Talk:Clitoris

Talk:Clitoris/Archive1 - Talk:Clitoris/Archive2 - Talk:Clitoris/Archive3 - Talk:Clitoris/Archive4 - Talk:Clitoris/Archive5 - Talk:Clitoris/Archive6

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 [1]. --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 警告 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 警告 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 警告 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 警告 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. — マイケル ₪ 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!—5 needs to be filled in because {{{5}}} 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

Template:Censorimage

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 警告 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 警告 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 警告 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 警告 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? — マイケル ₪ 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 警告 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. — マイケル ₪ 17:43, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

You're not supposed to edit protected pages. Don't be a dickhead. anthony 警告 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 Wikipedia:Protection policy#Editing protected pages. 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. — マイケル ₪ 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 警告 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. — マイケル ₪ 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 警告 14:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, I'm adding editing Image:HumanVulva-NoText-PhiloVivero.jpg for this article to my todo list. — マイケル ₪ 17:50, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

It's been on mine, but my copy of gimp is currently broken. anthony 警告 14:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Policy votes and discussion

Two polls are open about the inclusion and censorship of images. If you haven't already, please see:

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 Wikipedia: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. — マイケル ₪ 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 警告 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. — マイケル ₪ 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. — マイケル ₪ 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. — マイケル ₪ 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...):

Original 300px:
Original 350px:
Original 400px:
New 300px:
New 350px: — マイケル ₪ 17:02, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
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 警告 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 Wikipedia: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 警告 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 警告 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 警告 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 警告 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 警告 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 警告 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 警告 20:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some forks or mirrors displaying Clitoris without images

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

A list of words which begin with cli

I stopped looking after that. anthony 警告 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 警告 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 警告 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)

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:
#Those that want a pic, any pic, in the article even if it does not depict the clitoris itself 
(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).
#Those who would agree to the use of a suitable and educationally valuable pic of a clitoris if one
was available.
#Those that do not want a pic used under any circumstances.
#Those who do not believe that current pic (which 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). - Robert the Bruce 15:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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 [2] and vandalism [3] 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.
Those who believe that the current picture is a useful and suitable illustration,

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.

Those that do not want a pic used under any circumstances.

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)
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)
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 prudes visit Wikipedia, perhaps they only do so because they do not realise that Wikipedia is not for prudes. Perhaps they have not read the content disclaimer. They can do so and make a decision. Nobody is forcing prudes to read Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no intent, as far as I am aware, to become an outreach group to prudes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for prudes. Wrong. Wikipedia is for everyone. anthony 警告 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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? anthony 警告 17:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)