Jump to content

Talk:Clitoris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keenan Pepper (talk | contribs) at 21:13, 27 May 2006 (→9cm clitoris: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

controversial issues

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)

Just as well, since there's no clitoris visible in this WP article. What is labeled "Glans of Clitoris" in the photo is no such thing; it is in fact the edge of the hood, beneath which lies the clitoris, not at all visible in the photo. Apparently a lot of the editors here have never seen one, so here is a photo that shows (below the v, with a dot on it) the tip of a clitoris: http://www.pukka.net/snotsykims/temple/above.jpg 68.6.40.203 02:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please appretiate another comprehensive photo: http://www.aznewage.com/clt1.jpg it should be distinctly visible here.
The Wiki Clitoris's 2nd picture File:Clitoris inner anatomy gives a perfect view on the subject; however, the view is fruitless, since the uncertain incription "Glans clitoris" given. We clearly see a small penis (shaft, body) enveloped by some transparent skin. Should one assume that the whole structure is called "a clitoral glans"? Meantime, this is the spotlight of the article and must be explained with a great detail. Getting into details of the anatomic structures, it would be more reasonable to appoint the skin as "a hood" and the glans as "a prominent tip of the shaft" (often missing). If this is correct, why not to state explicitly in the anatomic picture? The issue is that the article does not fulfill its purpose - the curious people leave the page with the same confusion they have in their heads and looking at the "topic" "down there".

this article needs to tell about the clitoral bulbs

these are probably the part of the clitoris i understand the LEAST. i suspect many other people are similarly in the dark.

Gringo300 05:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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.

  1. Those who believe that the current picture is a useful and suitable illustration,
  2. 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.
  3. Those that do not want a pic used under any circumstances.
  4. 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)

As an outsider to this debate, I'd say that the attempt to list the different factions is a good idea, but that the original list provided by RTB is flawed (it certainly contains POV items of personal belief - e.g. one might indeed claim that the pic doesn't illustrate the clitoris in detail, but to assert that it doesn't show the clitoris at all, and that everybody either agrees or needs a biology lesson is wrong). I would suggest that a section be started to see if we can arrive at a concensus on what the list of factions should be - this is preferable to editing someone else's list, as it does indeed then look like you are moderating the opinions of others. Such a list would then provide a useful grounding for the next stage of the debate - how popular each of the points of view is, what a suitable poll question would be etc. 82.41.5.165 00:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All of you are fucking crazy. Yes, I came to a page on the female clitoris and was shocked to find a picture of... a clitoris! For Christ's sakes, grow up. Information should be accurate. This is accurate. Leave the picture be. --24.200.155.103 01:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But there's simply no clitoris visible in that picture! Here's a picture of a clitoris: http://www.pukka.net/snotsykims/temple/above.jpg 68.6.40.203 05:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)

To Anthony: it tells people that Wikipedia contains content they will not like. I thought the reminder said that Wikipedia may contain content that some people won't like. If not, would you object to something that says that? anthony 警告 22:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

21:01 4 May 2006 - Some guy with no account said: # Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.

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)
I hope you are joking. I'd certainly think that something is wrong if at least half of those polled thought there was an issue. This wasn't the case. — マイケル ₪ 05:52, Jan 5, 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.

  1. Create a censored version like the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse page using templates.
  2. 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)
I put a comment on your page to explain to you why I wouldn't discuss this any further with you. No other reason.Dr Zen 23:43, 5 Jan 2005 (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)

"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." Here you go misrepresenting other people again. I said "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." I was simply stating that I am making a good faith assumptiong (meaning I assume good faith) of the other editors. I never once sugested that this assumption was not all inclusive. I simpllely said that if my assumption was wrong, and some people are not trying to make the article as good as if can be, meaning they are arguing for other reasons, such as arguing because a picture of a clirotis/vulva goes against thier morals, etc.., then they should take a break from the article. I never implied or stated that this was the case with anyone. I was simply telling everyone that I am trusting that they are here to make a good article, not to simply censor everything they find offesive/potentialy offensive. — マイケル ₪ 05:34, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I read "at least the majority" as implying a minority might not be. I am suggesting that this article would be best if it represented all views. I am suggesting it could do that by allowing those who hold the views in question to suppress the images. It is not a question of my own morals, nor, as it happens, is that a motivation for Robert, nor Anthony, so far as what they've said here indicates.Dr Zen 23:47, 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)

I'd sooner gnaw my own leg off than try to discuss this issue with Raul. Well that kind of attitude isn't going to help you to reach a consensus, is it?
No, but it will at least keep my Wikistress down!Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The picture is still there. Our compromise is not. Well it's there as far as I'm concerned. I can't speak for Theresa Knott or Timbo. The trouble as I see it is that you're willing to play the consensus game only so far. It isn't enough that you and I should be happy. Everybody must be happy, including Raul and Chocolateboy, otherwise we are no closer to your concept of a consensus than before. I'm sorry but I thought you appreciated that when we started talking.
Unfortunately, I cannot see any way of making Raul happy. He doesn't seem to be interested in further discussion, was never interested in compromise or in any notion of consensus that I would recognise as such. I rather feel that the best approach is to hammer out a solution that satisfies those who are interested in compromise and then to move on to convincing those who are not that they could perhaps rethink their position. Basically, Tony, I reckon if you and Timbo can be swayed, other hardliners might consider that good reason to at least rethink.
Do I think it is possible to create a proper consensus? No, I do not. I think there will be some that cannot be satisfied by anything but their own way. It makes me sad to say it but I've noted that that's all too often the way of things here. It doesn't make the effort worthless but it does predispose one to thinking it will be fruitless. Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We must include the view that clitorises are offensive, Absolutely. I believe there is indeed a section on the clitoris taboo in the USA. I daresay there is a similar story to be told for the UK. There was a bit of a fuss about that Stranglers record a few years ago (odd that nobody objected to playing a song by a group called The Stranglers until they released one containing a reference to a clitoris!)
You know that isn't what I meant. Even pictures can be POV. A smiling subject, a glum one. A rainy day, a sunny one. A clitoris. No clitoris.Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"puritans"...insulting epithet If you can think of a non-insulting word for someone who wants people to change everything to match their own point of view, be my guest. The least insulting one I could think of was "puritan".
The suggestion that we are discussing is, and has been, that there should be a mechanism for whatever we call them to change things that they view to their own POV, not everything. Your insistence that anyone wants to change everything is precisely what I feel is invalid about your position. To incorporate the POV that Wikipedia should not be censored, it's important that a version with picture is available. Just as I hope that Raul can eventually be swayed by a compromise, I also hope Cantus can be too, and 198, and whoever else.Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That should have read "an illustration", of course. That's what I thought. I thought, and I have said, that you are one of those who oppose the current picture.
Yes, but the two issues are distinct, as Robert often points out. I don't oppose a picture altogether.Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Leaving aside the issue of those who use computers whose settings they cannot change to access the internet They should jolly well take their computers to the menders.
Not everyone has a computer, Tony, or can access the Internet even if they do. Some use libraries, school computers, their parents' machines under supervision etc. I'm saddened by this comment of yours. Very blinkered.Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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. Au contraire, it merely makes the assumption that puritans (or whatever) know what kind of people they are. And I'm rather surprised that you find the suggestion that people should learn how to use their browsers insulting. I used to use the web through an ancient slow modem, so I couldn't possibly download all the silly pictures, it would have taken several minutes to load each page. I turned image downloads off, it took me a few seconds and saved me hours of thumb-twiddling boredom. So I'm not suggesting anything that I haven't tried myself.
You are not everybody. That seems to be rather lost on you! Why would "puritans" turn off images? Perhaps they want to see the many other lovely pictures on other articles. They are not to know they will be confronted with pictures they will find offensive. Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
it is not inclusive to suggest that users ought to be geeks I do not suggest anything of the sort. Turning image downloading on and off on a modern web browser is something anyone can do.
can do is not know how to do. And you do not address the point that they do not know that they ought to switch off pictures. They are visiting an encyclopaedia. There are no hardons in Britannica.Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So you are willing to endorse censored forks Absolutely! I have no choice in this, they are permitted under the GFDL.
One need not endorse them to accept their existence, Tony.Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
'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. But I am. I eagerly await such a solution and applaud all steps, however flawed in execution, taken towards it.
Then what are we waiting for? You're geek enough to apply the Abu Ghraib solution, aren't you? Please do so. We can fight over the wording of the warning/pointer afterwards.Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
'And it remains true that your "solution" only works for users that are forewarned of the content Remind me, how would one arrive at a Wikipedia article called Clitoris?
The Britannica article on "clitoris" does not, to my knowledge, contain a picture of a vulva. Remember, "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask youself what a reader would expect under "whatever" in an encyclopedia. " Do readers expect erect penises and vulvas, Tony? What would lead them to that expectation? Does Encarta have hardons? Does Britannica have much in the way of genitalia?Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
nobody reads disclaimers on websites I would suggest that any puritan who is serious about his calling would do so. We cannot legislate for people who won't take themselves seriously.
I can only deplore this attitude. So much for wikilove.Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
can you honestly say you do for each site that you visit when you're surfing? I have absolutely no need to do so, for I do not expect the internet to contain only things that I will personally approve of.
What would lead a "puritan" to expect to see a pussy pic in an encyclopaedia? I have to be honest, Tony, I didn't expect to see it until I randomed the page. I was quite surprised. I am no puritan. I approve of pussy pics wholeheartedly.Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is still not an argument for not providing a means to suppress the images that offend! I remind you again that your web browser possesses controls. You can get rid of the images in an instant.
If you don't want to read "Tony Sidaway is a shithead" you could just turn your PC off. Does that negate any other means of preventing your viewing it being exercised?
This is not a personal attack, by the way. Purely illustrative. You are welcome to refactor it if you feel that's not clear though.Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
'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. Well the solutions I propose for Puritans using the internet are less obtrusive than either. In order of increasing impact:
  • don't read articles with names like "clitoris"
  • block images from Wikipedia's image server (possible with most good browsers)
  • block all images (all browsers)
  • don't read articles on the Wikipedia site
  • don't read Wikipedia articles
  • don't use the internet
So there you have it: a list of graded responses. Each puritan can choose the level of security from pictures of vulvas he or she requires, and act accordingly. No Gunpowder Plot required and you don't even have to register to vote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And yet, you do not wish to be called a "shithead". To prevent this, you expect me, and others, to abide by a policy.
You could: not read talk pages where people might call you a "shithead"; not read articles on Wikipedia; not read webpages that might discuss you; not read any webpages just in case someone slipped the offensive remark in; not use the internet and read a nice book; not even read the book just in case someone had snuck into chez Sidaway and pencilled something offensive into page 125.
As above, purely illustrative. Feel free to refactor and no offense meant. Dr Zen 04:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you don't want to read "Tony Sidaway is a shithead" you could just turn your PC off. Quite. I am pleased to see that, for once, you have correctly interpreted my position. You will see that I have at no point denied that there are alternative ways of proceeding. As I have pointed out, to date I have:
  • Refrained from participating in any way in the edit warring on Clitoris.
  • Agreed to the current picture being replaced by a link as a compromise agreement
  • Actively sought to persuade administrators to respect the comporomise agreement
  • Agreed that it would be good to provide a facility for the user to turn off images on Wikipedia.
  • Agreed that the user should be informed of this facility, subject to NPOV
  • Promised that I will never, ever install the current picture should it be removed.
  • Educated you and others on the ease with which image downloads can be disabled in the most popular web browsers.
  • Educated you and others on alternative sources of Wikipedia content without images. There are other methods, too, which I shall continue to educate you on.
I don't see a lot of concessions coming from the other side, only further demands and false claims to the effect that I have made no concessions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I find your remarks extremely difficult to locate and so I often miss them. Could you please try grouping them in one place?
You said: You know that isn't what I meant. Even pictures can be POV. A smiling subject, a glum one. A rainy day, a sunny one. A clitoris. No clitoris
I'm sorry, I don't know what you meant. I'd put a picture of a rainy day to illustrate an article on rain, and a sunny day to illustrate an article on sunshine. A picture of a woman with a clitoris would go into an article on the clitoris, a picture of a woman without a clitoris would go into an article on clitoridectomy. I see no POV there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And here's another snippet:

The suggestion that we are discussing is, and has been, that there should be a mechanism for whatever we call them to change things that they view to their own POV, not everything. Your insistence that anyone wants to change everything is precisely what I feel is invalid about your position.

Well I've already pointed out that the user is perfectly able to change things that he views. You seem to be arguing on behalf of some bloody-minded person who insists that he's too stupid to work his browser, he couldn't be bothered to read the disclaimer, he's too lazy to look elsewhere for the information and it's still all our fault for providing a picture of a caterpillar in the caterpillar article, or whatever it is he objects to, instead of a link saying "warning: pictures of horrible hairy caterpillar here". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony if one considers this definition of consensus could you give an indication of the consessions made towards reaching agreement made by you? - Robert the Bruce 02:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A result achieved through negotiation whereby a hybrid solution is arrived at between parties to an
issue, dispute or disagreement, comprising typically of concessions made by all parties, and to
which all parties then subscribe unanimously as an acceptable resolution to the issue or
disagreement. www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-c.htm
  • Here:
  1. forebearance in editing No revert warring under any circumstances.
  2. Commitment to discussion: notification of revert, promise not to repeat, offer to discussion, which resulted in:
  3. Compromise agreement, mid-December, that the current picture should be replaced by a link for a few days pending the results of a search for a replacement.
  4. a more recent promise never, ever to restore the current picture should it be removed.
  5. an acceptance in principle of alternative methods of display, subject to ironing out technical bugs
  6. acceptance in principle of notification of alternative methods of display, subject to compliance with neutral point of view.
  • Hope that helps. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No not very helpful but it certainly confirms my opinion that you have made no concessions to the positions of others other than to call them offensive names and belittle their concerns about the display of explicit nudity where children may encounter it without the attention of an adult to explain the meaning of it all. Secondly that you continue to insist that the current picture depicts the clitoris when clearly it doesn't. In summary then Tony your efforts are not helping in anyway towards achieving consensus but serve rather to further polarize the issue. Sad. - Robert the Bruce 04:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ on whether the current picture shows the clitoris. Your other remarks suggest to me that you have failed to read the list of my actions in seeking a consensus (reaching agreement with people on how to proceed, which is not the same as agreeing with other people's opinions) and compare it to the definition that you posted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:35, 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)
  • Apparently it's necessary for those young women who do not know that their clitoris is located in the region of their genitals.Dr Zen 02:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Who said that? You're kidding, right? - Robert the Bruce 03:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It's been said that this photo is necessary to allow young women visiting this article to locate their clitorises. I look forward to the depiction of the male body, full length, with an arrow pointing to the penis, to "illustrate" where the penis is on that page.Dr Zen 04:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • As amusing as that concept is, I point out that there are rather dramatic differences in how easy the two body parts are to find, and that any young man who does not know where his penis is has probably died of an exploding bladder. Snowspinner 04:34, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • And on this basis you support the inclusion of a photo in the clitoris article which does not include a depiction of the clitoris itself? - Robert the Bruce 04:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • That's what I'm saying. Apparently young women find clitorises so difficult to locate they don't even know which general area of the body they are in. Jeez, you'd think they could narrow it down, especially since we describe in the text where it is. Dr Zen 05:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • One would certainly think so. You don't think these people are just trolling do you? - Robert the Bruce 05:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on, be serious, have you ever seen a clitoris, apparently not. Have you looked at he image recently, there is a circle right around the clitoris (obscured, yes, but it is there). It's not pointing to the vulva. We don't have a picture of a woman/girl with an arrow pointing to her crouch. I can't believe you people. Next you'll argure that the vulva image is not good because vulvas aren't in black and white in real life! — マイケル ₪ 05:24, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


The text is fine, but a picture actually shows the lay of the land; it should also be noted that around half of us don't possess a clitoris and a good proportion of those, especially the younger ones, don't have an adult close female friend who will oblige by showing them hers.

The current picture, while it doesn't show a satisfyingly-exposed glans such as one may see prior to sex or in pornography, does a good job of showing what the thing usually looks like from the outside--that is to say, nothing much. Most penises are rather prominent by comparison. However, I say think you can't have too many pictures of this kind of thing, because both male and female genitals do differ greatly in appearance from person to person, at different stages in life, in different states of sexual arousal, and in different temperatures. We should in my opinion try to obtain as many useful pictures as we can; most of them would also be useful in vulva, some in vagina, some in perineum, some in mons pubis and so on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with TS here. We need a proper picture of a clitoris you can see, and if we also want to demonstrate that some are almost invisible, then fine. Hell, let's upload a plethora of clitori. Then you can put circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and it'll be moot rather than mocking. (And anyone mocking my clitoris-locating powers has never been naked in the dark with me. :-/ ) Blair P. Houghton 18:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line

Some people find the image in the article useful. That is enough to warrent inclusion. If you want a better photo of the clitoris, stop complaining and go find one. If you want to get rid of it just because you wish to censor the article, too bad, it's not going anywhere, and that should be obvious by the edit wars that happen whenever it is removed.

For those willing to accept the comprimise which has been suggested OVER and OVER by both sides, a temporary censored version like the abu garib abuse article. Create it! No one has stopped you. Tony has indicated he thinks there are better solutions, but that he would not fight such an effort. I myself have stated MANY times that I think such a comprimise would be acceptable. No one that I have seen has voiced that such a solution would never be acceptable. I'm not going to censor the article for you, I have no problems with the article, but nothing is stopping you from creating Clitoris (censored). — マイケル ₪ 05:43, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


  • I would not oppose a test page. I have some possible fixes for the editing bug and the cache bug that I would like to try out. If I or someone else could get these to work to my own satisfaction, and a neutral pointer was agreed to for the no-pictures page, I would have no objection to such an article becoming medium-permanent, pending a proper site-wide image fix. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've made the censored page. Samboy 06:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The current edit at that page is a verbatim source copy (not a transclusion) of clitoris with the photograph deleted from the text. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here a suggestion

Thos people here who are interested creating an encyclopdia stay here those who aren't and want to use it to push there polictical and religious view go somewhere alse and do it. and take you puppets with you.--Jirate 15:02, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

My view is that this encyclopaedia is built on the principle of NPOV. You don't seem to share that view. You're right that one of us should go but you've picked the wrong person.Dr Zen 00:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's not vandalism to add a link to the censored version at the top of the page. There's no point in having a censored version if it's not linked to. OK, it's allowed it's allowed it's allowed it's allowed it's allowed it's allowed it's allowed. Cookiecaper 16:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is no censored version as it was redundant.--Jirate 16:13, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
Dude, this has been sort-of agreed upon. The censored version and the link to it stay. Cookiecaper 16:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It hasn't been agreed. It's not her to stay an nether is any other POV arguments you or anyone else tries to air.--Jirate 16:25, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Okay, if you don't like it, what do you suggest we change it to? It's either having the warning and censored page up like that, linking to the image, or removing it completely. There aren't very many other options. But maybe you're creative and can come up with a good one. We can't leave it like it is and the censored page seems to best meet the consensus. Also, Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse has a censored page and that's a pretty visible page. Clitoris is allowed to have one too, then, policy-wise. If you don't answer soon or if you're answer is to do nothing, I'm reverting again. Cookiecaper 16:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It can stay exactly as it is with no warning and with no censorship of the page. The picture is fine were it is. If you don't like go and set up your own web site. Also don't lie about concensus, when a vote was take many moons ago the consensus was established and that consensus was for an image. The abu grab (censored) page is a candidate for deletion.--Jirate 16:52, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
Your normal level of honesty. Deleting the VFD markers from the msg. --Jirate 17:20, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
I just reverted the article. You can edit the VfD back in if you want. :) Cookiecaper 17:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I love the way that it's "POV" to suggest that we should provide an inclusive solution but "not POV" to suggest that we should not.Dr Zen 00:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Three times?

67.163.164.25 has edited clitoris. Could everybody give the change a shufty and see if you think it's kosher? I have asked the user if he can provide a source. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it in the meantime becasue the clitoris.com states "The clitoral glans has just as many nerve endings as does the penile glans, only in a much smaller area." [3] Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I had a quick google. I found a wide variety of views from "the same" to "clitoris has twice as many". I'm not sure what the clitoris.com site's claim to preeminence is in your view -- beyond grabbing the domain name! -- but I think it's right to leave such a clearly contested claim that adds nothing to the article out.Dr Zen 00:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clitoris (censored)

I supported this VfD on the grounds that the current edit was a fork. I had to rethink when I saw the almost universal opposition. It's easy in debate here to get sucked in and assume that a lot of people think as a small minority of dedicated editors think. They don't. There seems to be a clear and firm consensus against censorship of clitoris. I think I may now be in the camp that opposes kludges and awaits the site-wide software fix, and in the meantime points people at their browser controls. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly my point pages and pages of discussion ago. Those who want to censor the image a very vocal. But they are a very small minority. The vast majority don't want any form of censorship on this article at all. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Point one, Theresa, every article in Wikipedia is censored. None is a scratchpad for completely free expression. Point two, no one who has been discussing this for the last month wants the article to be censored. They have been arguing for a solution that allows the images to be suppressed for those who are offended by them.Dr Zen 00:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah yeah!Youve argued and argued and argued. But the wikicommunity has not been convinced. I've tried and failed to reach a compromise solution (as have a number of other people) Unless you can come up with a new idea. Then what's the point. I believe there will never be a true consensus. So I'm going with overwhelming majority instead. I don't intend to argue anymore. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The danger here is that the Wikicommunity does not have the moral standards that the majority of the people who I call friends here in the US have. We the wikicommunity are a minority; I would hate to see this whole issue become resolved to one with a very liberal POV (namely, the idea that there's something wrong with the viewer who doesn't like an image the wikicommunity has supported); it will discourage conservsative Wiki editors from contributing here. Samboy 01:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe it will. I think conservative editors won't even look at this page. But even if it did there is nothing we can do about it. The wikicommunity has stated time and time again what it wants. Unless someone comes up with a new idea, we simply have to respect the majority. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 05:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Conservative editors already have looked at this page. We do not actually simply have to "respect the majority". We do not do so in our articles (NPOV policy insists we do not). We should not in this. We should "respect the minority". It's important to fight for minority views, especially when we do not agree with them. If we do not, we cannot hope for our encyclopaedia ever to be NPOV.
Do you not see that, Theresa? It should not just be about banging away at our own POVs and certainly not about insisting that because we form the majority, only our view should be represented.Dr Zen 05:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself Dr Zen. Do you have any new ideas, because i have better things to do than keep going over the same old ground. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Go and do them then, Theresa. You keep making exclusivist comments, I'll keep commenting on them. The issues around this page have not been resolved and they're not likely to while editors such as you demand that the majority should simply get its way.Dr Zen 01:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Tony, you know this wasn't what we discussed. I would vote against it myself! You also know that you represent the majority. What's new there? No one is disputing that most editors on Wikipedia are liberal. Having yet another vote to prove that doesn't change anything.Dr Zen 00:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've done my best, and born the sometimes extreme personal attacks without retaliating in kind. I don't think I'll be revisiting the idea of accepting a censored clitoris soon, though, and I cannot see the point of hanging around and debating more for now, given the consistent shows of bad faith on the parts of the other debaters, and the renewed evidence of the strong anti-censorship consensus. I'll keep my eyes on this page, but I am no longer entertaining the idea of cooperating in changes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You don't have the faintest idea what a "consensus" is, man. Dr Zen 00:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You keep using this word "liberal". What does it mean? I'm an encyclopedist, I want to make good articles that are informative and useful. Does that mean I am a liberal? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have been following this and think there should be consensus on this, but not censorship either -- it's not a popularity contest, anatomical facts be damned. Unfortunately this boils down to a juvenile teenager belief that the glans somehow is the clitoris. We are better served by having the mouth article automatically showing a tongue sticking out as though that is normal. Anatomically, a more appropriate place for a glans clitoris close-up photo is somewhere in the glans article, which is my two-cents. Each part is essential anatomy, but that is not the same as saying one part is the whole. I notice it's some of the same folks who advocate male circumcision insist on seeing the female glans flaring out too. Big surprise there, so take my idea with a grain of salt. DanP 00:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dan, you would not illustrate tongue with a photo of a closed mouth, or worse, a head with a closed mouth! You have inadvertently found an excellent analogy. I don't advocate male circumcision. Far from it. I am with foreskin and intend to stay that way. My son is also with foreskin and he can decide for himself when he's older whether he wants to be circumcised.Dr Zen 03:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I was directing my comment at the anti-foreskin "glans-only" crowd. I, of course, was speaking of the "But where is the clitoris?" dialogue. A few of these folks are like giggling teenagers, when this whole debate on censorship and photos should properly be moved to the glans discussion. "Glans" does not equal "clitoris", no matter how many people ask "but where is it?" like immature boys referring to their "pee pee" when they often mean specifically the "glans". If it shows the hood, it shows the clitoris, that is a fact no less valid than with the glans flaring out. They are both valid. So this is a communication barrier, not just a censorship barrier. A tongue sticking out is fine -- but in the tongue article. But imagine if some folks used slang to refer to their tongue as a "mouth". Do we alter Wikipedia mouth to that POV only? Tongue cancer is mouth cancer -- but not always vice-versa. Here is the worst thing: A diagram with a teeny-tiny circle labelled "clitoris" is totally misleading. It is inherently false and only perpetuates anatomical fallacy. DanP 19:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There's a big difference between the clitoris and the penis, Dan, and this is reflected in the text (perhaps you should edit it to your POV), where the clitoris is described as "hidden", for example, is that while the foreskin is unambiguously part of the penis, the clitoral hood is not, commonly, considered part of the clitoris proper. Your analogy with the mouth is stretched. It would be rather more like the case if they described the cavity as the mouth and disregarded the lips. Oh! See? They mostly do.Dr Zen 01:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

clitoris-information.com

This site is actually a porn site, not an informative site at all. I'm going to "censor" the article by removing the link. I don't believe an encyclopaedia article on a part of the anatomy should link to pictures of that part of the anatomy included for sexual gratification (although perhaps a more relevant page might).Dr Zen 01:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I visited the site. It contains no pornography that I can find but a lot of information. There are more informative sites, but I wouldn't write this one off as a porn site. My main gripe about it is the extremely large number of advertising links to external sites. I had to scroll through four pages worth to get to the page content. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same site? The one I visited had a page of pr0n pics of clits and cocks, a clickthrough to an AVS page that had loads of links to hardcore sites. I don't have an AVS key and I'm not planning to get one, so I didn't get any further. What I saw was a site masquerading as informative. Sometimes pr0n sites do that. How did your perspective differ? If I missed something, I'll gladly reinstate the link, but to be honest, I don't think it's something I'd want to direct the young girls we have often talked about to, whereas the other clitoris.com site very much is.Dr Zen 02:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've gone back to that site and I still see no pornographic pictures. There are however many off-site links which I did not investigate and possibly some of those required AVS to access. I could not describe this as a porn site. I don't think it was much use, though, so I don't object to the link being removed. Four screenworths of ads is too much.

  • The "content" starts about halfway down the first page. It's not that great; but at least it shows photos of the things, unlike today's Wikipedia. Yes, they're thumbnail-sized photos, and yes, they're bait-links to pay sites. But there is also a link to [4], which actually has several reasonble photos comparing clitoris size. You'd hardly need a circle and an arrow with some of those; in fact, the comparison itself is enough to identify the part that's changing size. If we could get perms to copy one and link there for the spectrum, we'd be where we need to be. (A-freakin'-men! if you catch my drift.) Blair P. Houghton 06:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I question this site.

"Question 1: What drives the ultimate male fantasy? Answer 1: A huge desire to meet an endless stream of good looking young women and fuck the ass off them!

Question 2: What can Mother Nature plant in men's minds so that men produce the maximum number of babies? Answer 2: A huge desire to meet an endless stream of good looking young women and fuck the ass off them!

Question 3: What drives the ultimate female fantasy? Answer 3: A huge desire to meet a strong, kind and successful man and have an endless stream of his babies

Question 4: What can Mother Nature plant in women's minds so that women produce the maximum number of babies? Answer 4: A huge desire to meet a strong, kind and successful man and have an endless stream of his babies."

The link that Blair gave contains this and other stuff that seriously makes me want to consider lesbianism and give up men totally. I do not think this is exactly something I would want girls to read. It is likely to jade their view on men. CiaraBeth 16:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well that's a secondary link off the site we were linked to. I think it gives us good reason to be careful in our choice of external sites. I hadn't visited the clitoris-information.com site before Zen mentioned it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I also want to add that the way the pics and info are presented, it sounds as if it were written by some horny, panting pervert. I feel objectified and a little pissed about it. I do not think it would be appropriate to link to this site, as I consider it to be indecent simply because of the way it has a feeling of female objectification.

Also, why must we see the clitoris minus the hood? When I look at an encyclopedia page, I do not want to see a hand spreading the labia open, nor do I wish to see one pulling back the clitoral hood. CiaraBeth 16:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • You are not making sense. If the illustration does not depict the external part of the clitoris then what earthly purpose would it serve in an article about the clitoris? It just gets stranger and stranger. - Robert the Bruce 18:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I hope we won't see any hands in any new clitoris images. And pardon my ignorance, but what does "AVS" stand for? Peter O. (Talk) 23:52, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion picked up here from talk:autobiography (album)

This discussion on another talk page strayed into clitoris territory so I'm picking it up here.

There's no consensus if Everyking doesn't agree. Call it the majority. The overwhelming majority. Everyone else. But until James joins in, there's never going to be a consensus and more's the pity.Dr Zen 05:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The term for the concept you are describing is unanimity. A consensus typically differs from unanimity in allowing for some outriders who consciously abstain from or oppose a collective decision. For instance on VfD a "rough consensus" concept is used that permits a decision for deletion to be taken despite a significant minority of objections. The bar for rough consensus varies according to the admin who makes the decision, but values such as 2/3 (popularly regarded as the working minimum) and 4/5 are typical. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Read the article on consensus decision-making, Tony. It (correctly) excludes those measures as "consensus".

In diplomacy, a consensus really is "everyone agrees". That's why treaty language is so rigid. In general, it means "everyone consents". That doesn't mean all agree but it means the solution is at least acceptable to all. I know you think that the majority should steamroller the minority -- although I'm astonished to see that you suggest that a third of views can be ignored -- but it is clear that you do not have a good understanding of what a "consensus" actually is.

The "rough consensus" concept is used by deletionists so that they can ignore the view that certain articles should be kept. VfD is the most pernicious section of Wikipedia, a breeding ground for discontent. I agree that it would be unworkable if one or two holdouts prevented articles that breach the policy from being deleted, but holding article popularity contests is, I'm certain, not what was intended when it was invented.Dr Zen 01:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The exclusion that you refer to is due to a recent edit to the article on consensus decision-making (within the last month) and constitutes a factually false statement ("Such measures do not fit within the definition of consensus given at the beginning of this article." Consensus decision-making is about the process, not the measures used.)

Okay, but have a look at what it says about the process, Tony. Discussion, not votes, is the key. Get negatives out into the open and then work out how they can be turned around. You just don't understand the basic concept.Dr Zen 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even if what you said were true, your attempt to equate consensus with unanimity is false, because the article still explicitly lists U-1 as a possible definition of a consensus decision.

I am not equating it with unanimity as such. I am equating it with accord. They're not the same. My version of a consensus doesn't involve a poll as such, unless it is a means to uncover dissent.
Of course, consensus as understood in that article, and as I understand it, requires the commitment of all involved that an accord is the aim of the process. That's not so on clitoris, where editors such as Raul and chocolateboy (and to a lesser extent you and Theresa) are not working for an accord (you and Theresa have not worked for a solution for all but only to persuade dissenters to your point of view); and I doubt it is so here, where James's commitment to a consensual solution is sketchy and some on the other side simply want to steamroller him with a majority vote.
The U-1 idea is simply an expression that a single person should not hold up progress by simply being obstructionist. However, you could only employ such a definition if those involved had a priori agreed on it! Otherwise there would be no consensus for the consensus, if you get me.Dr Zen 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I don't consider your claim that "rough consensus" concept is a deletionist end-run tactic, or your description of VfD as a place for "popularity contests" for articles, to be worthy of response.

If "rough consensus" is described as a 2/3 majority, it is hardly aiming for general accord, and this viewpoint is adopted, so far as I know, only by deletionists. And what else would you call VfD, where articles are contested on their "notability" and voted on in a quasi-beauty contest (I use the lawyers' version of that term)? There are guiding criteria, but these are wilfully ignored.Dr Zen 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rough consensus is the de facto decision-making method of VfD. "Rough consensus" works because nobody objects to the principle enough to attempt to disrupt the process.

You're very wrong on that score. Not only do people object -- fiercely sometimes -- and quite a few of them, but there have been several attempts to disrupt the process. The problem is that those who do object, far from being seen as dissenters whom a consensus should attempt to include, are rather seen as problems who must be dealt with -- and have been -- by further treating the will of the majority as though it were a "consensus".Dr Zen 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is what consensus is about--we settle for something other than our first choice because we can live with the results. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. But that applies to everyone, not just those who are in the majority!Dr Zen 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


  • Well I'm being told by you that I "don't understand the concept" but I think I've shown a pretty good understanding. People don't get what they'd choose at first but they discuss major differences and arrive at a decision that they're prepared to live with.
  • On clitoris it is my view that we have the closest thing we'll get to a consensus. The vast majority are broadly happy with what we've got, a very small number have aired a variety of differences (some object to what they view as an offensive photograph, others think the current photograph is worse than nothing). Your singling out of chocolateboy, raul654, Theresa Knott and myself as to some extent not working for consensus seems to be wildly at odds with the actual result. We have our consensus, having spent weeks working out what is and is not feasible, and the article is stable at the moment. By claiming that X or Y is not working for consensus, you ignore your own principle that the consensus must be acceptable to all parties.
  • Your claim that I have only worked to try to persuade others of my own point of view is an unequivocal falsehood. I proposed and negotiated a temporary trial of a link instead of the current image.
  • It's becoming increasingly difficult for me to imagine what kind of process, and what kind of result, short of total and willing acceptance of the minority view by the majority, you would view as a consensus on clitoris. It's much easier for the minority to muster acceptance of the view of the majority than vice versa.
  • I prefer to see consensus decision-making through the process. We've reached consensus on clitoris, all sides have explored the possibilities. It has been established through discussion that all sides are prepared to move, but movement is not possible because even removing the picture for a short time is unstable. Rather than indulge in such disruption, we all accept the current state. Even my last picture change, to a copy of the one on vulva which I think shows the clitoris a little more clearly, did not prove stable. I am not interested in edit wars so I accept the situation we have. I feel that I have had plenty of opportunity to explore possible alternatives but those alternatives proved unworkable and the current state is not so bad. That is consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


You decide they're prepared to live with it because they don't continue to edit war the page. I despair. You decide it is acceptable because there is no edit war. I despair.
I proposed and negotiated a temporary trial of a link instead of the current image. And then refused to support it at first challenge.
Yes, I'm aware of your view that the majority is not required to respect the views of the minority.
An idea of consensus that says basically that the majority need only listen to the minority before it disregards it is entirely untenable. Consensus is not either "Tony thinks the current state is not too bad".Dr Zen 23:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, yet again you falsely accuse me of not supporting the replacement of the image by a link. You ignore the fact that I asked both Raul and Chocolateboy to heed the agreement on their talk pages a soon as the took the link away and replaced it with the image again. You ignore the fact that even now I honor a commitment never to reinsert the current image if (as is now the case) it is removed. You seem to focus solely on the fact that I decline to join you in your tiresome edit wars. I have news for you, my refraining from edit warring is what I consider to be unequivocally good behavior.

I observe that alternatives have been considered and tried, and none of them of proven stable. Thus I conclude, and I quote: it is my view that we have the closest thing we'll get to a consensus.

In your second last paragraph you characterize my viewpoint as "the majority is not required to respect the views of the minority." Again an unequivocally and demonstrably false statement. Why would I bother to make these undertakings, if not out of respect for a minority view that I do not myself subscribe to?

Your final paragraph also seems to be an attempt to misstate the facts. The current status is demonstrably the most stable we have ever had. Alternative pictures and replacement by links have not worked.

Finally I repeat:

  • It's becoming increasingly difficult for me to imagine what kind of process, and what kind of result, short of total and willing acceptance of the minority view by the majority, you would view as a consensus on clitoris. It's much easier for the minority to muster acceptance of the view of the majority than vice versa. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. Tony proposed the temporary replacement of the image by the link, and even convinced me to support it (despite my vehement opposition to such actions on a more-than-temporary basis). That there was much opposition to it nonetheless is not his fault. He's been one of the most civil, deliberate, and respectful editors in this issue. Timbo ( t a l k ) 06:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cutting bait or fishing

While checking on a different issue I found interesting material about Wikipedia that may help the debates here:

  1. “Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors”. See this link for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_general_knowledge_base
  1. Written by Tony Sidaway, as it happens. I knew someone would quote it here! As it happens, Wikipedia is censored for the protection of minors if the community wants it to be. See goatse for an example.Dr Zen 00:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. The linked page says this "Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that you or your child will see or read nothing objectionable". This seems to imply that editors are worried about kids reading Wikipedia, but can't control the content. In other words, this is a bunch of weasel words. Many editors want kids to be able to look at naked women, graphic violence, and what not here, and don't care who they offend, and need to take responsibility for having this position. Samboy 00:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. I think this is essentially correct. The editors in question do not want to accept that they are in fact pushing a POV, not editing neutrally.Dr Zen 05:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. Wikipedia may contain objectionable content. Same link as #1
  1. Yes. Ditto.Dr Zen 00:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. -- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_wikipedia_is

  1. Yes. Completely irrelevant of course.Dr Zen 00:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The concern about people (minors, people with weak stomachs, library users) stumbling on the naked vulva/clitoris doesn’t fit into the Wiki mandates. There are only two tests for Wiki content, wiki consensus and the law of Florida & United States. If consensus can’t be reached, regarding the existing picture, those who have better pictures and associated text can include them in the article in order to include their point of view to round out the opinion about the clitoris. Further debate about objectionable content on Wiki should be removed to an external weblog or other forum as recommend in Wiki etiquette. Out of the four requirements for Wiki articles, only one provides means testing the clitoris article’s content, is the text or picture POV? From Wiki's own guidelines, it is very difficult to see how a photo could possibly be POV. Revmachine21 13:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That the article should contain it is one POV. That it shouldn't is another. How dreary. Dr Zen 00:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • As for moving the discussion out of here to a blog: no. This is a dispute about this article, not an abstract or irrelevent debate. Editorial decisions should not be beyond consensus decision-making. Cool Hand Luke 02:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • They certainly seem to be on this particular question.Dr Zen 05:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that Revmachine21, but the part of the problem here is that the picture in the clitoris article does not depict the clitoris. Now that is pretty bizarre if you ask me. - Robert the Bruce 18:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert, many people have disagreed with you on that point. For example (from Tony Sidaway's talk page),

  • I prefered the black and white pic. I thought it more instructional and did better depict the clitoris. I am beginning to wonder what this male fascination is to see the clitoris pulled from behind the hood. I wonder if they have this misoginistic fascination with it because doing so causes intense pain to many young girls. If a man tried that on me when he was visiting down there, he would be likely to end up with a broken nose from my foot kicking him. ;)CiaraBeth 17:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you're the only one (or one of two) arguing this point, with a multitude of others opposing you. Nonetheless, why not also insert that disembodied clitoris pic you brought up here on this talk page a while ago? Surely that shows the clitoris adequately enough for you. Timbo ( t a l k ) 20:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • two things:
  1. that's not Tony, it's someone posting to Tony's talk, and her misanthropic assumption that men have a misogynistic fascination with this and her insulting presumption that it's because of some sadistic urge kind of negate any point she was making. Let's hope she was being sarcastic throughout.
  • I never claimed it was Tony; I included that it was from his talk page so one would know where it was originally posted and thus be able to find it in its original context. And I included her signature. I think it's insightful because it's mostly a bunch of guys arguing about an oft-misunderstood and elusive female body part. I think the sarcasm/humor is apparent. Timbo ( t a l k ) 01:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. there are more than one or two people not satisfied with putting a circle around something covering the thing you're supposed to see. Another analogy: a picture of a car from the side with a circle in the vicinity of the rear of the forward wheel-well that says "gas pedal".
  • So add yourself to the list. Robert and Dr. Zen I know don't like it. I can't even count the number of people that are satisfied with the picture. Your analogy is fallacious and misleading. Another similar one is "We don't have a picture in penis of a nude man with an arrow to his crotch area." Sure. Timbo ( t a l k ) 01:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No, we have a picture of a nude man with a rather unmistakable penis fully visible in the picture. Something the Clitoris article sorely lacks. I'd say the penis article is just compensating, but then again maybe it's a self-portrait of one of the contributors. Blair P. Houghton 06:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
in short, consensus is that there should be a picture, and consensus is that there isn't, but nobody's got one that both improves on it and is public domain, so until someone does, and posts it, and the edit war occurs, all argument is moot Blair P. Houghton 00:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree that "consensus is that there isn't" a good picture. Where has that been demonstrated? Timbo ( t a l k ) 01:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • What has been demonstrated is that your notion of consensus is simply that the majority should ignore the concerns of the minority. I don't see how you square that with the ethos of a wiki, but that's your problem, not mine.Dr Zen 05:19, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, funny isn't it. I find it fascinating ... I think I'll write a book. - Robert the Bruce 06:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pictorial preferences

In my view:

  • A picture that shows the clitoris (or rather, the glans part of it), is preferable to one that merely locates it, just as a picture of an open eye is better for "eye" than a picture of a closed one.
  • A picture that locates the clitoris is better than none at all, as it at least provides some useful information.

Given that, it seems sensible to keep the current picture until a better one can be found. —Ashley Y 05:42, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your opinion Ashley. It is as valuable as the next mans’, no more and no less. You will find that the picture that locates the clitoris is of the vulva. We have a vulva article with such a picture. So the issue of location is not the issue. The issue here behind it all is whether there should be a picture at all ... that is why some are in tizzy defending a picture which does not depict the subject of the article. It is hilarious. - Robert the Bruce 05:58, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The picture provides useful information, and we don't (apparently) have a better one. So we should keep it. —Ashley Y 06:32, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • Useful information about what? Certainly not the clitoris ... and that is why it is not appropriate in the Clitoris article. - Robert the Bruce 07:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Simply showing where it is in relation to the vulva is useful information, obviously. —Ashley Y 07:29, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
Agreed. Listening to Robert, you'd think that we were all crazy to want the photo there! Ha, I seriously can't imagine how removing the picture (with no replacement) is an improvement to the article. Timbo ( t a l k ) 07:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • We go back then to one of my earlier comments (which your post as proved the value of). I stated that it appears in the absence of a suitable picture/s of the clitoris the attitude of any pic will do prevails. Why not put a "nice" pic of a female anus with the comment that the clitoris is "just around the corner"? - Robert the Bruce 07:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Because we have a better picture that locates the clitoris more clearly. —Ashley Y 07:42, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
ROFLMAO- Ashley, you're my hero. 7:43 2005 Jan 16 (Shanghai Time)

Protection

Yet again this page has been protected to prevent its being edited against an admin's preference. Yet again an edit in good faith has been accused of being "vandalism". What's more, a bully-boy admin sees fit to threaten me on my talkpage.

Anyone can edit a page. There are no proscribed edits. You cannot simply assume a bias, regardless how broadly held, and use the "rules" to ensure that your bias wins the day.

There is no policy, no rule, nothing that prevents an editor from making the same edit, if he or she feels it is right. The only way it can be prevented is the flagrant abuse of admin powers, by protecting a page or by blocking users who you don't agree with.Dr Zen 05:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Zen, there is the law of the jungle which some see that you have breached. This is becoming a vivid example of William Golding's Lord of the Flies. There is an analysis of the book on the web which I can subscribe to and with horror see the simularties with what is going on in Wikipedia as we speak.

The analysis makes the first point. "One of the most basic and obvious themes is that society holds everyone together, and without these conditions, our ideals, values, and the basics of right and wrong are lost. Without society's rigid rules, anarchy and savagery can come to light."

Then it goes on as follows:

  • People will abuse power when it's not earned.
  • When given a chance, people often single out another to degrade to improve their own security.
  • You can only cover up inner savagery so long before it breaks out, given the right situation.
  • It's better to examine the consequences of a decision before you make it than to discover them afterward.
  • The fear of the unknown can be a powerful force, which can turn you to either insight or hysteria.

I certainly hope that someone gets a grip of the Wikipedia bureaucrats before the wheels come off.

So it remains to be seen who is the next "Piggy", you or me, but I am sure we all know who "Roger" is. - Robert the Bruce 07:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I'm not sure I agree with the protection either. Dr Zen's edits and then subsequent reverts by everyone else are usually quite spaced out, so the page would have to be protected for days to serve any purpose at all, which prevents other users from contributing (and not trying to prove a point). And I doubt it will force us to resolve the dispute on the talk page, since we've been yakking away for months (me at least). Timbo ( t a l k ) 07:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy with unprotection too. I'm not much fond of the idea of playing tag-team revert with Dr Zen's edits, but maybe the vulvaphobes will wander off eventually. —Ashley Y 07:34, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • Try a little empathy. How do you think Dr Zen thinks about having to work through all the issues again with a "newbie" who has just arrived and now demands attention? - Robert the Bruce 07:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps Dr Zen should take a break. —Ashley Y 07:43, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • What makes you think Ashley Y hasn't perused the archived talk pages? She's a "newbie" in that she's new to this everlasting discussion, perhaps, but I don't think it's fair to accuse her of barging in on our little men's club and demanding attention. As Dr. Zen is fond of saying, this is a wiki; everyone's voice counts. Timbo ( t a l k ) 08:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"him" —Ashley Y 08:47, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

In my view an article should not be protected when a single editor persists in the kind of campaign we have seen in recent days. It is more appropriate for the user to stop engaging in the campaigning, which clearly has absolutely nothing to do with editing the article but was apparently directed at provoking a protect in order to prevent other editors being able to edit the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You insist this article is stable, Tony. Why does it need protection? I don't want the article protected. I'm anti-protection to the max. I've discussed at enormous length what I think should be done with this page and I've protested every time an activist admin has pushed their POV by protecting the page.Dr Zen 22:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You ask me why the article needs protection, but I am on record as specifically advocating that the article should not be protected, even before it was protected.

I repeat. In my opinion the article does not need to be protected.

As for administrators, I suggest that you get used to the fact that they always favor The Wrong Version. This isn't a product of activism, it's a product of the fact that this kind of contention arises when a minority kicks up a fuss about the fact that it doesn't have the power to force its own opinion on everybody else. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was asking you why you thought it needed protecting if it is "stable". Just canvassing your valuable opinion.
I'm interested that an editor who claims to be for consensus talks in terms of who does and does not have "power". Very revealing. Dr Zen 23:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, having power means I don't have to spar with you. So it's definitely a consideration. Bye bye. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Timbo's vulvaphobes

The comment about "vulvaphobes" bears some comment. (I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself but) it needs to be stated that the article in question is about the clitoris. There is an article about the vulva where a picture would be appropriate. The question is why a picture of the vulva is being forced into the clitoris article when it does not depict the clitoris and is not considered "good enough" to be used in the vulva article itself. You go figure. - Robert the Bruce 07:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Wow, I've never had my name in a section title such as that. I'm flattered. I suppose I'm King of the Vulvaphobes? Or perhaps responsible for the word? Timbo ( t a l k ) 07:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Pertaining to how many times you have to repeat yourself, the answer is none. I can't count how many times you have already. A lot. I know how you feel. I disagree. I don't suppose you'll rethink it. Timbo ( t a l k ) 07:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you rethink your position? - Robert the Bruce 09:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well I have no objection to the same picture being used in vulva. Obviously it's not the best picture, equally obviously it's better than nothing, as it does at least locate the clitoris, which is useful and relevant information. In addition, it's worth mentioning that the clitoris is usually hidden behind the prepuce rather than being exposed, which is something reflected in this picture.—Ashley Y 08:56, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • Worth mentioning? So then I assume you would say that as it is not "normally seen" we should be happy with a pic of the clitoris hidden by the prepuce ... kind of like in an article about the tongue have the mouth closed on the basis that it is usually hidden? - Robert the Bruce 09:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey, it's not ideal but it's obviously better than nothing. You can at least see the outline of the clitoral shaft. If you have a better picture, we'll use that instead. —Ashley Y 11:07, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • Yea, another atribute of previous discussion that is now confirmed by you is that "any pic will do". Look if I find a non-copyvio good shot of the female anus can we use that? We can always tell people that the clitoris is just around the corner? ;-) - Robert the Bruce 12:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, that's not what I said. I'm merely pointing out that some pictures are better than others, and this picture is better than none. You don't seem to have an answer for this... —Ashley Y 22:54, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
  • I don't need an answer ... it is self evident that it is bizarre to defend the inclusion of a pic that does not depict the subject of the article. Reading this stuff is fascinating to the point of being compelling. - Robert the Bruce 05:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am compelled to interject with completely unrelated information: the surface of Titan has an orange tint. After going over the same clitoral disagreements time and time again, isn't it nice to get to some new territory? CNN story. Surprising we can actual get to Titan when humanity (or at least this subset of humanity) can not get to agreement about the clit. Revmachine21 16:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement about the clit (except those guys over in the corner in the Carmen Miranda costumes). It's the three-way over the current photo of the clit in the Wikipedia that we can't quite get a handle on. Maybe if we rub it the wrong way for a bit, some seem to think, it will become more clear to us. I expect we'll have to get NASA or ESA to send a probe to penetrate its shroud. Though in the back of my head I suspect some of us are waiting for some boundary-challenged wikette to get tired of the bickering and post a picture of her own petit homme dans le bateau, suitably exposed. Blair P. Houghton 18:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on unprotection

There seems to be one? —Ashley Y 00:57, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

I can't speak for more than myself, but see my comments above. I don't think Dr Zen's edits and those of others who reversed them were any kind of problem for Clitoris--it was a low level war that caused minimal disruption--while the protection of the page is a problem for anyone who wants to edit the article. The cure is worse than the disease. Please could we have our article back? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Zen is going about making his point in a restrained way by only reverting once a day. This is not like when others were exceeding three reverts a day combined. We have more than enough editors who have this on their watchlist, so protecting the article does more harm than good. Cool Hand Luke 20:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well. (See my comment in the Protection section) Timbo ( t a l k ) 22:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Having said that, I find it extremely difficult to believe that Dr Zen's recent edits were in good faith. he doesn't seem to be demanding that protection should be removed. On the contrary, I believe that his edits constituted a deliberate campaign to have the page protected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:34, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you've several times claimed that those who don't agree with you are not editing in good faith (whereas, of course, everyone who shares your POV is) and you make this claim despite my protests each time the article is protected and my frank statement that I don't like protection at all.Dr Zen 23:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • That is yet another false accusation from a person with a documented record of making false accusations against me. The truth is that I have several times made specific observations on the otherwise inexplicable behavior of you and Robert the Bruce in indulging in personal attacks (Robert) and edit warring on Clitoris (you). It is also a matter of record that you have frequently indulged in blatant falsehoods with regard to my own conduct in the past. This behavior, in particular these falsehoods, must stop if you are ever to engage in good faith discussion on this topic (or as far as I am concerned, any other topic) again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony hasn't bandied about accusations of editing in bad faith without good reason. Perhaps you could provide an alternate explanation? All users are free to edit articles, of course, but I wonder what, exactly, you were trying to accomplish by your edits. It's quite obvious that the edits would be reverted promptly by a number of different users. Were you trying to prove that this article isn't "stable," as Tony has characterized it? Trying to raise enough of a fuss to get people to conform to your opinions? It seems you were trying to prove some point. Timbo ( t a l k ) 02:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am editing the article as I see fit in complete good faith. I believe that this article should represent all views. I recognise that is a minority view but I do not see that I should not hold it for that reason. What am I trying to accomplish? An NPOV article. The same as I try to accomplish wherever I edit. What are you trying to accomplish, Timbo? It's your soul you should be searching, not mine. Dr Zen 02:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • An article about the clitoris with a picture of a clitoris is NPOV. An article about a clitoris with no picture is not, it's censored. (An article about a clitoris with a picture of only a prepuce is neither NPOV nor censored, it is merely flawed.) Why you censor it is not relevant. Rather than spending your time playing semantic peek-a-boo, how about finding some nice young woman who would like her non-copyvio pudendagraph immortalized in the annals of consensual codex? Blair P. Houghton 03:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It is one POV that it is okay to display pictures of human genitals. It is another that it is not. All articles on Wikipedia are censored in the sense you are using. None contains everything that it might.Dr Zen 04:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No. It's NPOV to consider only whether the image is useful, informative, or relevantly illustrative. It's POV to consider whose arbitrary cultural norms an image might offend. --Khendon 07:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Hahaha, ok. I've searched my soul, and I'm confident in my views. You didn't answer my question though. You must know that you'll get reverted every time you establish your "NPOV" version. Why keep doing it? To show that you don't agree with the majority and you're not going to go away? That seems like you're trying to prove a point. Timbo ( t a l k ) 03:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've answered your question. I don't consider that the futility of insisting on the truth makes it not the truth. Dr Zen 04:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Insisting on the truth? Searching one's soul? You sure are casting yourself as a martyr today. Timbo ( t a l k ) 08:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The picture is very misleading.

By all means we should have a realistic picture of a clitoris. The current one falls short however. There's a cirle labeled "clitoris". In truth, it doesn't circle the clitoris, it circles the clitoral glans, the tiny visible portion of the clitoris. The clitoris is a rather big organ (as the article correctly explains: it extends from the glans backward and upward, and then splits into two arms that go down again, along the sides of the vagina; see also [5]). AxelBoldt 02:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's labeled "Glans of Clitoris, not "clitoris". But that's not the problem; the problem is that it isn't the glans at all, it's the bottom of the hood. The glans isn't visible in the photo. 68.6.40.203 02:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the inadequacy of the picture has been well established by now. The problem is finding a replacement however, oddly enough freely reusable pictures of clitorises are hard to find. --fvw* 02:33, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  • A link to this illustration is as educational as it gets. But the issue is really a sad case of "any pic will do" regardless of how "inadequate" it may be. It is truly fascinating to see how the inclusion of a pic, which displays so little of the subject of the article, is defended so vehemently. - Robert the Bruce 01:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Even more fascinating is the vehemence with which prudes profess their revulsion at something 3 billion people (except those mutilated for their religion) possess. Blair P. Houghton 06:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      No, actually, that's a lot less fascinating -- and misleading, since the primary objection is to a misleading picture, not to having a picture. Pilk below is the exception, not the rule. 68.6.40.203 02:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is disgusting. I doubt anyone clicking Random page will be happy to see a porn image in an encyclopedia. Pilk 02:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • ....he said, clicking directly to the page, then paging down several times to find the picture he knew had to be there... Blair P. Houghton 06:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • This whole talk page is very hard to follow. I am not entirely sure what the dispute is about any more. But if it is (truly) about the inadequacy of the picture and finding a replacement, then you are welcome to have this one:[6] which I had cause to paint some time ago. It could be annotated thus:[7]. If anyone thinks this is an improvement on the current picture then maybe we could use it? I am not sure myself. I am not sure if the debate is even about this any more. I happened to have the picture and thought I would mention it. If there is any support for the idea I'll upload it. Cheers --Monk Bretton 01:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't serve as a replacement, but I think it could be useful, I'll try to work it into the article soon. Mind uploading a highres version of it to commons and putting a link to it here? Thanks! — マイケル ₪ 06:12, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
FYI I updated the photo recently per request of someone on my talk page removing above mentioned errors. — マイケル ₪ 06:15, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I added this picture (mentioned above) to the wikicommons: [8] Hopefully I did it right. Cheers --Monk Bretton 13:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Call for new survey

The new disclaimer is very interesting, but I don't think it's at all helpful. Having an edit war over this is silly and likely harms consensus-mindedness.

At any rate, I'd like to propose a new survey. As per Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, I'd like the survey's terms to be established in advance. Previous survey's were marred because they didn't offer the best alternatives. For example, the overwhelming majority against replacing the picture with this link was a complete waste of time. What I have in mind for a survey question is whether we should offer an alternative version at the top of this page. The other version would not be a fork (as was justifiably VfD'd), but instead be a template-driven solution similar to what User:Violetriga made on her user page. I also think the text should be entirely non-judgemental like:


This article can be viewed with selected images: present or omitted (again, like Violetriga's user page)

I think the survey should start in about 7-10 days, last about two weeks, and be a simple yes/no on this particular solution. We should reach a consensus on the exact terms. This survey should only address the display ("for prudes") issue, and not the seperate issue about whether the photo is topical. Comments? Cool Hand Luke 07:46, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I concur but suggest a two question survey (yes/no answers only). First, "Do you oppose the use of a photograph in the article to depict the clitoris under any circumstances?" - Note: a no decision to this question will make any deletion of such a picture in the clitoris article a breach of Wikipedia policy and bring with it the likelihood of a 24 block. Second, "Do you believe that a photograph that does not depict the clitoris should be used in the article?" - Note: a no will mean that the current photo will be deleted and then subject to the answer of question one when a suitable replacement is found it may be placed in the article. There needs to be a minimum number of votes cast for the result to be seen as binding. Any ideas what that should be? - Robert the Bruce 16:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The vote was taken no new vote is needed. No fork is needed the contents of this page are fine. Expect for the vandalism by people who want this page to stick out and be unusual. Cool Hand Luke should be beleived as he has been asked questions in the past and refused to answer, questions that are important to the debate. A debate he has been quite happy to trash and misrepresent.--Jirate 14:04, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

What questions? Cool Hand Luke 05:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we're ready for a vote yet. This proposal for a survey seems like POV pushing to me. Oh, I've got a nice new alternative that might be worth looking at. Most of the time I'm browsing Wikipedia I can't be bothered with the pictures so I turn off image on my browser. However it is possible to suppress pictures for this site only using a stylesheet. Just create a Wikipedia article under your user called whateveryourskinis.css (my stylesheet is cologneblue.css because I use the Cologne Blue skin so it's User:Tony Sidaway/cologneblue.css). Put the following instruction into the stylesheet:

img { display: none }

Currently there are disadvantages to this, the main one being that you cannot see the tool icons when you're editing. So for instance if you want to add your signature you have to type --~~~~~ instead of clicking on the tool icon for signature. But I think this technique may be worth investigating. Coupled with javascript I imagine it could prove useful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Poll

A couple folks have been reverting the Template:Enduring single-issue dispute template. This is a quick informal poll to gather consensus as to whether it should be there or not before its fate is decided at TfD. Please log in before voting. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thus far, the consensus is overwhelmingly to remove this template. Please don't put it back unless consensus changes. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know it's fashionable to treat 2/3rds as a consensus, but this is simply not a democracy, and it doesn't make sense to speak of an "overwhelming" consensus when over 20% disagree. Cool Hand Luke 01:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove -Frazzydee|✍ 15:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove--Jirate 15:46, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
  • Remove--Blair P. Houghton 17:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove--Timbo ( t a l k ) 17:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove →Raul654 22:16, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep —Ashley Y 22:19, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
  • Remove--Revmachine21 01:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Vacuum c 01:19, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • And presumably from Cookiecaper, 198, and Dr. Zen as they added the template when it was removed. Vacuum c 01:19, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Please don't vote for other people. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If they want to, they can vote for themselves. And it appears that Dr Zen is no longer editing, so I don't think we'll be seeing a vote from him. Timbo ( t a l k ) 02:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove --fvw* 01:25, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
  • Remove on condition of moving toward consensus. Cool Hand Luke 05:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, as usual... Sam Hocevar 10:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep until this single issue has been resolved. - Robert the Bruce 16:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Far too vague. Use NPOV or some other more specific template, according to your own specific objection to the article content at present. Also consider entering the page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment under the section titled Article content disputes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I gave up with this edit war...--198 05:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


  • Of course, we could put it here on the talk page instead. Then it wouldn't muck up the article but would still alert people who might want to edit. —Ashley Y 11:33, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
  • Or maybe as a very visible comment at the beginning of the article, in case someone edits it without looking at the talk page. Sam Hocevar 14:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not deal with the cause and not the symptom? Does the community want explicit pics in articles ... and if they do do they want the current one? Deal with that and then the disclaimer issue will go away. - Robert the Bruce 16:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous

This is ridiculous. I don't want to have to protect the page over such a petty issue, but it looks like I might have to if this keeps on going on. We've had a poll, so far most people want it off, what more do you need to know? Now there's a new template saying pretty much the exact same thing that was added. I think that User:Limeheadnyc summed it up well when he/she said: "This is a farce. The "enduring dispute" is whether to have this tag." These reversion wars accomplish absolutely nothing. Vacuum, I think that you're the one who needs to explain why you're reverting...please do so. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:48, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours for violating the 3rr here, so you're going to have to give him a day to respond. →Raul654 01:49, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Don't protect the page. Get someone not involved in the debate to do it. Cool Hand Luke 05:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this is like when Zen was deleting the image and others were restoring it. You get lots of small edits but really no substantive disruption to the article, so in my opinion protection would be inappropriate. The edits do not damage the page whereas protecting bars *all* editing. I personally am of the opinion that 3RR is far too lenient and 1RR would be more appropriate because it would tend to cut down on this kind of frivolous edit warring. But I accept the consensus that 3RR is the word, so we have to accept that someone adding or subtracting something trivial up to three times a day is regarded as acceptable to be tolerated. I suppose on the plus side it keeps some people from doing anything more serious with their spare time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be inappropriate. I was in a horrible mood when I wrote that, but I still doubt I would have actually ended up protecting it. Maybe I would've blocked the 3RR violators :). -Frazzydee|✍ 00:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's not "acceptable", it's "tolerated". See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point on the matter. Wikipedia tolerates certain things it does not condone. The problem is idiots who treat three reverts a day as a floor, not a ceiling - David Gerard 01:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Correction accepted. See strike-outs above. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for causing strife. I feel that a majority of editors here are trying to suppress a compromise with a large minority over inclusion of the picture. Vacuum c 19:24, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Suppression, eh? How about deleting your template from TfD [9], [10] and removing the {{tfd}} template from it [11]. Looks like an attempted suppression of the community's decision about the template. Timbo ( t a l k ) 00:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I removed the tfd notices because the page was added improperly. There is no known policy for grouping entries together, as adding them together is like copying all the votes from one to the other. Frazzy's comment on TFD said feel free to detach them, and I did, though I had no desire to add it back in again. Limehead's appropriate response, instead of reverting me, would be to add the template back in a separate entry. Vacuum c 20:45, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
I was under no obligation to do any such thing. I agree with Frazzydee, who said:
I added the second template template because it's virtually identical to the first, except uglier. It's saying almost the exact same thing, but if anybody feels that it warrants a seperate entry, [feel free to] go ahead and move it there.
I agree that they should be grouped together. However, I'd be okay with another voting section on just Template:Content_dispute. In any case, the simple removal of the template from TfD and removal of the deletion notice from the template page is in no way justified, as voting had not yet completed. And it comes off quite badly, since Vacuum is the author of the aforementioned template. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I did exactly that and you reverted me. Vacuum c 14:42, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
See my user talk page for a detailed chronology of this whole fiasco. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I like playing the audio samples over and over. — Brim 07:52, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hell, try saying Bulbourethral glands 200 times. — MikeX (talk) 15:44, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the non-standard pronunciation guides, which didn't convey anything (how on earth is one supposed to pronounce "ih" in English) except that they did show which syllable had the stress, which was previously missing from the IPA transcriptions (I've added it). rossb 20:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suitability of image

Not to jump into the middle of a huge raging debate, but I assume that it has been noted that the photograph that we've chosen to illustrate clitoris doesn't actually show the clitoris. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it's absolutely the worst picture we could have chosen, except for every other one. →Raul654 13:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
It is the worst form of depiction of a clitoris. Except for all the others. Winston Churchill 19:25, Feb 18, 1945 (GMT) (this "amusing" comment left by User:Blair P. Houghton who didn't see fit to sign his "masterpiece". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)) (It would have defeated the joke, and anybody can check the history list to figure it out. Besides, I suppose you're spending your non-Wikipedia time doing rewrites to the original manuscripts of The Divine Comedy, Mr. Imnothidinganythingnonotmenuh-uhh... --anonymousbutobvious, 00:00, Feb 18, 2005 (IOU).)
Yes, this has been the topic of constant debate with one side saying it clearly shows the location of the clitoris so it is useful to the article and the other side saying that it is completely useless. It should be noted however that the side that says it is completely useless has often argued that it should be removed because it is offensive. — マイケル ₪ 13:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
thus proving there are actually three sides to every story, because most of those calling it useless do so only because it doesn't show the thing it purports to show. Blair P. Houghton 23:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's COMPLETELY useless, but I do think it's a bit funny. I don't find it offensive, and a brief background check of my position on the larger issue of censorship shows that I think most people who complain about being "offended" by stuff at Wikipedia should probably be banished to the moon or something. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I looked at the picture and found it very offensive. Is there a more toned-down version that can be used? CHALK 07:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "toned-down"? TIMBO (T A L K) 17:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Also what did you find offensive about the picture? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Obvious innit. We need a picture that doesn't show a lady's naughty bits. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not to belabor this into a parody of Who's on First, but, what we need is a picture that does show a lady's naughty bit, vice her labia. Blair P. Houghton 01:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable photos

The principle that "unacceptable" photos may be removed is established, and the argument that censorship does not happen on Wikipedia is thereby proven false. The photo in this article is unacceptable to some. If it is not removed from time to time, the hardliners suppose that the article is "stable". The objections to the picture in question have not been resolved and will not while that supposition remains unchallenged.Dr Zen 02:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The autofellatio image was removed A) For being copyvio, and B) For being a lousy picture. Not for objectionability. Snowspinner 02:22, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
LOL. Yeah. That's what "This image is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia. [it's not even] borderline" meant. Jimbo realised what he had done and backslid. You cannot seriously suggest that his original intention was to remove a picture because it wasn't of good quality. That would hardly drive "completely unacceptable"! Please, Snowspinner, that might convince a child but we're grown men.
"Because it is a horrible picture. It adds nothing of value. It is unserious. It is demeaning." None of this speak to whether the picture is any good, Snowspinner. They all suggest revulsion.Dr Zen 03:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hate hate hate. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just to make two points - (a) when I was discussing this with Jimbo, he said that 'clinicial' photos are fine by him and pointed specifically to the picture that Dr Zen is now removing as an example of 'clinical', and (b) as you'll all notice, this controversy has pretty much died down since Dr. Zen stopped editing in january; the moment he comes back, he starts it up again. As such, the next time Dr Zen removes it (and every time thereafter), he can expect me to block him for disruption. →Raul654 02:43, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think this controversy died down when a user decided to post a bad autofellatio pic just to "see how long it would stay up." Yes, Jimbo cited this photo, noting it was appropriately clinical and an improvement over the original, but this issue is not dead.
Every time you block him for a once-a-day revert (discussed as not a disruption above), you can expect me to unblock him. Cool Hand Luke 05:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
At most autofellatio sets precedent for linking to an image (or some other form of transclusion, I would assume). We really ought not remove all trace of potentially useful information. Cool Hand Luke 07:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to answer your two points. a/ Private conversations should remain private. Jimbo was rightly astonished that you posted your IRC chat. Jimbo was, anyway, as is his wont, expressing his opinion, not laying down the law for you to apply as it suits you. He still, to my knowledge, believes in consensus. In any case, the photo attached to this article is not "clinicial" in many people's eyes. It is your POV that it is so, and others would disagree. b/ I will edit the article in good faith. I will not be bullied or threatened by a rogue admin. I'm not afraid of being banned and I won't allow it to prevent me from editing articles in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia and the dictates of conscience. I hope that other admins with respect for those latter will unblock me if you do abuse your powers. Dr Zen 02:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why don't I believe you when you speak of Jimbo's astonishment? Snowspinner 03:05, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
On my list of people who I care whether they believe me, you don't get onto the first page. But this sounds like a bemused if not astonished man: "Er, hmm, I don't really care for private irc chats to be posted publicly."Dr Zen 03:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
same reason you don't trust his interpretation of the word consensus... Blair P. Houghton 03:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, that would be because we differ over its meaning, Blair. There's nothing wrong with that.Dr Zen 03:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
then we differ on the meanings of nothing and wrong, as well... Blair P. Houghton 03:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I get the impression, Blair, that you feel that a person who disagrees with you is very wrong. Your attitude is, of course, much easier to take when one is in the majority.Dr Zen 23:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Dr Zen, I wont block you, but I will revert you every time you try to remove the picture. The community has spoken on this one. Removal has been decided against, linking has been decided against, a warning has been decided against. Unless you can come up with something new, there is nothing left to argue against. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 03:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And when Theresa gets tired, there are others standing by to take over that chore. ➥the Epopt 03:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Me too. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Theresa, you have never bothered with addressing the issues that I've raised. What you did do was shout at me that women's bodies were not offensive. I can't tell you how disappointed I am that an arbitrator, the pinnacle of Wikipedia, does not support the notion of consensus. There has been significant dissent to the picture, but you have not addressed that. Instead you have screeched "we had a poll, you lost". Since when was that building a consensus?Dr Zen 22:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's not true and you know it. I actively campaigned for a compromise solution of having a warning at the top of the page, there was a poll and I lost. The community has spoken and I will not go against the overwhelming majority. So tell me Dr Zen how do you think repeating your old arguments over and over again will build consensus? How do you think removing the photo unilaterial when you know full well that someone will just put it back in builds consensus? Dr Zen are you actually trying to build consensus at all? Because I can't see how your are going about it. Do you have any new ideas? Do you have any suggestions on how we all can agree? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Polls are nothing to do with "consensus", Theresa. We've been over that. They show how far from consensus you are! How do I think repeating the old arguments will build consensus? I don't. I don't believe editors like Snowspinner have the least interest in consensus. They simply want their own way. I remove the image because I think that the page is better without it. Editing pages to make them better is my purpose in being here, Theresa. Do you think there is something wrong with that.
Yes, I do have a suggestion. I suggest that everyone involved in the dispute, including those who have already been frozen out like Cantus, sits down and says, yes, we will seek compromise and a true consensus. Anyone who will not and insists that because they won a poll they get to have their own way should be reminded that NPOV means "include all views" not "print the majority view and ignore all others" and asked not to take part in editing this page. You can't stop people like Raul and Irate from reverting and editwarring but you can ask them to respect the desire to move the page on. They can take or leave it, but I think it'll be clear who does not want an equitable resolution.
I think it's worth continuing to discuss Cool Hand Luke's suggestion. We were making progress on that and I don't think the differences between Tony Sidaway's "side", if we can call it that, and mine were completely irreconcilable.Dr Zen 23:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've always thought template transclusion was a good compromise. We'd leave the image on this page, and generate an alternate version based on this one. The only drawnacks are that the alternate versions cache isn't purged automatically after an edit, and non-section editing doesn't work from the censored version. I think these concerns are trivial because we currently don't accomodate potential "prude" editors at all. I think it's better than linking becuase the whole article—both complete and without picture—is available for printing. Cool Hand Luke 06:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Luke, please come and have a look at the discussion I've been having with Timbo on my page and his. I'd really welcome your input (and the input of anyone who is actually interested in compromise). Have a look at my roadmap. I believe that if we can get a group of editors to follow it, to discuss the objections to each solution with an open mind (as Timbo is doing) and perhaps arrive at a compromise, then we are in a position to build a consensus around that compromise. When we tried that here, it was broken down by antis who simply did not want to compromise at all.Dr Zen 23:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Folks, this is long past RfC time. Multiple parties have had their go at trying to dissuade Zen from this low-level edit warring. He makes it plain that he'll continue with this pointless activity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's how you build a consensus, hey, Tony? Get whoever you disagree with banned from editing the page and then you can claim that everyone agrees. Call the opponent an "edit warrior", take administrative action (as happened to Cantus and Anthony) and then, hey presto, there's no dissent! Dr Zen 23:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Was action taken against Anthony for his actions here? I thought it was just Cantus. TIMBO (T A L K) 23:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I believe Anthony was blocked under his standing order. I'm ready to be corrected on that though. He was also threatened with further action, I think. Dr Zen 00:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I blocked Anthony myself. I assure you it was for his standing order, not a move on my part to silence him. He's arguably on "my side" (or at least not with the majority). Cool Hand Luke 06:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's no sides. We all have the same aim, I hope. Dr Zen 23:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Insert long suffering sigh here. This is aimless. I agree, there should be a warning, letting people know that clicking on the discussion page will earn them a mire of cyclical argument! Let's take a few facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias use factual and useful information to inform the reader on topics that they can look up at their leisure. Encyclopaedias frequently use visual data (in the form of photographs) to present this information.

In the past, such information was censored to remove content that would be considered offensive to the readers. At the time, this was true.

Allow me to be crass for a moment: almost every male posting on this site, and many females, will have looked up and viewed pornographic material at some stage, most likely on a regular basis. Th reasons for this can vary as you please, although this is not an attack so please do not defend. Having looked at images of (and actual) naked people in various acts of coitus, and knowing (as you should if you are posting here) at least the rudiments of female sexual anatomy, I think any reasonable person reading this can accept that the image on the page is informative and useful. You may believe that it is offensive, but don't deny that an image like this is infinitely more useful than an illustration. When I saw illustrations of the clitoris (when they chose to label it) when I was younger I initially thought that the clitoris was in the cleft of the labia majoris, an understandable mistake given the quality and ambiguity of many of these educational images.

It is a sad fact that many, if not most, men today do not understand the female anatomy well enough, and as it is the only organ of a woman's anatomy that most of us will ever have to manipulate (I say it as if it's a chore.. hah), I think that we owe it to our significant others to know what we are up to.

Times have changed, and the dissemination of knowledge relating to sex and sexual anatomy is now widely accepted. This is a step forward: censorship of these issues hurts society by hurting the ability of an individual to further their knowledge of sex in general. Many women claim never to have experienced an orgasm. One (at least) has gone so far as to have a spinal implant to stimulate one (See http://www.newscientist.com, look it up).

I am not advocating posting photographs of people having sex on the site (with the important exception of the fellatio article, that picture is quite appropriate), but a photograph of a woman's vagina with labels showing where the clitoris is found is an excellent means of conveying information. That is, after all, what we want with Wikipedia, right? To spread factual information, unbiased by personal opinion or malice?

Please, for the sake of the site, rethink your positions. Dr. Zen, I have read your posts on this topic. I think, though I could be wrong, that your position is inspired by a fear that the permission of an image such as this will lead to a degradation of the Encyclopaedia as a whole, that this will somehow be seen as a precedent. I am afraid that these precedents already exist. The other articles relating to sex exist, and some of them even detail popular "methods". Although I myself was initially a bit surprised, I am delighted that the website has (as an entity, I suppose) decided to take these matters seriously enough to provide this content. If they simply mentioned something and then linked off-site, the information could be substandard, and in some cases even dangerous.

I suppose what I'm trying to get across is that, if someone wanted to learn about the clitoris, then they are looking for facts that will be helpful. If I wanted to learn about a flower, a picture rather than a diagram is of course provided. Removing the picture (which is quite appropriate for the page) would remove some of the quality of the page. That said, the suggestion that the "Random Page" button could lead someone to the page unintentionally is valid, and I suggest humbly that articles of an explicitly sexual nature should be removed from the "Random Page" function at the user's option. (I recognise how ambiguous "Explicit" is, but what can one do?)

I hope I have contributed in some way to this debate. Please people, keep the debate impersonal, it's not supposed to be a flame-war. Listen to "The Flower Duet" while posting or something. Yours, Cathal

Transclusion compromise

I've mentioned this before, but I think template-based transclusion is the strongest possible compromise. Among its virtues, it doesn't remove the picture from this article. Unlike linking to the image, a whole version of the article is available both with and without the photos. Unlike an article disclaimer, the top of the article can say "This article can be viewed with images: present or omitted"—we don't need to specify that the images are human genitals or anything else. Timid users can view the pictureless version, read the captions, and decide for themselves whether they want to view the full version's images.

Thus, the content is available in whatever format most suits for the user, an important aim for an encyclopedia. Moreover, except for the "This article can be viewed..." byline, no changes to the article need to be made whatsoever. To demonstrate this, User:Cool Hand Luke/Demo mirrors the contents of Clitoris sans pictures. Remember that this is not a fork: it's a template which presents Clitoris while making the photos error out. Entire contents of my demo are: "{{:Clitoris|demo=-5px}}".

There have been technical objections to these kind of solutions. Namely, that the pictureless version cannot be edited directly and doesn't update instantly. However, I think these are trivial.

First of all, section editing from the pictureless version works like normal. A comment in the pictureless version will explain to any user that they must go back to Clitoris itself if they want to edit the whole article.

As for the cache problem, this affects all templates. If you edit the world music template, changes in articles with the template spread out slowly, often only when you manually edit or purge the cache of an article. Therefore, I don't think this is a unique problem to Clitoris. Certainly, requesting that developers make templates refresh pages when edited would help articles across the project, not just this one. More importantly, we're talking about having a slow-to-refresh pictureless version versus having none at all; I don't think this is a significant drawback.

I'd really like transclusion to get more attention because I think it's clearly better than linking the image. Cool Hand Luke 04:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's allow arbcom to decide the User:Dr Zen case before we rush to reward what may well be judged to be behavior unworthy of a wikipedian. It would be pointless to introduce this messy kludge to yet another article if there is no need to do so. You say transclusion is "better than linking the image", but since we have a clear consensus for inlining the image there is no need for an alternative to linking it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It may be sanctionable behaviour, but if it is, how long are we to wait before discussing another possible compromise? I don't consider the status quo a clear consensus. It's a large majority, but not all of the minority are trolls. Cool Hand Luke 19:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To do anything about it you'd need a significant number of people who agree that there is a problem. I've no argument against you trying to do this, but I do question your insistence that there *is* a problem. Dr Zen's behavior, although probably sanctionable for its unconstructive nature, clearly isn't any kind of problem for the article or, unless many people copied his tactics on other articles where they can't get their way, for Wikipedia. So I don't see any point in compromising with him unless arbcom comes back and tells us we should do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you believe in compromising with people principled enough not continually revert articles? I hope you do. I think you've misinterpreted this as a "reward" for one user while in fact it's a proposal meant to satisfy the entire minority. Cool Hand Luke 20:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm happy with the page as it is now and I'm convinced we have a consensus for it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well I'm not. I also find it strange you seem to believe we shouldn't be discussing the issue, apparently because the minority hasn't been disruptive enough. Is it only worth discussing (only a "problem") if edit warriors threaten stability? I think that backwards. Discussion should preceed and preempt edit wars, not the other way around. Cool Hand Luke 23:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's not that I don't think you should be discussing it, it's just that I don't see the problem. Luke, I think you've built yourself a nice little hammer and you're running around with it looking for a nail to hit. In my opinion, this article is not that nail. In fact I doubt very much whether anyone seriously believes that those blurry, pixellated, rather clinical pictures on the Abu Ghraib article were appropriate for the treatment you gave them either. You've invented a technical kludge that performs poorly a job that can be performed with a web browser with a single click of the mouse. If arbcom comes back and says we need to deal with edit warriors by appeasing them, then things will be different. But meanwhile it seems to me that the parade went through here months ago and the ticker tape has been swept away. The time when this article might have been considered controversial has passed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If arbcom says that, I'll quit the project; but of course that's a strawman.
This isn't about appeasing edit warriors, Tony. For example, I've never known Cookiecaper to be an edit warrior (like me, he has an LDS background), but he stumbled across this and found a need for an alternate version. I didn't strongly advocate this solution here until he did the same thing to the article (albiet with a fork, which was obviously unacceptable—previously I thought it would be a nice option considering the renewed interest in a disclaimer). A similar solution was independently derived by a new user on Penis and, apparently, Violetriga. I believe it's a more satisfying (that is, consensus-based) solution than the status quo. Cool Hand Luke 02:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And you ask "how long are we to wait?" Well Arbcom cases usually take less than two weeks, which is a very small proportion of the life of this article. I'm prepared to wait, especially as in the meantime there are clearly no urgent problems that need solving. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


This is unreal. This guy is saying that if you don't disrupt the article enough to be noticed there's nothing worth discussing, and if you do, you should be "sanctioned".

This is consensus, Tony Sidaway style. You ban everyone who disagrees with you and then you claim there is agreement.

Luke, why can we not discuss this in a forum where people are willing to compromise? Why is it more important to you to discuss it with hardliners, who not only will not compromise but believe that minority views can be answered by ignoring them?

This is consensus? We talk about handing an encyclopaedia to every schoolkid in Africa. If it contains this page, as is, most of them will hand it back!Dr Zen 03:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who cares if schoolkids in Africa would refuse this information because of a picture? I certainly don't feel the need to censor anatomical information to suit the religously insane... Such people rightly deserve their own ignorance.Revmachine21 04:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Um, one of Jimbo's goals is to make this valuable for education in the third world. Their moral norms often don't coincide with those of western Europeans. Incidentally, I don't believe that my immediate family is "religiously insane", nor do I think they "deserve their own ignorance."
I don't want this article to be censored. At all. It should show the photo, be printable, complete, but it ought to also available in a useful format for as many people as possible—from African schoolchildren, to fundametalists in Texas. An Encyclopedia should be useful, right? Cool Hand Luke 08:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I remember this was brought up somewhere, but I don't think it was paid much attention. What about having a feature to turn off images sitewide? Or having a small, unobtrusive link near the top of every article that lets you turn off the images in the particular article? I seem to remember someone who would know saying that it will be easily feasible. That way I wouldn't have to look at spider images, which I hate, Tony won't have to look at his bete noir, caterpillars (if I remember correctly), Cool Hand Luke's family won't have to look at whatever they don't want to look at. Maybe we could tie that into a cookie so Wikipedia will even remember which article you want to have pictures and which you don't.

I think this is a great idea because it lets the user decide what content he/she wants to see in an NPOV way – no image tags or POV decisions on which articles to allow transclusion. Eh? TIMBO (T A L K) 08:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a site-wide option would make this discussion moot to me (not to some others, but I imagine it would be less repelant to them). I love the idea of giving readers this kind of control. Cool Hand Luke 09:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The best control over the media is the "Off" switch (or the book burning bonfire for that matter). For those who want fancy options in Wikipedia, donate money for development of such features and leave the article alone. Unfortunately, even fancy functionality doesn't eliminate close access for those pesky determined Africans or horn-dog teenagers who change the option toggle. The best control is active parenting or the decision to not have dangerous information vectors (like a computer or women's magazines) in your home! Revmachine21 11:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You think this is only an argument about "protecting" children? Except for some hardliners, the minority advocates a link or some other means to the material. Obviously we're not trying to prevent access to the photos, whether by minors or otherwise.
You can't imagine people who would self-censor? Cool Hand Luke 12:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A site-wide "no images" button would indeed be very useful. As I've pointed out a few times in the past, such a facility is already built into most browsers. The people who complain the loudest, alas seem to be people who are unable to or unwilling to learn how to use that facility. I think they'd probably still complain if there was a button. Some people would complain because of what other people would see, and the thought that other people would object to or even damaged by this or that image. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who are these people who complain the loudest? I don't recall their unwillingness to learn, but I do remember a technical objection about it about blocking all of the images (messy kludge?). I also seem to recall a complaint about inconvenience (three mouseclicks versus two), and another supposing that many users are unaware of the option. But an unwillingness to learn? I don't remember that. Cool Hand Luke 12:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Blocking *all* the images isn't a "messy kludge", it's the intended behavior. Only the user knows which images he does and does not want to see. He gets a link which when clicked instantly downloads and displays the image in place on the page. Perfect. No server intervention required. No need to reload the whole page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You said this on the mailing list, and were asked repeatedly to explain how one uses this alleged feature. You refused repeatedly claiming it was off-topic. As far as I'm aware, most browsers don't offer links to selectively load pictures, although I admit that would be nice. You've offered a tutorial on merely blocking images, so please explain this feature. Cool Hand Luke 05:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Internet Explorer has this behavior built in. You turn off image downloads and turn on placeholders. To see a picture, use the right mouse button menu. It's simple to use. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I should reiterate that I think this is the strongest possible compromise for consensus. Several users have expressed comments supportive of some sort of solution like this including Dr Zen, 198, who recently suggested he would compromise, Cookiecaper, Anthony, who initially wanted only a link but supported Cookiecaper's fork, Violetriga, MBecker, who indicated he wouldn't seek to delete an Abu Ghraib-style version, and Tony Sidaway, who suggested he could "live with" some variant of this. [12][13] I think we ought to call quorum so we can all get on the same page here. Cool Hand Luke 12:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to stand in the way, or vote against. But I don't think it's necessary. I think you've got a kludge in search of a problem. And this ain't it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a fantastic idea. For those of you who don't like looking a clitoris when you've voluntarily surfed to such a page (a bit like complaining about getting wet when you voluntarily jump in a pool if you ask me), use Mozilla Firefox with Adblock. You can strip out any image you don't like without bothering other people who actually like having accurate information in an encyclopedia. Revmachine21 07:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No principals here admit to being offended by the image themselves, so this doesn't address the minority's concerns. If you'd like to put a line at the top of the article directing readers to a Firefox-evangelizing tutorial, I would find this an acceptable but wonky compromise.
I actually do like having accurate information in an encyclopedia. I think alternate formats enhance the accessability of information. Cool Hand Luke 10:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Do with this as you find appropriate:
Download Firefox and install Adblock. The launch Firefox and surf to Wikipedia and the Clitoris page. Find and doubleclick “Adblock” in the lower righthand corner of your screen. In the “New Filter” blank, copy and paste /media/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/350px-Clitoris-Vivero-Becker.jpg and press “OK” to block the offensive clitoris. To block all Wikipedia images copy and paste /media/* into blank and press “OK”. To remove the filter, go to Alt+T, select Adblock, select Preferences, press “Adblock Options” button, and select “Remove all filters”. You can also use this for its intended use, to block irritating commercial advertising.

Tokipona?

User:HeikoEvermann has removed the transwiki to tokipona because "Tokipona Wikipedia no longer exists". It does seem to be serving pages:

http://tokipona.wikipedia.org/wiki/nena_unpa_meli

What's going on? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Plural

So... the plural of clitoris is clitorides right?

Yes. But if anyone corects you for saying "clitorises," they're just being obnoxious. --Iustinus 08:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ENGLISH PLURAL FORMS ARE OFTEN DIFFERENT FROM GREEK OR LATIN PLURAL FORMS

Based on information found online at the following two links --

(1) http://marnanel.org/writing/plurals
(2) http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mplurals.html

-- the Latin plural of (Latin) clitoris is clitorides, but the English plural of (English) clitoris is clitorises. I hear tell that both plural forms (the Latin and the English) are given in the better English dictionaries. People need to remember that words borrowed into English thereby become English words, and thereby become subject to the rules of English, including the English rules for making a plural form. (Warning: if you can't handle "too much information", then don't read past the first few paragraphs of the Straight Dope article.) Agent X 22:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9cm clitoris

Actually, the 9cm figure is about right. The clitoris is divided into the root and a body, it componets include the paired crura, the two corpus cavernosa, and the glans. The body runs all the way back to the sympisis pubis, and the crura run inferior along the pubic bones, nothing strange about it. Osmodiar 13:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

9 cm that mean the maximum and not the average. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.176.127.123 (talk • contribs) .
No, it's the average, including all that stuff Osmodiar just said. BTW it's spelled symphysis pubis. —Keenan Pepper 21:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding two drawn pictures

Right, I'm adding two drawn pictures to improve the accuracy of the article visuals. I'm not removing anything. Hopefully this will not restart any controversy: It seemed as among those that didn't mind having a picture no one would object to one showing the location of the clitoris more clearly (as long as the image was not porn). For those not wishing to see anything of outer vulva at all the one I uploaded is at least not more graphic than the one already there, so it shouldn't add to anything. And the internal anatomy of the vulva should not be offensive at all in comparison, I hope :) Amphis 16:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent drawings, but now we have the confusing situation of accurately labeled drawings accompanied by an inaccurately labeled photograph that mislabels part of the hood as being the glans. Given the drawings, I think it would be better to remove the photo. As for "porn", an accurate photo of a clitoris in a clitoris article wouldn't be "porn", defined (porn) as "Pornography ... is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal, similar to, but (according to some) distinct from, erotica". 68.6.40.203 03:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it easier to make it correct instead? More knowledge is better knowledge I'm sure, and this image would be wrongly labled at the other pages it might appear at too. I edited and uploaded a new version.
I'm personally not touching the porno debate with a ten foot pole, I think it's gone 'round a few times :) Amphis 12:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Discovery"

The text currently reads:

Columbo's claim was disputed by his successor at Padua, Gabriele Falloppio (who discovered the fallopian tube), who claimed that he was the first to discover the clitoris. Caspar Bartholin, a 17th century Danish anatomist, dismissed both claims, arguing that the clitoris had been widely known to medical science since the 2nd century.

I recently read the relevant passages from Columbus and Fallopius in the original Latin. Columbus absolutely does claim to have discovered this (and this is far from the only amusing thing he says). Fallopius however appears to be making a different claim: while he does say that anyone who claims to have discovered this first obviously heard about it from him and took credit for it, he also cites Arabic and Ancient Greek authors who mention the organ. Therefore he can't possibly mean that he's literally the first person (or even man, or medic) to know about the clitoris. What he appears to mean is that he is the first contemporary european anatomist to discover it.

I would really like to see what Bartholin actually said about this debate. It would make it much easier to rewrite this paragraph if I knew exactly what his actual contribution to this sequence was. Does anyone know where I could find that text? --Iustinus 08:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental/replacement image

There was some criticism in the discussions above of the photograph of the human vulva in this article, to the effect that the photo was inadequate on the basis that the glans clitoris is not visible. The Klitoris article on the german wikipedia includes a good-quality closeup of the vulva in which the glans is clearly visible (it's the first image on the page.) The image has numbered labels, and the subject's hand doesn't appear in the image (it's very tightly cropped.) I think this image would be a good supplement to the images now on the page, although it might make the drawing that now appears second-last redundant. Personally, I'm not a fan of that drawing anyway, but perhaps there's an argument to be made for including both. Does someone else want to add the photo to the article? I don't know how, and I don't want to screw with the formatting. Eloil 18:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I much prefer the photograph in the German article. The drawing I have a problem with here is the second one. To me it looks like a space ship out of Star Trek, not someone's anatomy! :) --Craig (t|c) 23:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Definitely a Romulan warship. Wahkeenah 06:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not big on the style of either computer image, although I think the "Star Trek" one does give a better idea of the actual structure of the clitoris than any other image on the page. Eloil 00:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the Romulan-warshiplike image does give a good idea of the internal anatomy, which I think is very useful. I was trying to be funny. :)
In line with this discussion I have replaced one of the drawings with the image from Commons.
--Craig (t|c) 04:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the numerically-labelled photo with an English-labelled one I made up, so you can see the labels without clicking on the image. I also tweaked the caption a bit; it now reads: "Photograph of the human vulva showing the glans clitoris. In many cases the clitoral hood completely covers the glans, as seen in the photo below." Previously the second sentence (pre-tweak) was placed in the source of the page between the tags for the two images, which was causing some formatting issues (a big blank space before the rest of the text resumed). Eloil 19:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Thanks. --Craig (t|c) 13:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Any reasonable person without an agenda should see that illustrations are far more appropriate than actual photographs. I've never seen so much hot air. Haizum 15:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Haizum, your comments about the article or images are welcome. WP:AGF reminds everyone to to respect other users. Saying that other users are unreasonable will not help. regards --FloNight 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a reasonable person with no agenda, and I can't see why illustrations would be more appropriate than photographs. Both serve different purposes, and both are appropriate for this article. thx1138 09:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyena Confusion

The article says: "The only known exception to this is in the Spotted Hyena, where the urogenital system is modified so that the female urinates, mates and gives birth via an enlarged, erectile clitoris." There are two problems with this. First, a female mammal mates by accepting a male's penis into her vagina and gives birth through her vagina. A spotted hyena with her clitoris removed would still be able to mate and give birth. I think the article is trying to say that the urinary tract of the female spotted hyena passes through the clitoris, but what does mating and giving birth have to do with that? Second, the urinary tract of the female lemur also passes through the clitoris. Anomalocaris 04:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usefully enough, the article on Spotted_Hyena answers your question. A spotted hyena has no external vagina, it has merged with their clitoris. Amphis 03:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistency?

The alternate term for female circumcision is spelled once as "clitorectomy" and once as "clitoridectomy". Are both correct?

Clitoridectomy is correct. The combining form is clitorid-. —Keenan Pepper 13:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not censorship

Descriptive labels on external links is appropriate and has nothing to do with censorship. --FloNight talk 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clitoris&oldid=55471980"