Wikipedia talk:Choosing appropriate illustrations

I'd be grateful if someone could find some examples of cases where a photograph is used for either a structural illustration or a conceptual illustration; I can imagine cases where this is so, but some good examples would be nice to have. Also, if someone can think of any additional purposes that images serve within articles, please add them to the list! -- Wapcaplet 11:53 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nudity
Could we have some kind of policy decision on nude images, so we don't have to have the same BLOODY STUPID ARGUMENT over and over and over again? Where would be the place to suggest that? (I'm a little out of date on WP policy structure, sadly :-/) --Khendon 17:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

''Sometimes, a photograph may be considered offensive or in poor taste, for example, if the article is about parts of the human anatomy, such as breast, penis, or clitoris. In those cases, a stylized photograph or drawing may be the way to go.''


 * I object to this advice. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. More importantly, any prohibition on realistic pictures of any human anatomy destroys the educational value of the picture.  We show medical students realistic pictures (and actual examples) of all parts of the human body, so they can know what they are supposed to look like, have an understanding of the range of phenotypes, and have a better understanding of the details of physiology.  I don't see any reason why the general public shouldn't be entitled to the best quality information on these subjects, as well.  Also, this particular list is associated with a particular value system, which not all Wikipedia readers share.  Some find pictures of any female anatomy, including uncovered heads and ankles, to be quite offensive. -- Beland 19:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's there, and I disagree with it. What I don't know is why it's there - is it something mandated by the Powers That Be, something that has come from a consensus or vote, or something somebody has put there? It's also very undefinitive. --Khendon 19:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you disagee with it, propose a change there, not here. Superm401 | Talk 19:29, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Eh? That *is* here! The quote was from the article of which this is a Talk page. --Khendon 19:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, we need an official policy so that we can point future dissenters at that. That policy could be a simple reiteration of WP:NOT censored with a few examples. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

To play the Devil's advocate (I came across this in a list of wikipedia talk), I'd say there'd be differences between a medical textbook and wikipedia. A medical textbook would be a wikipedia isnotism (would anyone be willing to risk their life on the info in wikipedia?). Different levels of details would be required for study rather than general interest. Also, if you stumbled across anatomy in a medical textbook it would hardly be a surprise, whereas hypothetically someone could be seeing pubic hair when they were just after information about US president number 43. With respect to people who find ankles offensive, wouldn't they be reading non-English versions of wikipedia? Andjam 12:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

To illustrate or not
I can't find an answer from this article: should illustrations be added to an article to liven up a body of text, or only to illustrate? I have an opinion, but can't find a policy. Anyone with a view might also choose to participate in the discussion on Talk:Dystopia. Thanks! Notinasnaid 10:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)