This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Early talk about whether to put a photograph of a clitoris moved to Talk:Clitoris/Image discussion. A current discussion is ongoing.
Poll on replacing photograph of clitoris with link to anatomical drawing
Vote: Voting Ends Midnight Nov 14 2004 UTC
Vote status: CLOSED. 8/56/0
I have tried to start a vote on another talk page Creationism only to have that approach corrupted. I concluded that it didn't really work to resolve disputes. I was also concerned that the longer the pornographic image remained the higher the likelyhood that all of Wikipedia would be listed on nanny-ware lists. However, at your insistance, I will try the vote method once again: KeyStroke 04:09, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
QUESTION: Who would vote for replacing the second image on this page with this link? anatomical drawing
Yes
Much better than the porn picture that is currently on the "clitoris" article.--198 23:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If such pictures, without proper warnings, became commonplace, I myself would be unable to browse it publicly and promote it among general audience. -- Itai 19:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All of the above, plus common sense: Folks, we are starting to replace the encyclopedia we try to build with a bunch of nonsense on foreskin reconstruction and tampon insertion. Why not articles on the nucleus olivaris, stria nigra and ora serrata first? Really? Did you see how favorably compares this fantastic insight into your fantesies with articles on hunger, health and education? Do you want this Wikiwhatever to become a subject of derision, or what? To those who vote no below, hey, why don't you prefer pink nailpolish on the lady's delicate 'distal phalanx III, and one of my patients with hyperandrosteronism who volunteers to show you her own case ? Now THAT would be GNU accomplishment, plus the extra size and color! Did you know that the fine detail of the crura clitoridis and in all, 90% of this organ is not seen? WHY ON EARTH don't you SHOW it ALL - in a dissection? Does the article on ear show only the ear lobe :O) ? You naughty encyclopedists - if you manage to vote decently below and want a compensation, I promise I offer my RELEVANT medical case collection for would-be inspectors. MUCH better - contact me in private :O) - irismeister 23:53, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
I oppose to the display of a real clitoris in this article. It may not be offensive to male teenagers avid for sexual gratification, but it *is* very offensive to a WHOLE lot of other people, and shows an incredible amount of amateurism on the part of Wikipedia. I do not oppose, however, to a LINK to a photograph of a clitoris in another page, with an appropiate warning attached. --Cantus 23:10, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that I should be able to vote, being the one who posed the question. I do not want any pornographic photos under the domain of Wikipedia, so that Wikipedia does not get placed on nanny-ware lists, and we live up to the trust implicit in being an encyclopedia, namely that children will be visiting the site. KeyStroke 01:12, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
What sort of ridiculous question is this? The basis of the argument is that there should or shouldn't be a "warning" of sorts on pages which contain explicit material. The answer is yes there should be. It does not remove or censor anything, but rather shows respect for those souls who may be affected by such. Yes to warning. Yes to inclusion of photo and/or drawing. - Robert the Bruce 17:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert you appear to have misread the question. If you are saying yes to the photo then you should vote no to replacing the image with a link. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Either an anatomical drawing or a disclaimer. JFW | T@lk 19:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree it should be a link. (I thought we'd had this vote before?) - Deb 12:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would vote anything as an illustration of this article except for pornography - irismeister 11:19, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
Excuse me, but didn't you vote already (#3 above)? -- Schnee 11:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Excuse ME, you are right :O) Please uncount this vote which doesn't change the trend anyway and please refer to my question to David's answer - or the other way round, above. We have all the answers - just fill in your question. We are Bomipedia :O) irismeister 11:53, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC) I simply forgot I wasn't in Florida anymore :O) - irismeister 00:07, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC) But let me put it this way - if we decide to keep the porn, I will retire from contributing NEW MEDICAL articles the English Wikipedia in protest, period :O) - TK - it's your turn :O) - irismeister 00:07, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
I doubt anyone cares much about whether you continue to contribute or not, especially when you're trying to use that as a threat to enforce a decision after you see that the majority of people do not share your opinion. -- Schnee 00:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sure thing :O) Be the last to laugh - the bomilady's pink nailpolish was removed despite my vote :O ) - irismeister 16:22, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
No
Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) I would like to see a really good anatomical diagram as well as a photograph though. I would like to see this photo replaced with a better one with better copyright, but in principle I think we should have a photo on this pageTheresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For the same reasons as Ms. Knott. →Raul654 05:27, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
I concur with users above. Kairos 10:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Theresa, Raul and Kairos. I'm not opposed to replacing the photo with something better, of course, but there *should* be a photo in the article. -- Schnee 10:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree as well. This article needs both the diagram and a photo with better copyright. I do not see a need to "hide" anything behind links to images on a different site.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 11:33, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed a good anatomical diagram and a photograph should be present on every biology article dealing with bodyparts and such. --ÆvarArnfjörðBjarmason 11:38, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
A photo as well as a diagram should be in the article. DCEdwards1966 11:47, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
I do not approve of the photo there at present, but an actual photograph should be present, and until there is a better alternative, I would have to say keep it. Nicholas 11:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
THAT diagram really scared me. Ejrrjs 00:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No. The photo isn't the best but there's nothing immoral about a body part, whether in photograph or in diagram. Jallan 01:25, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If you let the nannyware providers scare you into changing your content, you let them win. I don't think anyone should let THAT happen. ShaneKing 09:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm against self-censorship on principle. If a photo is relevant, it should be included, unless there's a better photo. Nohat 00:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
No. The suggested anatomical drawing is seriously scary. Best option is both a photo and a purpose-designed anatomical visualization in a Scientific American-like illustration style. -- The Anome 00:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No. If the intention is to clarify the location and structure of the clitoris, the proposed illustration is even less clear than the current photo; it's like using a map of the world to illustrate the article on Easter Island. ←Hob 01:58, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
No. An inline image is perfectly relevant to the article. Forgive the slippery slope, but if a drawing and/or photograph of a clitoris is not acceptable, I wonder how the oral sex, zoophilia or genocide articles could be. Sam Hocevar 08:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, they could have actual photographs in them, but they don't. Do you suggest we put a pictures of people giving each other oral sex on that article page? anthony 警告 21:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We already have such pictures but they are OK because those men are being tortured and forced to have oral sex. If they had pleasure, however, then it would be clearly immoral. 83.31.42.160 06:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No. It's off topic for this article, which is about the clitoris, not the female reproductive system. I also object to KeyStroke suggesting that there's something morally wrong or pornographic about showing any part of God's creation. There are some good anatomical drawings of the clitoris around, which show the underlying structures of it, and adding one of those would be good. There has been and will continue to be talk of how to help people censor the work - that will presumably make it easy enough for them to hide things they don't like eventually. Jamesday 09:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If I had a clitoris I'd photograph it and post it.--Jirate 23:32, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
A good anatomical diagram could be better than a photograph. However, this anatomical diagram seems to be about the circulatory system, not the external genitalia. Shimmin 01:09, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep this photo until someone posts a better one. Got a better diagram? Post that too. The diagram linked at the beginning of this poll says it's copyrighted, unfortunately. ~leif ☺ HELO 03:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A vote for a photo plus a good diagram. I'm wary of people using the word 'porn' in this discussion. It's a mostly meaningless word. Oska 21:55, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Photographs and diagrams in this article should be treated just like photographs and diagrams in articles such as flower and hand. No warnings, no "msg:s" at the top of the page, no need to click to get the picture. — David Remahl 04:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A photograph is appropriate here. Gadykozma 15:24, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How much violence do you see in a day? How many people get killed on your tv screen a day? Why is blood and gore allowed? And simple pictures like this not! Have we become prude's? Waerth 18:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia's job to police in this manner. —siroχo 23:07, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Some pictures, just as some information presented as text, will always offend some people. Wikipedia shouldn't censor itself. Aenar 01:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely not. It is a picture of a part of the human body in an article about that specific part of the human body, there's nothing pornographic in it. Nought 21:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, no, no, no, no - It's a perfectly normal part of the human body: roughly half of the human population as the proud owner of a clitoris, and the image doesn't need to be replaced by a silly drawing. It's not pornography unless it's being presented in a pornographic context. ClockworkTroll 22:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Since when were women's bodies "dirty"? Dr Zen 02:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Self-censorship is a bad idea. We are not perfect but IMO good enough at keeping things factual and informative, and I can see no reason to remove a factual and informaticve picture. An additional drawing would be fine, as long as it is of a good quality. Kosebamse 13:34, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not involved in social reproduction. If viewers want to perpetuate the view that a woman's body is shameful and profane, that's their business. But force it on everyone? I think not. Timbo 19:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No replacement of picture with link. The current type of picture is appropriate, in my opinion, for anyone of any age having access to the Internet. And the current Clitoris page, in my opinion, with the picture and this associated TalkPage is a good example of Wikipedia getting people of all ages and all beliefs to deal with reality--in which there are many differing opinions of what is right and what is wrong--but there is still reality which is always good. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No. I think we should link to an actual photograph and include a diagram directly in the article. But I'd be willing to consider only linking to the diagram, if enough people seriously objected to it. anthony 警告 21:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No. There is nothing inappropriate in the photo judging by the common standards of most people (when displayed in the proper context). In fact, the diagram above is more disturbing to me personally than the photo. Paranoid 18:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ugh, what a dreadful drawing - put that in your bedroom and it'd be more effective than the pill. I'll have to have a whisky to forget about it. It doesn't particular illustrate the topic anyway (even less so when it's reduced to fit onto the page). jguk 23:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No. Keep the image, it's much clearer than the illustration. Geoff Canyon 19:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I cannot believe this is considered a matter for discussion in a modern encyclopedia. An article about a body part which is not normally on display should be illustrated by a suitable photograph, if only so that those who go to the article to find what it looks like will find what they are looking for. --MR 20:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Feh. If someone comes to a page about "clitoris" and are offended that there's a picture of a clitoris, they really need to grow up. File:VulvaDiagram-800.jpgHuman Vulva replacement picture.
I would oppose replacing the somewhat helpful (to me) picture with something that is very unhelpful. I think a disclaimer should be sufficent to keep people who don't want to see something that may offend them from accidents. Jonked Nov 6, 2004
Showing a hand in the picture is good since it shows better the scale to the readers interested in learning the female anatomy. BTW, teaching should be the main purpose of wikipedia and a drawing can't replace a photograph in this respect. Jim 21:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No - keep. I find it seriously weird that people confuse something like this with pornography. Next we will have the Taliban objecting to any part of the female anatomy being shown on Wikipedia ... burkas, anyone? Elf-friend 01:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NO. We don't need some Edwardian-era diagram with a barely-visible clitoris illustrating this article. The current picture is quite illustrative and hardly pornographic. If the questions regarding provenance and copyright are a concern, then perhaps Philo Vivero's picture would be a better replacement, although it certainly won't make the people concerned with the current image's explicitness happy, it is perfectly natural and illustrates the clitoris well—although the copyright box on that image does not belong and should be removed. Ntk 06:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NO!!!!!!! Please, no censorship. How can anyone in their right-mind look at that image and think it is pornographic? It is a picture of a part of the human body used to illustrate an article on that part of the human body. Might it offend some people? Yes, but you cant appease everyone all the time and the vast majority of sane people are not offended by it, it is ridiculous to have some small group of people's sexual hangups override the opportunity to better expand Wikipedia for the best. CunningLinguist
Stupid question, but this is the 21st century right? Not the dark ages? Just checking. As has been stated above, anyone who looks up the word "clitoris" in an encylopedia should expeect some material about the clitoris. As to not letting children see it... why not? 50% of the children out there have one themselves. The other 50% will have to learn about it some time. User:Moriarty -- 13th Nov 2004 - 01:07 GMT
No. This isn't the Dark Ages. There isn't anything inherently wrong with a picture of any part of the human body. Sillydragon 23:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No. A photo is more accurate than a drawing.--Falcon91Wolvrn03 00:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nah, it's not exactly erotic is it? Everyone's seen it, act like adults.--Crestville 01:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep it. I see nothing wrong with this picture. It's too clinical to be erotic. And it's just a part of the human body; half of those in the world have a clitoris (and just about everybody has sexual organs) and we know it, so why are we trying to hide it? 05:29, 20 Nov 2005 (WPT)
Neutral
Comments
Moved to Talk:Clitoris/discussion related to Nov 14 vote as the sheer volume of non-voting discussion on this vote had made the page unwieldy and difficult to add a vote to. --MR 02:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Poll: Disclaimer presence
Ends 8-Nov-2004
Vote status: CLOSED. Votes: 9/25/0
We have a disclaimer that has been phrased in as NPOV a way as is possible:
This article contains photographs of human genitalia.
In the interest of trying to appease as many people as possible, recognizing the fact that no one is going to be 100% happy about it, please vote on having this particular disclaimer in the interest of compromise, and of otherwise leaving this very fine article alone:
Support:
Assuming we decide to keep the photo, then yes I support this disclaimer Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 18:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just the facts, ma'am. Shimmin 19:16, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Many people find genitalia to be something private, and feel uncomfortable when exposed to it. It is not Wikipedia's mission to teach those people to change their minds. The inclusion of a warning would show Wikipedia cares for all its readers. –Cantus…☎ 22:22, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
A good compromise plus French wikipedia has similar disclaimer [1]--198 23:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I personally think the disclaimer is unneccesary, but I think that as a compromise it's the best we're likely to get. Shane King 00:55, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Support. I support the disclaimer only for purposes of making it easier for some in the Wikipedia community to accept the photo being on the Clitoris page. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Put in the disclaimer. As to the pic I see no purpose in that specific one, can't see the bean, it is of no value in an article about the clitoris other than to say "its in there somewhere". - Robert the Bruce 06:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would prefer a disclaimer. It is known fact that various people might not want to see a vagina in a encyclopedia. We owe it the users to let them know what they are specifically going to see, if just to avoid public embaressment. Jonked Nov. 6, 2004
Vote closed
Most of the names below are sockpuppets. The clitoris image is being supported by atheists, immoralists, and those who delight in making the Wikipedia worse. Nobody objects to images being stored on the Wikipedia; however, we all know that the main article should (as the Wikipedia mission states) be made appropriate for a general audience. It is not hard to see why there are not more votes against the image; most users who would vote against the article are disgusted and leave, rather than come here and vote. Is the Wikipedia a democracy? No! I call on all Wikipedias to join Cantus in stopping the cabal here...before they add images of blowjobs to the article on blowjobs. User110
You forgot to mention "silent moral majority".--Jirate 22:03, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
Oppose:
I believe that having a general disclaimer is sufficient.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:28, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
No warning is required as ther is nothing dangerous in the article.--Jirate 18:30, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
There is no need for a warning; a clitoris is nothing offensive. -- Schnee 18:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Echo the above statements. violet/riga(t) 18:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I support having some sort of disclaimer but this formulation is silly. Gadykozma 20:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Putting a silly warning above photos of human genitalia will perpetuate the (reprehensible, imo) point of view that people should be ashamed of their bodies, and I won't support having Wikipedia do that. ~leif ☺ HELO 20:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Where will it stop? Anything that anyone could possibly find offensive? No thank you. Mark Richards 22:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I also oppose - after all, if a person is looking up "clitoris", then they will probably not be especially offended to see a simple image of that particular organ. Should we put such disclaimers on this article, or perhaps this one? ClockworkTroll 23:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We should put NPOV disclaimers on _every_ article saying that they may contain encyclopaedic information about the topic in the title. David Remahl 00:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We already link to the disclaimers from every article in the database. No need for seperate ones. →Raul654 00:59, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see anything surprising in the fact that an article about the clitoris contains photographs of human genitalia and don't see the need for a special warning about it. Frankly I don't see what kind of photographs could one expect in such an article... Of Mickey Mouse perhaps? Nought 01:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is active media. You don't get to an article without choosing to go there. The disclaimer given above is certainly much more neutral than Cantus' warning but I agree with the opinion that no disclaimer is necessary. I also question the bias of ppl who seem to think that text is somehow less offensive than pictures. Oska 06:31, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
I'll oppose any sort of disclaimer about the clitoris. It's inherently POV. Other than opinions based on faulty appeals to nebulous and shame-filled "moral standards", nobody has provided an argument for a disclaimer or removing the picture. If you're afraid that a photograph will turn your children into sexual deviants, then it's up to you to shield them from it. Wikipedia's job is to provide unbiased knowledge. Timbo 19:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Intrigue 21:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) (UTC) Oppose. Stop it.
This is no different in principle to the proposals on Wikipedia:Rating system which were rejected there not six months ago jguk 23:36, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think a proper compromise is to link to the image rather than display it inline. anthony 警告 23:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I oppose this because it would be silly to expect an encyclopedia article about the clitoris to be unillustrated, or to contain pictures of battleships, geraniums, or meteorites. A disclaimer would falsely imply otherwise. --MR 02:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Silly. It's not offensive for most and those for whom it might be won't look for such things in the first place. Jim 21:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. What next? Disclaimers on mirrors? Warning: If you stand in front of this mirror without any clothes on, you may see yourself naked.Elf-friend 01:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
October 8 was more than two weeks ago. That being said, the poll above is not over yet, so please stop this nonsense until it is. -- Schnee 18:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree, the suggested disclaimer is optimal. — David Remahl 00:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The poll introduction, however, is leading and represents only the compromising position (not that there is anything wrong with compromising, I appreciate the attempt to reach consensus...) — David Remahl 00:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There seems to be an oft-repeated idea among the anti-message faction that placing a message, however neutrally worded, at the top of the article, somehow implies that the consensus of Wikipedians holds that having a genital photograph in this article is a Bad Thing. This is absurd. If the consensus of Wikepedians held that having a this photograph on this page, it would not be there. Does the spoiler warning imply that the spoiler should not be in the article? No, it recognizes that a fraction of the readership would rather not read the spoiler, and gives them the information they need to act according to their preferences. If the consensus of Wikipedians felt that spoilers were Bad Things, the spoilers would be edited out. Shimmin 11:18, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Shimmin, that's all very well as far as spoilers go (by which I assume you mean the warnings that sometimes precede online discussions of the plots of ongoing TV serials, and the like). But this is a proposed notice preceding an article about human genitals. If I don't precede an article about trucks with a warning saying "this article contains pictures of trucks", then I don't see why I should precede an article about genitals with a similar warning about genitals. People come to the Clitoris article to find out about the clitoris, so they've already decided that they want to know about it, which includes, I should think, knowing what it actually looks like. I know when I was little I used to look in encyclopedias to see things I couldn't legitimately look at otherwise, and I don't expect things have changed much since then.
--MR 02:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is a bit of a difference between genitals and trucks, if just in the public's mind. I see no reason not to include a warning. If it's there, it doesn't hurt, and if someone on a public terminal comes upon this article, either by intent or accident, it could save that person from embarrasement and perhaps protect Wikipedia from a public outcry. It just seems like commen sense to me. Jonked Nov. 07, 2004
I'll buy your point about embarrassment, but a public outcry? On which planet? The solution to the embarrassment problem is not to click on links containing the word Clitoris on a public terminal if you're liable to be embarrassed. I wouldn't die of shame if a disclaimer were to be included, but since it amounts to an incorrect statement that encyclopedia articles do not normally contain illustrations, and other more lavishly illustrated articles (for instance, penis) are not required to contain equivalent disclaimers, I am opposed to it. It seems to be a concession to a form of prudery that, on the basis of the current ongoing polls, seems to be a minority preoccupation at best. --Minority Report 19:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let me put your mind at rest over one point. If this article were to get the disclaimer then the penis article would too. (look at the histiry of the penis article) Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 22:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, I had a look. What on earth has gotten into people? Is some kind of moral panic going on over there on the west side of the pond? The odd willy isn't going to hurt anybody. --Minority Report 23:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When I said public outcry, I meant something along the lines of what happened to the movie Dogma, with people protesting it and sending nasty letters to the producers because they felt it was insulting their faith. Now, imagine if some overprotective parent is looking around for stuff just like this and starts up a group to boycott Wikipedia. It gets blown out of proportians by the media, and even if nothing legal happens Wikipedia still gets bad press. However, if we have a disclaimer, we have at least something to hide behind when the mob comes. I would prefer Wikipedia not become the target of a morality attack.
I've come up with another solution that might be acceptable, might not. Is anyone good enough in Photoshop to make the current picture look like a drawing? That would solve the copyright problem and (I think) reduce the chances of someone getting offended and calling up the Censorship Squad. Just an idea. Jonked Nov. 7, 2004
We already have a disclaimer, and every article links to it. So the hide-behind-the-disclaimer arguement doesn't hold much water. →Raul654 00:58, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the context, jonked. If there was a "public outcry" over the movie Dogma it would have been restricted to a few godbotherers and frankly nobody I know would have noticed or cared. But I recall no such outcry. If they decided to go after Wikipedia, the result would be the same. Nobody would take any notice of their silly protests. Come to think of it, Wikipedia could probably benefit from the extra publicity, and being an encyclopedia it's immune to that kind of nonsense. If someone whines we just call up a whole stack of professors who will be able to say they encourage their students to contribute. --Minority Report 01:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Unprotected
(Crosspost to talk:clitoris, talk:penis, talk:vagina) - Ok, the disclaimer idea has been roundly rejected. I have unprotected all 3 articles (Penis, vagina, and clitoris). Let's try to keep it civilized now. →Raul654 00:03, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Please reprotect as Cantus is vanalising.--Jirate 02:13, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
Could we just let the "disclaimer" sit there for a while until someone else can take care of it? maybe slow down the pace a little?--so that this is not just a turf battle between two men? Actually on my screen, the disclaimer is a beautiful blue that frames the picture quite nicely. :) I say that and I strongly disapprove of the "disclaimer" being put there contrary to the poll vote. :(( ---Rednblu | Talk 02:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes Please re-protect because there's a flame war between me and Irate.--198 00:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Because you keep replacing the disclaimer despite the consensus' being for there not to be one. You've reverted more than three times. Please don't carry on with this.Dr Zen 00:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I TRIED to compromise--198 00:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, fair enough, 198, but you know that the way to "compromise" is not to keep reverting edits. There was a vote, fairly conducted, and a strong consensus not to have a warning. Perhaps you could step away for a couple of days and see whether you still feel as strongly then, rather than risk the opprobrium of the community for your behaviour?Dr Zen 00:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think protection is the answer.The reinsertion of a dislaimer, that is clearly not wanted by the community amounts to vandalism of the article in my book. I say this as someone who was in favor of having a disclaimer. 198 and Cantus. Whn you lose a vote, you lose. End of story. Bullying like this is intolerable. If I see you insert a dislaimer on a genitals page again I will block you for 24 hours. I strongly urge other admins to do the same. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 06:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I asked 198 to stop this on his talk page; let's hope it works. -- Schnee 22:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I did take a small rest. However, I still find that disgusting picture offensive. I will to death to keep at least a disclaimer.--198 05:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fight all you like. You will lose. You have lost. The community has spoken, you have to accept that. I've blocked you for 24 hours. I've also blocked Cantus for 24 hours. Use the time to think on things. You cannot bully us. We work by community consensus around here. Respect that consensus or leave. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 06:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Disclaimer presence
To anyone who wishes to add a disclaimer to the article after all - please remember that there *was* a vote, and that almost 75% of those who voted voted *against* it. I'd like to kindly ask you to respect that. -- Schnee 01:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As someone who voted for the disclaimer, I concur. It's time to move on. Expend your energy on actually creating something useful rather than edit wars. Shane King 06:54, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
That isn't likely to happen, the vote is considered illegitimate and not valid, since the cabal is so mean-spirited and anti-wikipedian. Most people do not want to come to the wikipedia and view Zoe's skanky pussy. I will refrain from posting images of my genitalia all over the wikipedia; please do likewise! Irkut
You been in touch with most people have you? You decrepid ideas are offensive genitalia isn't.--Jirate 14:17, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
Jirate don't bother. Let then call it a cabal if they like.What do we care? I've blocked the irkut sockpuppet for 24 hours for inserting the disclaimer despite community opposition. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 15:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay, people, this is pathetic. Why NOT put a disclaimer on? Will it waste your precious clicking time to get to view porn? Kids come to this site. It may not offend YOU, but would you want your child to click "Random Page" and come here? Sheesh. -- Oven Fresh
Would I want my child to read an excellent article about the clitoris, illustrated so she knows where to find it on her own body? You're damned right I would. Half the population have one, your mothers, your sisters, maybe even you. I refuse to believe women are dirty and I do not see why a work that aims for scholarship should pander to those who do.Dr Zen 22:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't want my daughter looking at that picture case closed--198 05:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't exist solely for your benefit. You argued. You lost. That's the way things work around here. If you don't like that, take it up as a policy matter, don't unilaterally take it upon yourself to run a crusade to make the article confirm to your views. Shane King 05:46, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
I realize wikipedia is privately funded project, not for my sole benefit. At first I removed that Picture which could be considered vandalism I tried, to compromise with a disclaimer but for some reason a large amount of people shot me down. What do I do?--198 05:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Accept the outcome of the process, but if you believe the process to be in error, try to change the process. Post at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) if you have an idea how this could have been run differently to get what you feel would be a more satisfactory outcome. But basically, when a lot of people get together, sometimes you're going to be in the minority and then you have to just accept the decision even though you disagree with it. Shane King 06:03, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Let me make this clear - there are those of us who DO NOT want a disclaimer on articles. Not only does it ruin the look of the articles, but ALL of our articles already link to an all purpose disclaimer, which in turn links to specific disclaimers. →Raul654 21:51, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I'm completely against per-article disclaimers. That said, I think we should try hard to find a more clinical-looking photo. --mav 11:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK - done. --mav
Is it any surprise that the homosexual unilaterally decided to force his own personal POV into the article; by inserting the even skankier image? Zygot
Who do you think you are?--Jirate 18:38, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
While his language is immoderate, he was right. The user replaced the image that the consensus placed there unilaterally.
This page needs to be unprotected. It's not the way to deal with these people. They simply do not accept the wikipedia way of working.Dr Zen 23:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be that the previous image was acceptable, until a better image was available (one whose copyright status was clear). — David Remahl 23:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The consensus placed an image. He has changed it to a different image, though one that conforms with consensus' view.--Jirate 23:17, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
I don't agree. It is not a *better* image. In fact, the subject of the article is obscured! It is a terrible illustration. The original was excellent, nail polish notwithstanding.Dr Zen 23:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I never claimed it was better but there are apparently copyright issues with the other.--Jirate 23:25, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
Those were discussed but not resolved. It is still the case that a user unilaterally replaced a picture without consensus. Once this page is unprotected, I'm betting I won't be alone in wanting to change it back. The dispute over the picture won't be resolved by simply using a worse picture!Dr Zen 23:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it was changed as part of an atempt to molify the anti's.--Jirate 23:28, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
Well, if it was, I doubt it would work! They would probably prefer one wearing underwear. Hey, it could still be labelled "clitoris (obscured)".Dr Zen 00:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't blame mav for changing the picture, what with the copyright status. The new picture looks a bit slicker with the text etc., and it's not like he's trying to replace the picture with one of those horrible diagrams. However, I agree that the original picture was much more informative and should be reinstated ASAP.Timbo 02:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) The picture's grown on me. I say it's a good addition. Timbo 22:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mav was right to change the picture. The one that was there was almost certanly a copyvio. He doesn't need consensus to replace a copyvio with a legit picture.Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 06:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A user has stepped forward and claimed that they are the copyright holder. This is considered acceptable for noncontentious pictures, Theresa. The original is a better picture. I don't believe there is any consensus to replace a good picture with a poor one. The picture in place at the moment doesn't even show the clitoris! What's the use of that? If you insist on removing the original picture, despite there being no agreement so far that it is in violation of a copyright, you ought not to replace it with the poor substitute offered.Dr Zen 06:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dr Zen -- Actually, the picture I uploaded shows the clitoris as well as the original. Compare them. I could remove the "obscured" verbiage if it makes you feel better, but I thought I should be a little more honest about it. Also, after the image is well-established as being owned by me, I plan to put up another version without text and/or annoying copyright information. The former so that other languages can be labelled, and the latter for taste. But until I feel everyone's comfortable that I own the image, I need some pretty prominent "this is mine" verbiage on there. PhiloVivero 08:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(losing indent)Philo could you move the labels over to the right a little and change to font to something simple (helvitica/arial for example) when you reupload the picture, so as to make the labels easier to read in the tumbnail.Cheers. To Dr Zen - JohnQ was a vandal. Before uploading the clitoris image he vandalised the wikipedia logo by replacing it with a picture of an erect penis. I remember him quite clearly. He cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Plus as you can see in the archives of this page, the picture appeared on other websites before appearing here. This image is a copyvio. I'm 90% sure of it. The reason i have supported it so far is because the censoring types want to get rid of it for reasons nothing to do with copyright. But if we have another image that is "safe" then we should go with that one. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 09:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay, Theresa. I accept that JohnQ is not entirely trustworthy. With all due respect to Philo, though, the new picture is not as good as the old one. I hope he has luck finding a "vulva model"!Dr Zen 04:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
TK -- I have uploaded a modified version. Things I did: Lightened the image. Moved text right. Made it simpler. Made lines semitransparent. Removed the parenthetical insertions. To all who don't like this image: sorry. It's the best I have. I don't make it a habit to photograph vulvae. I wish it could be more straight-on, and there be fingers (or some object for scale) and the clitoral hood could be pulled back some to expose the clitoris, but it isn't. So, go take your own photograph of someone's vulva, get her to agree to have it on Wikipedia, and upload it. I welcome a better image. PhiloVivero 12:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Anyone -- Actually, it just occurred to me. If you're female and you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and you'd like to contribute photographs of your vulva for Wikipedia article, let me know. No-one need know the owner of the vulva (like the current photograph, no-one but me now knows or ever will know who the owner of that vulva is). PhiloVivero 02:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The humour of the whole situation is not beyond me here: imagine a women being famous for having her vagina prominently displayed on Wikipedia. She could tell all her friends... - Ta bu shi da yu 12:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If the copyright of an image is not clear, then it can and should be replaced by a clearly free version whenever one comes up - even if that image is of lessor artistic value (I'm not saying that is the case here, but some seem to think so). --mav 05:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My Friend Asked Me to Intervene
Vote Closes November 11, at 1046am PST
I hope we can resolve this issue with a new vote:
Yes, The Wikipedia Should Prominentally Display Human Genetalia
No, While It May Be Appropriate to Include Such Images...They Should Not Be Displayed Within the Main Articles Themselves
Thanks to everyone who participated, now that we have have a mandate from the community; no further voting will be allowed. The pornagraphic image will be removed. Docmartin2
If you repeatedly remove it you will be blocked. Please don't. violet/riga(t) 18:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Although the vote has closed, I would like to note my support for it as well. If the pedophiles wish to continue inserting their degrading images...let us pray for them. CaptainFreedom
You American aren't you? Can someone do a check on the IP adresses these people are using to see if it is more than one person?--Jirate 18:56, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
The similarity in User Pages is quite suspicious. Timbo
(I'm rather afraid the pun was unavoidable). I've removed the protection from this page, but I'm giving fair warning to all participants - those who remove the real life image multiple times will receive a 72 24 hour block: the community has spoken on this one, and I suggest you all abide by it. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I second this one, and am watching the page; I intend to enforce your decision very quickly, especially during the evenings US Eastern Time. Pakaran(ark a pan) 16:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Me too, Hopefully it wont be necessary though. I'm sure that those who don't like the image will realise by now, that the community has made a decision and that their best bet is simply not to look at the page if they find the image offensive. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 16:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't like the heavyhanded threats that have been placed in a comment on this page. I am part of the "community" that you are acting in the name of and I resent that you claim to represent me. I want the people in question to feel included, and their concerns listened to. There are means to enforce community norms that do not involve your posturing and abusing your power. Seek compromise and if these people continue to go their own way, use the arbitration committee.Dr Zen 23:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
While I don't like threats myself it has been convincingly agreed that the image should stay yet people have still removed it (not recently I note). Having a warning might be appropriate. violet/riga(t) 23:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There's no need to go the AC route. Do you expect that the AC would handle things any differently? The only reason Admins are "posturing" is because of what happened the last time the page was unprotected. I too want the people to feel included, and have already listened to their concerns. But there comes a time when a decision has to be made. And that has happened, the vote is very clear. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 23:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Imagine a policeman who shot dead bad guys and claimed "so what? Do you imagine that a court would have done anything different?" The arbitration committee at least involves a process, Theresa.Dr Zen 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
True but the AC is snowed under with difficult cases at the moment. I'm not willing to add to thier workload. This is pretty cut an dried, and a temp block is certainly nothing like being shot! Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 23:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've just removed the warning on the article. It's unnecessary and will put of legit contributors. Repeated removal of the pic against community norms should be treated as vandalism. I.e. give polite explanation on user page (assuming good faith), give stronger warning on user page, explaining that another removal will incur a block, block. We could also put a warning in the edit summary (revert anon - please read the talk page, removing this picture could lead to you being blocked) Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 23:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This seems much better. We know there are a couple of editors who will never be happy with the image and they probably need a day or two in the sin bin to think it over, but this is much more friendly to those editors who stumble over this page and think, hello, better get rid of that image. I think three days is too much though. 24 hours would be more than enough. If you want longer you should really seek the mandate of the community. I'm not sure you shouldn't even for the shorter ban but it's at least in keeping with the new 3RR policy that is currently being voted on.Dr Zen 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You make a good point. Also a temp block, even of three days is no real hardship. it's mostly symbolic, to tell the user "We dissaprove of your disruptive behaviour" 24 hours serves that purpose just as well as 72 IMO. Also the autoblocker blocks IP's for 24 hours. A longer block would therefore just encourage the use of sockpuppets. So yes I agree blocks should be 24 hours Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 23:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Theresa. I think the process you've outlined gives the, erm, bad boys/girls plenty of chance. I simply urge whoever gives the warning to remember to be kind. We're all (hopefully) working with the same aim, even if we have different ideas of what the endpoint looks like.Dr Zen 00:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Raul654 has just reinserted a much gentler warning. I'm happy with that one. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 23:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
