, this is a fork, a misleading, unhelpful fork. Wyss 05:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't understand why wikipedians would not want to allow people to choose whether they want to see an image of that sort or not - Shouldn't people have the right to choose to learn about something without an image of this sort. --Trodel 15:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * All browsers that I have ever encountered (and I've seen a lot of them since NCSA Mosaic in 1994) have the ability to download images, or not download images--it's usually a switch in prefs. I use this facility when visiting a page that contains images that I don't like to look at. Just because somebody puts a picture on a website, doesn't mean they're forcing me to download it and look at it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not everyone is so tech-savvy. I don't know how to do that, and didn't even know I could until now, and I've been on the net for almost ten years. Everyking 18:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Tech-savvy is the wrong word. Modern browsers are designed for GUI operation, anyone can do this.  The user's refusal to learn how to operate his browser in no way absolves him of personal responsibility for controlling what he does and does not choose to download. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * A person can not do something they don't know how to do. The problem here is the fact that English does not have an indicitive/subjunctive distinction.  Yes, a person could do something they don't know how to do...once they learn how to do it.  But, until they learn, they don't know how to do it.  And, besides, putting a link at the top of the page which allows people to go to a version of the page without images it a lot simpler than turning off images in most browsers.  Also: Why should a person not be allowed to look at pictures of bunny rabbits just because they have different values than the left-wing people on Wiki.  I can not support the idea of giving people with different values than left-wingers a discrimitory experience.  Samboy 19:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is reasonable to expect that people who want to use the world wide web will first learn how to operate a web browser. I'm shocked to find people here freely admitting that they do not, and apparently clinging to the belief that this is somebody else's problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, what place does the term "left wing" have in this discussion? Either a person can control his web browser or he cannot.  His politics have no bearing on the matter. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * From an encyclopedic standpoint, it seems to me that anyone curious and literate enough to look up the word clitoris will be helped by seeing a neutral picture of one, in context. Wyss 00:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) 03:05, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If you don't want to see a picture of a clitoris, don't look at an encylopaedic entry for one.  If you want to know just the definition of the word, look it up in the wiktionary &mdash; Neuropedia 18:57, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
 * Delete. can't have censored version of every article that someone finds disturbing RustyCale 20:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, the prison abuse censorship should be viewed as a special case, NOT precedent, IMO. Someone looking for clitoris should know what it is already, in some sense. hfool/Roast me 01:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Could someone remind me? What *specifically* was the content problem with those already-censored pictures which could be viewed on any network television?     I have seen those pictures and, set beside pictures of people jumping out of a tower block or being swallowed up by a tidal wave, those pictures do not seem to be particularly objectionable.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not merge with Thomas Bowdler? (Just kidding; delete.)  Edeans 02:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with hfool and Neuropedia. Markaci 11:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The Delete arguments have convinced me. Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.