Talk:Clitoris

Talk:Clitoris/Archive1 - Talk:Clitoris/Archive2 - Talk:Clitoris/Archive3 - Talk:Clitoris/Archive4 - Talk:Clitoris/Archive5 - Talk:Clitoris/Archive6 - Talk:Clitoris/Archive7 - Talk:Clitoris/Archive8

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)

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 警告 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:
#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 [1] and vandalism [2] 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 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 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)
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 警告 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)
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’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 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? anthony 警告 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. — マイケル ₪ 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)
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 警告 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. — マイケル ₪ 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 Wikipedia: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.
Create a censored version like the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse page using templates.

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’s view here, please let me know. This is the situation as I see it though. — マイケル ₪ 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)

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)
We're all running dogs of the capitalist imperialist statist hegemony
It's true that I disagreed with Schneelocke's vandal protection of the article. It's untrue that I defended his doing so. I oppose it unequivocally. What I opposed was the claim that in exercising his judgement to perform a vprotect with which I personally disagreed Schneelocke was abusing his powers as an administrator. Again your casually misrepresent me. My argument mentioned Wikipedia:protection policy which gives the administrator discretion to lock a page on the version favored by the side that has more faithfully observed the 3RR. As nobody else but you had taken to revert warring your favored version was not protected. Had you but been a little less quick to engage in warring and instead followed the path of persuasion with me, we might have had rather more success in convincing others that a solution was being honestly sought.
Yeah right. It has proven very successful, hasn't it? Chocolateboy won't even let you refactor comments!
You did not revert to the compromise version, but you have in the past reverted to your preferred version. Indeed, I rarely ever revert, preferring to rely on persuasion. You on the other hand performed two successive reverts within an hour on Clitoris. As I was engaged in trying to persuade the administrators Raul654 and Chocolateboy, resort to revert warring would have been counter-productive. When I asked whether you had tried persuasion, you said that you "haven't had a chance". I have no idea what that meant. You could have used the time spent in pointless edit warring to post brief notes on one or two talk pages.
I could have done but I'd sooner gnaw my own leg off than try to discuss this issue with Raul. He makes you look like a moderate!
You supported Chocolateboy's reversion, even though he did not bother with a note to Talk. Again, absolutely and categorically false. I posted on his talk page and asked him to take into account the ongoing discussion. I opposed the restoration of the picture at that time. Since then I have made it plain that I would under no circumstances restore the current picture if it were removed. I want to make it plain that this applies also to vandalism of any kind. Now stop falsely claiming that I supported a change that I verifiably opposed on the talk pages of two administrators.
The picture is still there. Our compromise is not.
NPOV does not mean "be neutral" or "be objective". It means "include all views". Absolutely. But including all views is not the same as acting on them. Otherwise nothing that reflects badly on the Chinese Communist Party could ever be posted since this would be ignoring the view that we're all running dogs of the capitalist imperialist statist hegemony.
Including all views is including all views, no matter which way you cut that. We must include the view that clitorises are offensive, Tony, even if we do feel that those holding the view are "puritans", "prudes" or whatever other insulting epithet one can come up for them.
It is a misrepresentation of my views to suggest that I am not for including the illustration. I'm sure it would be. And yet you have repeatedly removed it recently.
I replaced it with the link as discussed. I oppose the inclusion of this particular photo, which does not illustrate the subject of the article. That should have read "an illustration", of course.
'I am in favour of showing common courtesy to those who would be offended by the photo by allowing them to suppress the images. This is getting beyond a joke. Dr Zen, kindly look up above this text to the title bar of the window that contains this text. Slightly below that you will most likely find a row of words like "File Edit View" and whatnot. This is known as a MENU BAR. Some of the items in that menu bar enable you to control how your browser displays a page. On of them controls whether the browser downloads images. The solution for the puritans is to learn how to operate their browsers before venturing onto the internet.
Leaving aside the issue of those who use computers whose settings they cannot change to access the internet, this insulting remark makes the assumption that all readers will be aware that a graphic picture of a clitoris, or on the penis page an erect penis, will be on view. You also oppose a warning! Besides, as has been pointed out to you, it is not inclusive to suggest that users ought to be geeks to be able to visit this encyclopaedia. So, basically, your position boils down to "if you might be offended by any picture, you should learn to switch off all pictures". Not exactly welcoming, hey?
You have not at any point given a cogent argument why we should not do this [permit the puritans to view the article without pictures]. Indeed, I have not needed to do that because there are many alternatives already available. I have spent some time trying to demonstrate to you and others that they can already do this, by suppressing image downloads from their browsers or by visiting one of the numerous websites that display the article without images. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It strains credibility that your suggestion to avoid censorship is to direct users to a censored site! So you are willing to endorse censored forks but not to endorse a simple, easy-to-use means for users to remain within Wikipedia but not be offended by content that you know is likely to offend. And it remains true that your "solution" only works for users that are forewarned of the content (please do not give yet another link to the "disclaimer" -- nobody reads disclaimers on websites and suggesting that they ought to is nonsensical -- can you honestly say you do for each site that you visit when you're surfing?) and know how to complete the solution. Furthermore, it is still not an argument for not providing a means to suppress the images that offend! If I disapprove of the government of the day, I can remove them by bombing the Houses of Parliament, but this is not an argument in itself against voting them out.Dr Zen 02:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But where's the clitoris?
I wasn't going to do this, but now that people are actually defending a picture that doesn't illustrate the content of the article, I feel I must. There's no clitoris in that picture. It's hidden from view. Might as well be under a skirt, three petticoats, Irish lace bloomers, and a wrapping of linen. Morality aside (like I'd ever keep it in reach!) it's the wrong picture. Blair P. Houghton 00:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Hey TS. Long time no e-See. Blair P. Houghton
Yes indeed, this is how sadly bizarre things have become around here. The particular mindset appears to be if you can't get a pic of a clitoris then any close-up pic of the genitals will do. There is of course a perfectly accurate and acceptable illustration of the clitoris available at. - Robert the Bruce 01:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
LTNS yourself. :)
What you see in the photo is pretty much all you'd see on many vulvas. We could do with more illustrations, but we're short of willing volunteers. We've got at least one editor here who has posted a picture of her tits on her user page, but nobody is volunteering a picture of her clitoris. I'd volunteer my own, but I don't think it would qualify, somehow. (But dammit, I tell you, I AM SO a lesbian in a man's body!) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well if we want ot see a vulva we can look at the real thing or go to the vulva article. Why do we need a picture on the clitoris page which does not depict the subject of the article? Bizarre. - Robert the Bruce 01:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)