Jump to content

Talk:Clitoris/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Clitoris

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irate~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 01:21, 26 October 2004 (→Net Nanny and others). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3

Vote: Voting Ends Midnight Nov 14 2004 UTC

I have tried to start a vote on another talk page Creationism only to have that approach corrupted. I concluded that it didn't really work to resolve disputes. I was also concerned that the longer the pornographic image remained the higher the likelyhood that all of Wikipedia would be listed on nanny-ware lists. However, at your insistance, I will try the vote method once again: KeyStroke 04:09, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

QUESTION: Who would vote for replacing the second image on this page with this link? anatomical drawing

Yes

  1. Much better than the porn picture that is currently on the "clitoris" article.--198 23:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. If such pictures, without proper warnings, became commonplace, I myself would be unable to browse it publicly and promote it among general audience. -- Itai 19:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. All of the above, plus common sense: Folks, we are starting to replace the encyclopedia we try to build with a bunch of nonsense on foreskin reconstruction and tampon insertion. Why not articles on the nucleus olivaris, stria nigra and ora serrata first? Really? Did you see how favorably compares this fantastic insight into your fantesies with articles on hunger, health and education? Do you want this Wikiwhatever to become a subject of derision, or what? To those who vote no below, hey, why don't you prefer pink nailpolish on the lady's delicate 'distal phalanx III, and one of my patients with hyperandrosteronism who volunteers to show you her own case ? Now THAT would be GNU accomplishment, plus the extra size and color! Did you know that the fine detail of the crura clitoridis and in all, 90% of this organ is not seen? WHY ON EARTH don't you SHOW it ALL - in a dissection? Does the article on ear show only the ear lobe :O) ? You naughty encyclopedists - if you manage to vote decently below and want a compensation, I promise I offer my RELEVANT medical case collection for would-be inspectors. MUCH better - contact me in private :O) - irismeister 23:53, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
  4. I oppose to the display of a real clitoris in this article. It may not be offensive to male teenagers avid for sexual gratification, but it *is* very offensive to a WHOLE lot of other people, and shows an incredible amount of amateurism on the part of Wikipedia. I do not oppose, however, to a LINK to a photograph of a clitoris in another page, with an appropiate warning attached. --Cantus 23:10, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  5. I wasn't aware that I should be able to vote, being the one who posed the question. I do not want any pornographic photos under the domain of Wikipedia, so that Wikipedia does not get placed on nanny-ware lists, and we live up to the trust implicit in being an encyclopedia, namely that children will be visiting the site. KeyStroke 01:12, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
  6. What sort of ridiculous question is this? The basis of the argument is that there should or shouldn't be a "warning" of sorts on pages which contain explicit material. The answer is yes there should be. It does not remove or censor anything, but rather shows respect for those souls who may be affected by such. Yes to warning. Yes to inclusion of photo and/or drawing. - Robert the Bruce 17:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    1. Robert you appear to have misread the question. If you are saying yes to the photo then you should vote no to replacing the image with a link. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No

  1. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) I would like to see a really good anatomical diagram as well as a photograph though. I would like to see this photo replaced with a better one with better copyright, but in principle I think we should have a photo on this pageTheresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. For the same reasons as Ms. Knott. →Raul654 05:27, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  3. I concur with users above. Kairos 10:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. I agree with Theresa, Raul and Kairos. I'm not opposed to replacing the photo with something better, of course, but there *should* be a photo in the article. -- Schnee 10:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. I agree as well. This article needs both the diagram and a photo with better copyright. I do not see a need to "hide" anything behind links to images on a different site.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 11:33, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Indeed a good anatomical diagram and a photograph should be present on every biology article dealing with bodyparts and such. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:38, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
  7. A photo as well as a diagram should be in the article. DCEdwards1966 11:47, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  8. I do not approve of the photo there at present, but an actual photograph should be present, and until there is a better alternative, I would have to say keep it. Nicholas 11:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. THAT diagram really scared me. Ejrrjs 00:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. No. The photo isn't the best but there's nothing immoral about a body part, whether in photograph or in diagram. Jallan 01:25, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. If you let the nannyware providers scare you into changing your content, you let them win. I don't think anyone should let THAT happen. ShaneKing 09:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. I'm against self-censorship on principle. If a photo is relevant, it should be included, unless there's a better photo. Nohat 00:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. Marc Mongenet 21:43, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
  14. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  15. No. The suggested anatomical drawing is seriously scary. Best option is both a photo and a purpose-designed anatomical visualization in a Scientific American-like illustration style. -- The Anome 00:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  16. No. If the intention is to clarify the location and structure of the clitoris, the proposed illustration is even less clear than the current photo; it's like using a map of the world to illustrate the article on Easter Island. ←Hob 01:58, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
  17. No. An inline image is perfectly relevant to the article. Forgive the slippery slope, but if a drawing and/or photograph of a clitoris is not acceptable, I wonder how the oral sex, zoophilia or genocide articles could be. Sam Hocevar 08:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  18. No. It's off topic for this article, which is about the clitoris, not the female reproductive system. I also object to KeyStroke suggesting that there's something morally wrong or pornographic about showing any part of God's creation. There are some good anatomical drawings of the clitoris around, which show the underlying structures of it, and adding one of those would be good. There has been and will continue to be talk of how to help people censor the work - that will presumably make it easy enough for them to hide things they don't like eventually. Jamesday 09:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  19. If I had a clitoris I'd photograph it and post it.--Jirate 23:32, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
  20. A good anatomical diagram could be better than a photograph. However, this anatomical diagram seems to be about the circulatory system, not the external genitalia. Shimmin 01:09, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  21. Keep this photo until someone posts a better one. Got a better diagram? Post that too. The diagram linked at the beginning of this poll says it's copyrighted, unfortunately. ~leif ☺ HELO 03:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  22. A vote for a photo plus a good diagram. I'm wary of people using the word 'porn' in this discussion. It's a mostly meaningless word. Oska 21:55, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  23. Photographs and diagrams in this article should be treated just like photographs and diagrams in articles such as flower and hand. No warnings, no "msg:s" at the top of the page, no need to click to get the picture. — David Remahl 04:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  24. A photograph is appropriate here. Gadykozma 15:24, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  25. How much violence do you see in a day? How many people get killed on your tv screen a day? Why is blood and gore allowed? And simple pictures like this not! Have we become prude's? Waerth 18:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  26. Not I ✏ Sverdrup 00:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  27. Sjc 11:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  28. It is not Wikipedia's job to police in this manner. —siroχo 23:07, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  29. Some pictures, just as some information presented as text, will always offend some people. Wikipedia shouldn't censor itself. Aenar 01:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  30. Absolutely not. It is a picture of a part of the human body in an article about that specific part of the human body, there's nothing pornographic in it. Nought 21:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  31. No, no, no, no, no - It's a perfectly normal part of the human body: roughly half of the human population as the proud owner of a clitoris, and the image doesn't need to be replaced by a silly drawing. It's not pornography unless it's being presented in a pornographic context. ClockworkTroll 22:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I just wanted to comment that either the photograph should be in or it should be out. Placing a disclaimer on it just lends tacit credence to those who believe that a photo of a body part in an anatomical encyclopedic article is somehow pornographic in and of itself. Let's not turn Wikipedia into a joke. I'm not going to vote because it seems like this is more trouble than it's worth. (We need a diagram, obviously.) func(talk) 01:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Isn't this poll taking too long? I think the poll should end around October 25. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
What's the rush? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 22:09, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • This poll doesn't appear to be even remotely useful. The question is specifically "should we replace image x with image y", and image y appears to be copyrighted anyway! There is a clear consensus already that we should have a photo, and that asap we should have a better photo than the one we've got now. I think that, given the clear consensus to have a photo, the real issue at hand is if we should have a disclaimer before the photo. I think we shouldn't; but if thats why the page is protected, maybe someone should start a poll about that. ~leif ☺ HELO 18:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • That's not what keystroke was suggesting. He was suggesting that put a link to that diagram. Someone clicking on that link would be taken off Wikipedia to that website, so there are no copyright issues. Also the page isn't protected in order to keep the warning in. It's protected for the same reason other pages get protected. To stop an edit war. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict; now Theresa already said some of what I was going to say...)As I understand it now, after seeing Theresa's note to Robert above, the question is not: "should we replace image x with image y", but rather: "should we replace image x with an external link to image y?". The question, however, lends itself to many different interpretations, and the first one I thought of was your interpretation. And, as Sverdrup so tactfully hints, "Who would vote for replacing the second image on this page with this link?" is not a Yes / No question... — David Remahl 07:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Possible source of image found

The source of the pornographic clitoris image has been found by User:Wikibob: http://www.iespana.es/masramon/2-2-Labios-menores-mayores-vagina-y-clitoris.jpg. --Cantus 23:59, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Great! But how do we know that our image came from them rather than them getting their image from us? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 00:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, that image has a much better resolution than the one we have, but since we do not have our own original (it was deleted) we can't know for sure how the original was. At least it indicates that if it came from Wikipedia, it was fetched pretty early on. In the image history for Image:ClitorisNewLoc2.jpg User:Guanaco indicates that the first version is also the original posted to Wikipedia, if that is really the case then the image provided on the link above did not come from Wikipedia. This, however does not mean that our image is not licensed under the GFDL, only that there is another image out there just like ours (but better). I'd ask Guanaco, if I wanted to find out. --Dittaeva 07:50, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In any case, we should replace ours with this one, it is of better resolution and quality. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:42, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

That page is newer that the posting of the image here. See http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.iespana.es/masramon/2-2-Labios-menores-mayores-vagina-y-clitoris.jpg

The date the page was cached is unrelated to the date the page was created. Page could have existed years before it was cached by archive.org. --Cantus 03:38, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
According to the web server, the file has a creation date of July 28th, 2002. Of course it could have been changed on purpose, but it is quite unlikely. Sam Hocevar 08:45, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here is another possible source for the image http://www.geocities.com/genitales2000/ Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 08:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) (And this one goes back to 2001) Perhaps someone who can speak the language (spanish?) could send them an email asking if they own the copyright and if so can we use it. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 08:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From that other place with the image, this one is interesting, since it does focus on the more obvious parts of the clitoris. One drawback is the hood appearing to be pulled back, but I suppose an image in either condition would be useful, perhaps along with one for the whole area, say something like this which can be used in the article covering the whole area as well? It's very likely that I can find someone who would produce a few custom images if we can specify exactly what we want present. Producing specifically for the encyclopedia would also remove any reason to suggest that it's actually a pornographic image. Jamesday 09:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you can, that would be great. I hate having pictures with dubious copyright info on Wikipedia. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 22:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is the content, not the production or distribution of an image, that determines if the image is pornographic or not. It doesn't matter if Jimbo, himself, hires a photographer and a model to create the image. Photographs of the sexual body parts of actual people still illicit the same provocitive response no matter who pays for it, who is involved, or how, or even why those images were produced. KeyStroke 11:37, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
I'd have more time for your opinion if you knew the difference between illicit [1] and elicit [2]. As you do not, I'm not about to take your rather, err, particular view on the definition of the word pornography on trust. You may have a problem with looking at pictures of fannies. Do not presume that everyone has your problem. --Tagishsimon
"Fannies"? Wrong body part. func(talk) 23:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not in England it isn't. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 23:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Whoops... sorry, old bean. I guess you chaps don't have "fanny packs". ;-) func(talk) 03:51, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That was uncalled for. You should apologise. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 17:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My opinion is that KeyStroke is confusing his/her opinion with established fact and thereby "calling for" such a response. Photographs of genitalia do not universally elicit provocative responses. I will apologise that the last sentence did not read "Do not presume that everyone has such a problem". You should maybe be less judgemental, Theresa. Or not, whichever. --Tagishsimon
No Keystoke is expressing his opinion. As we all are. Anyway it was the first part of your response that I took exception to. The fact that he confused the word illicit and elicit doesn't mean you should be rude to him or not consider his opinion. Anway I'm not trying to be judgemental, I'm sure you just got a little passionate that's all. We are all guilty of that, me more than most. I shouldn't haved pulled you up on it here anyway. I should have said it on your talk page where it's a little more private. So I apoligise for that. Let's all try to be nice though, especially towards people with whome we disagree 100%. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 22:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keystoke is not stating his opinon, he just feels that image used on the page is questionable, I think I might compromise with the users who don't feel the image is porn, how about link it to the article with a Disclaimer?--198 00:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am concerned that we may be too late. There is an (as yet) unconfirmed observation that Net-Nanny already has listed the Wikipedia site as banned. This is very disturbing to me, personally. I have three grandaughters. In less than three years the first one will start school. That means that about nine years from now she may be ready to start reading articles here. There are articles I have initiated, and others I have provided major contributions to, that I would want my grandaughters to read. By the time they get to the age when my son would feel it wouldn't do them harm to come stumble across the image on this article, I fear I may already have left this world. I want to hold on to the hope that I may yet hear of one of my grandaughters reading an article I contributed to, here. But I am loosing hope, as (if the observation is confirmed) Net-nanny has already banned this site, and it may be 16 (or more) years until my eldest grandaughter reads an article I contributed to. KeyStroke 01:30, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Just let me say that I share you thoughts, and that there are some people here that are damaging this project deeply. --Cantus 01:38, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but I don't think that you are looking at the wider picture. Nannyware in my experience is always draconian in it's view of what's suitable reading material for children. Removing the picture will not solve that. We would need to remove the whole article because it almost certainly contains words that are on some nanny ban lists. While we are about it we would need to remove lost of other articles too. fuck comes to mind (have you read it? It's a really interesting article) Also [[[Hacking]], cracking, lock picking, breast cancer, great tit, middlesex, what about poisonous chemicals? or explosive ones? also rape, homosexuality, evolution perhaps, we don't want to stop the creationist from stopping their children know about that now do we? nudism, terrorism, penis, vagina, sex (of course) this list goes on and on. In order to comply with nannyware we would have to delete hundreds of articles. I know this becasue I work in a school, middlesex for example is not a joke, i have seen it with my own eyes.

The best way to deal with nannyware issues IMO is to write the best encylopedia the world has ever seen. Then school will want their pupils to use it and parents will pressure the schools not to use nannyware that blocks access to it. Giving in to nannyware demands will only result in a worse encylopedia. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 07:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is GFDLed. If you want your granddaughters to read your articles...well, first of all, you should just tell your son to show them your articles. But if you want all schoolchildren to read your articles, then I suggest you create a G-rated Wikipedia fork. Net-Nanny should be banning our website. It is R-rated at best. But we should not be censoring our content to avoid a ban by Net-Nanny, just like we aren't censoring our content to avoid a ban by China (which affects many more schoolchildren than Net-Nanny). Where should we draw the line? I'd say a good start is 50% of the world. If our content is banned in 50% of the world or more, then we shouldn't include it. Now additionally we need to have content which is 100% legal somewhere in the world. For now that's Florida, but if Florida or the United States passes a law banning our content and some other jurisdiction has no such ban, then we should move. But censoring our content because of Net-Nanny? No, that's just not a good enough reason. If anywhere, your anger should be directed at whoever decided to send your granddaughters to a public school. anthony (see warning) 15:02, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What a sensible idea A special children's Wikipedia is perfect! Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 21:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but note that I never volunteered to actually work on this children's Wikipedia :). Maybe we could turn simple: into this, though. anthony (see warning) 22:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No I was being sincere. I really do think it's a great idea! I thought the idea of simple was for adults with maybe english as a second language. Or adults who wanted a simple overview of the topic without all the nitty gritty details. To be honest I don't know enough about simple to comment. Although I personally would prefer a children's version to be called "Children's Wikipedia". Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 22:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're probably right about simple. But I'm glad you like the idea. anthony (see warning) 22:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, I must admit, the talk pages do actually seem to be working. (Yes, I am surprised). I like the idea of a Cild-epedia. BTW: on another discussion thread regarding this, I hit upon why it is that I feel the voting approach doesn't work for this kind of issue. Its because the people who would be bothered by the presenct of such a photo have no way of voting. Let me clarify. Only those who contribute to articles are the ones who get to vote. (Meaning that, in order to vote, you have to have gotten used to the "Wiki-language" enough to use it to put something in on the discussion pages. $20 says that less than 5% of people who do not contribute to an atricle, write things on discussion pages.) Now, the people who we really need to ask their opinion about matters such as these are the parents of young teenagers. Parents who (very likely) don't contribute, but would see Wikipedia as a great resource for their children. When I speak about trust and trustworthyness what I am talking about is living up to the expectations of those parents who cannot vote here. So the voting is skewed. To use an economic comparison, we have the producers of a product being the ones who provide estimates and forcasts of what the demand should be. Problem with that approach is (just like in former USSR) you wind up with dozens of ice-boots on the counter in summer and no hamburger meat in the counter because producers of ice-boots were already tooled up to do so. The complete voting approach needs to be re-engineered such that it is the consumer, not the producer, of encyclopedia articles that votes on content. Amazon has something that allows that, where people vote on book reviews ("was this review userull to you?"). Why don't we have something like that, here? In fact, why don't we even have something that records page-hits on an article? The economics of this is just backwards. KeyStroke 00:21, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
I fundamentally disagree with your producer/consumer dichotomy. Woody Allen doesn't let the public vote on whether or not he's going to talk about blow jobs in his movies. The New York Times doesn't hold a poll on whether or not photos of dead Iraqis are too offensive for its paper. Carl Sagan never held a poll on whether or not his books would be considered heresy. In each case the author(s) chose what to produce not based on popular opinion alone, but factoring in integrity. If you want a censored encyclopedia, this isn't where you should be going. I think there is room for compromise, for instance I would support having the image page linked to but not having the image inlined in the text, but in my opinion leaving this image completely out because it may offend someone is unacceptable. I have to add that I don't think voting is the answer anyway, whether it be voting by us or voting by the public at large. Wikipedia runs on consensus, not voting, and we should make every effort to address the issues of each individual. That's why I suggested a children's Wikipedia, because it addresses one of your complaints (you want your work available to children), while also addressing the opposing side (who feel that this image provides information which must be available to those reading this article). I'll even agree to provide some help to the project, but I can't promise to be a regular contributor, censorship and sugar-coating isn't my strong suit :). I think in terms of an online copy another reasonable compromise is to have the image linked to but not inlined, but I don't know if this has been brought up or whether others would oppose it. (Personally I don't like the "compromise" of adding a disclaimer to the top, but I don't oppose it strongly enough to care).
By the way, I just looked at the history, and I'm a consumer, not a producer, when it comes to this article. I have made no edits to this article. Considering that there aren't 19 others on this talk page I'm tempted to demand my $20 :). anthony (see warning) 14:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The bet was that less than 5% of the people who do not contribute to articles (any article, not this one in particular) will come and vote on a discussion page (any discussion page). And my point is that the voices of parents of children are the disenfranchised ones. KeyStroke 22:33, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
Voting as to what gets put on Wikipedia is not a right. There's no disenfranchisement, because there was no franchise in the first place. anthony 警告 20:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and finally, all this having been said, I don't oppose removal of this image due to unclear copyright. My comments assume we are able to find an image where a real person (not some anonymous Wikipedian) claims to be the copyright holder of the image and licenses it under a free license (I believe Jamesday has said he is able to get such an image). anthony (see warning) 14:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[losing indent] We used to have hit counters, but they had to be dropped in order to save load on the servers because of wikipedia's exponential growth. Off the top of my head I think the stats then were around 50 page views for every edit. That's probably gone up because as pages become more stable, less edits are made, but page views presumably continue to increase. As for the 'consumers' voting, I don't know how we could do that fairly. Consider this scenario. A vote has been going on and so far ten people have voted in favour of removing the photo and none in favour of keeping it. Along comes along an AOL customer who feels very strongly that the photo should be in. He votes, refreshed the page then votes again. He can do this because AOL works in a peculiar way. Everytime an AOLer gets a new page they are randomly assigned the IP address of one of the AOL proxy servers. There are hundreds of these and so our rogue voter could vote hundreds of times each from a different IP. Meanwhile another person comes along who happens to be with NTL for example. NTL also uses proxies to cache the web. But with NTL you keep the same IP address throughout. Never the less hundreds of different people go through each proxy so our poor NTL customer doesn't get to vote because someone from NTL has already voted :-( Of course we don't have to use IP's to identify people, we could just let them sign their name. In which case our rogue AOLer makes up a hundred of different names. You idea, which seems sensible at first is a no goer. Having a vote between wikipedians, isn't perfect. But it's the only reasonable option we have at the moment. Anthony has indicated above that he is not prepared to work on a children's encyclopedia (at the moment) I OTOH would, but I can't do it on my own. If anyone else will help me I'll try to get the ball rolling. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hits are tracked, though not very accessible. The full list of URLs for October (so far) is available here. The file is 63 MB, so I would not suggest viewing it in the web browser. — David Remahl 22:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yet another image - Found in wikipedia

Wikipedia already has Image:Flushvul.gif that has not ever been censored and seems to be in the public domain. It has already been used in Vulva, Perineum and Vagina.

Looks horrible though... -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:10, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)



Warning

It's important to remember that no one will be offended by the image. What they will be offended by is the breach of what they think of as a universal rule. If you look through the comments by the antis, non of them say's that the image offends them, it is always somebody else. The presence of the warning is proof, in the mind of some, of the existance of this rule. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to caharcterize information in this way. It is also not practical as it requires the layout of the page to be further adjusted so the image cannot appear on the same screen as the warning. It fosters a belief in forbiden knowledge.--Jirate 22:03, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Hmm you do have a point. But I like to be pragmatic. I do believe that there are some people who find the photo offensive. Actually i don't think we can say that the antis aren't offended by the picture just becasue they argue that it may offend someone else. I think the lasyout thing is minor. For me on a 17 inch screen I need to scroll down in order to see the photo. Perhaps someone with a larger screen would see the photo straight off but it is very simple matter to fix this by putting it at the bottom of the article. Theresa
It's not the physical size of the screen but the number number of vertical pixels, mine is 768 and it just misses, resolution over 1024x768 will probabley show.--Jirate 00:36, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

I am offended, and any warning is just a figleaf. This is not Bomis! Please be considerate! I will fight until a decent illustration is introduced, to my satisfaction. Otherwise, we'll all be in trouble for contributing to Bomipedia more than to anything else! - irismeister 00:41, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

It is you that is being inconsiderate.--Jirate 00:49, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
A warning is a good compromise French wikipedia has a very similar one in it's "clitoris" article.--198 00:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It isn't a compromise.--Jirate 00:56, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
This article contains photographs of human genitalia seems to me to be functionally equivalent to Plot or ending details follow. Both are factual meta-information that a significant fraction of readers will care enough about to find useful. Shimmin 13:33, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Can you produce some evidence of what % of the population will be offended and what % feel it should be their for some other reason, and what those other reasons may be. The motivation of some users is unclear. I want a warning that warns about the warning, as I find the warning offensive, and I feel a significant propotion of the population will agree.--Jirate 13:56, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC) P.S. I don't think that this discussion should be moved to User:Talk pages, it should be conducted here where it can be seen in full, no divide and conquer.--Jirate 13:56, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Anyone looking up genitals in an encyclopedia should not be surprised to see pictures of genitals. Anyone who will trully be offended by pictures of genitals will not look them up. I simply do not believe that there are hoards of people dying to read about clitorises (sp?) but mortally offended by seeing them. Get over it. The Recycling Troll 21:20, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well said. -- Schnee 22:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But Cantus, 198, and KeyStroke looked up genitals in this encylopedia and were offended. Where's the harm in having the warning? Why can't we give them this small measure of compromise? Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 23:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Theresa, can you please talk to Raul who keeps deleting the warnings in Penis and Vagina and will probably delete the one here if this article becomes unprotected? Thanks. --Cantus 00:05, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
I've put a note on the talk pages of both articles asking everyone to come join the discussion here. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 19:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
They were offended by the breach of their imagined rule, not by the image.--Jirate 15:43, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Disclaimer warning

If Cantus' "images of a explicit sexual nature " disclaimer must stay, and I hope it doesn't, I propose that it be preceded by this new disclaimer to avoid offending anyone else: ~leif ☺ HELO 04:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article contains disclaimer text of a conservative sexual nature that may offend some readers.

Both these are POV statements, one enforcing the POV that a picture of human genitals is necessarily sexual, and the other the POV that the first POV necessarily represents a conservative viewpoint. Both include the weasel-phrase 'may offend some readers'. If it may or may not offend, then informing the reader of such is informing them of nothing at all. Why not just stick to the facts

This article contains photographs of human genitalia.

and leave the interpretation of this fact to the reader. Shimmin 12:04, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

I support Shimmin's disclaimer, with the photograph moved far down in the article so as not to offend anyone. I think it's time to move on. func(talk) 12:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Me too.The disclaimer gives sensitive types sufficient information so that they can choose not to scroll down if they don't want to see such photogaraphs, without implying anything about ther moral value of this type of image. I hope that everyone else will come on board too so that so that this thing can be settled.I would love to be able to just point to this discussion in the future when the question comes up again (As it inevitably will) and say "We already debated this to death. Everyone from all sides of the argument agrees that this is a solution that they can live with" and be done with it. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 13:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion, one that everyone should be able to agree on I hope. Shane King 13:48, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. -- Schnee 14:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to the disclaimer, but if there must be one I would much prefer Shimmin's suggestion that it doesn't use the word "offend", and says photographs of instead of photographic depictions of. I'm sure this same issue has and will continue to arise on many other articles, so perhaps there should be an official policy-setting poll to settle it. ~leif ☺ HELO 18:17, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is no better it still singles out "human genitalia" for special treatment. And from the POV of an encyplopedia it doesn't deserve it. If you wish to create a category for images that people may find offensive and place that in that category. Then people can see the category when they open the page as decide, and no special treatment will have been given. It would also serve as a mechanism for exporting Wikepedia to other sites.--Jirate 20:18, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
Three problems with that - It won't solve the problem of people coming to this page from another page or from google and being shocked at what they see.There will be endless arguments about whether a particular image should go in the category or not. And finally the category page would be an absolute teenager magnet becasue it would show, all in one place, where they could find 'all the good stuff'. I have no problem with kids doing that, but I know that there are others on this page who would have a problem with that. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 00:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The problem is, I think, that some of these people have a problem with you not having a problem with that, and they'll keep on having problems until wikipedia is fit for sunday school. I say lets not bother to appease them with silly disclaimers, because even that won't be enough to satisfy some people. ~leif ☺ HELO 01:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We won't know until we try. If it doesn't work we can always remove the disclaimers at a future date. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 08:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, that disclaimer is ok, are we going to put it on the Breastfeeding page too, which, btw is on the front page, and contains a photograph of a human breast? The Recycling Troll 20:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't show a nipple though. Back to this article though, as soon as the protected template is removed the image will show straight away even on this little laptop screen. Making the text size to Smaller, viewing full screen or increasing the resolution shows the image too. Basically it must be pushed even further down (more writing is necessary for that, really) or the whole idea of a disclaimer is pretty pointless. violet/riga (t) 20:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
LOL if as much effort went into working on the article itself, as has gone into trying to find a consensus in this talk page more words would not be an issue ( Yeah yeah I know what you are going to say, and yes i hold my hands up to it) Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 01:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So it is strictly the nipple that would be offensive, not the breast in general? How do you know? The Recycling Troll 23:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1) a breast isn't a genital, so no we wouldn't put it on breast, AFAIK no one is advocating putting such a warning on breast or leg or ankle or anything apart from the genitals, let's stick to what's actually being asked rather than argue the slippery slope argument. 2) The great thing about Shimmin's wording is that it doesn't say the photographs are offensive, only that they are there. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 00:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree, that as far as "warning" messages go, this one is pretty benign. But it is still useless noise, and if I saw such a notice on another site with anatomical information, I'd be distracted by it (and start thinking about why the war article didn't have a warning about the fact that the article contained text about loss of life, etc). The slippery slope argument is valid, since this decision singles out human genitalia for no good reason, possibly making it easier to extend the content warning policy to other types of content in the future. — David Remahl 07:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My main reason for supporting the warining is to stop the edit wars here. People have been arguing over this photo since it was uploaded 18 months ago it has been deleted and re-uploaded numerous times.It's been removed and put back in over and over and the arguments about have stretched to 3 long pages when the article itself is just about longer than a stub. Why should genitals be singles out for special warnings? Because some people do think of them as special. I think their attitude is daft, unhealthy even, but that is neither here nor there, it's not my pace to tell people what to think. Images are very different from words. They are much more shocking. No one to my knowledge has ever argued that we need to put a warning on any page because of the words (well spoiler warnings, but that's a different matter). It is unreasonable to go to a page titled clitoris or war and not expect to find words about clitorises or wars. It is not unreasonable to go there and not expect to see images. If the war aticle contains potentially shocking images - say a beheading for example then yes why not have a warning at the top of the page. I'm not saying for one minute that I think that a picture of a clit is anything like a picture of a head held up by a murdering bastard, but some people do. (otherwise they wouldn't keep coming to this page and trying to remove the photo) Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 08:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In contrast to Theresa, I think this msg is exactly parallel in function to the spoiler warning. Enough readers derive negative utility from unwittingly reading plot details that we do them the service of putting the spoiler msg before where those plot details are divulged. Similarly, enough readers derive negative utility from seeing this photograph (either due to moral outrage, or due to suddenly having a picture of a vagina on their screen in a public computing environment, or any other motive that no one is in a position to judge) that it is a service to them to place a notice at the top of the article informing them of the photo's existence before they see it.
Personally, I'd make the msg less obtrusive. (Italics are sufficient to set it off from the body text, no colored box is necessary), but it is functional. Shimmin 13:18, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
When somebody goes to a movie article they may be after information about the cast, or the release date and not the plot ending details. When someone goes to the clitoris article they can pretty much expect, in a media with text and images, that they'll see text about the clitoris and images of it, both photographic and diagramatic. While your point is valid that people are offended by the image many people would be equally offended just to see the article exists and having the word clitoris in a large font on a public computer may be seen as inappropriate. violet/riga (t) 13:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I LOVE this disclaimer. So much, that I've included it in other places such as Penis and Vagina, and would love to have this page unprotected to change it here as well. However there are still some people, such as Raúl, who will keep deleting the warning without any discussion. --Cantus 20:08, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
I've removed the protection. IMO it wasn't actually necessary because I was on my third revert and wouldn't have gone over 3. If people want to tweak the wording in order to work towards consensus, they should be allowed to. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is interesting as far as I can tell all the instigators of the disclamers and all the calls for deletion of the photo, come from men. I think what we have her is a group of sad men trying to pretend to be white knights protecteing the honour of women, in order to impress them. In other words I think what you are seeing here is a bit chat up line.--Jirate 12:49, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

I don't think comments like this are at all helpful. Please let's stick to the actual issues we have before us and not speculate at to the motives of people we disagree with. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 14:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The issue before us is that a minority of users here want to force a disclamer down peoples throats. They haven't produced a single shred of evidence to support their claims of others being offended. They are here on a moral crusade. They should not be tolerated in their attempts to pervert the encylopedia.--Jirate 14:35, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
They don't need to produce evidence that others are offended. They are offended (do you dispute that?). So clearly some peaple are offended. I don't understand how putting "This article contains photographs of human genitalia" at the top of an article perverts the encylopedia. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 15:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes I dispute their offense. I do not beleive they are offended by the image, I beleive they are offended by the breach of a rule they think is universal. Some of the critisism have alleged that the image will offend children or damage them in some way, it won't and it can not. The damage is caused by false warnings and the reaction of parents, not by the image. Placing the warning will just cause damage and encourage the beleif that there is something information in the article that is in someway special or forbiden. As part of the Liverpool Bienniel photographs by Yoko Ono har hanngng from lamposts all over town. They consist of a close up of a breast and one of female pubic hair. There was a few days of fuss and now they are not mentioned, because the images are totally non erotic. It was the imagination of those who had heard but not seen, stimulated by the warning like the one being discussed here who made the noise.--Jirate 15:57, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

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 photographs of human anatomy. – Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, violet/riga (t) 16:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The link to the disclaimer is at the bottom of the page (in the default MonoBook skin anyway) and for anybody (as unlikely as it is) to click on that link BEFORE reading the article, you would have to pass through the clitoris photo anyway. —Cantus…☎ 03:39, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any disclaimer about the content of the pictures on this or any article. I don't believe it is our job, or in our best interests to police our articles for things people might find offensive, aside from the standard practices of keeping the articles encyclopedic. That said, I'd also like to ask what purpose this disclaimer really serves? Kids who come upon the article will definately scroll down to see the image, regardless of disclaimer. Adults should not even be looking at clitoris when it would not be appropriate to see an educational picture about it. This only serves to give a specific point of view before the article starts, one I think we should not convey. —siroχo 22:39, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Why shouldn't adults be reading an educational article about human anatomy in a public environment, say, a public library? The statement, "This article contains photographs of human genitalia," is an utterly neutral statement. Whatever POV you see in it is POV you brought to it, just like those who find POV in the photograph's display are only seeing the POV they brought. Shimmin 13:46, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

User:Leif has said it better than most here, please do not give in to this disclaimer-silliness.--Dittaeva 16:31, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, what is offensive varies widely through different cultures. In a US public library, a picture of a woman's clitoris may be offensive to some, but in Iran, a picture of a woman's hair would be, while in Afghanistan a woman not in a burka would be. Should we pander to each of these cultural preferences, or be neutral in applying a blanket disclaimer on all pages, or none at all. Mark Richards 19:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Anti's agenda

What do you mean?--198 01:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The warning was imposed, it is still there, where is the compromise?--Jirate 01:19, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
I feel the warning should be left alone (although I find the picture of the "clitoris" to Pornagraphic)--198 01:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Define pornographic.--Jirate 12:19, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Showing a part of a women's body such that I'm horrified.--198 03:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You find female bodyparts horrific? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:51, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
Some people do, actually. But then, people find all kinds of things horrific; for example, many people abhor spiders. But noone in their right mind would push for a warning on the pages on spiders that they contain pictures of (surprise!) spiders. :) -- Schnee 18:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is about consensus and compromise. It looked to me like we had a good compromise: not everyone was 100% happy with it, but that's the nature of compromise. Irate, surely this isn't worth fighting over anymore. This article is a good one, very informative. If we just leave the fairly innocuous warning/disclaimer/whatever on the page, we can put this issue behind us... at least for a while. func(talk) 20:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is worth fightining over, if this is in it is a compromise on what an encylopdia should be.--Jirate 21:06, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
There has been quite a lot of discussion since I have been able to get to this page. I can't (or rather won't) try to go to this page at work because I would be fired for bringing up a pornographic image. There has been a lot of speculation as to why those of us who object to this image do so. I have stated it plainly enough, before, but to clear up misconceptions I will do so again. Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia. It does not distinguish itself as an encyclopedia for adults only. Therefore the assumption is that children are allowed (even encouraged) to read the articles here. The greatest benefit of an encyclopedia (any encyclopedia) is when you are in middle school and high school. Young teenage boys will stumble across this photograph. Will they be "offended"? No. They will be gleeful. They will be sexually excited. They will show it to their buddies. And it may be the trigger that starts them down a road of sexual addiction to pornography that they are not old enough to control. That's why parents are responsible for their teenagers, because parents have developed the self-discipline that their immature children have not had time, yet, to develop. Parents need to be able to #1 trust that an encyclopedia does not expose their children to images they have already determined that their children should not see - or - #2 warn parents that such images exist - not on the article they exist, but on the front page of the website. Despite all the arguments against censorship, the fact still remains that parents have a right to determine what is acceptable to see for their children. We must not make Wikipedia into a vehicle to subvert that parental right. The label "encyclopedia" conveys a message to parents that what their child will find, here, will not be in violation of the parents moral standards. Those who want an image of the sexual organs of real people on the website want to subvert that parental right and trick parents into letting their children see images that those parents would prohibit, if they knew they were there. That is called "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" in the US state I live in. That is something that Wikipedia must not do. KeyStroke 22:10, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Content disclaimer makes it clear what the Wikepedia may contain. The label encyclopedia[3] makes no such claim regarding the violation of the parents moral standards as it does not pretend to know what they are. --Jirate 22:39, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
Note also that there is a link to the wikipedia disclaimers on every single page of wikipedia, so no one can say they have been tricked. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 22:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
KeyStroke says "I can't (or rather won't) try to go to this page at work because I would be fired for bringing up a pornographic image". Are you serious? You'd be fired for seeing this image, in a totally nonsexual (and thus not pornographic) context, but you wouldn't be fired for reading the Clitoris article on Wikipedia as long as it doesn't have a picture? Where do you work?! Should we really restrict wikipedia to meet these bizarre supposed workplace standards that allow reading about clitorises but not seeing pictures of them? ~leif ☺ HELO 02:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keystroke you are stating your opinions as though they were facts. There is no evidence that looking at erotic images will start an addiction to pornography. This is purely your own speculation. What's more the image isn't even erotic. The porno mags i have seen (and admittidly I haven't that many, because for me, like most people, the novelty wears off pretty quickly) do not show images like this. What they show is the whole woman, and with very good reason. It is the expression on the woman's face that is the most important part of the image. They try their best too look alluruing, sexually exited and available. You get none of that with a cropped image like we have on this page. The purpose of an encylopedia is to be a font of knowledge. It has always been Wikipedia's stated mission to be a font of all knowledge. Knowledge of what a piece of human anatomy looks like is perfectly within the scope of what will soon to be the worlds biggest and best encylopedia. If parents don't want thier children coming here becasue this site will teach them things then they will have to keep their children away from here. But we cannot and willnot stop everyone else from gaining that knowledge in order to appease those parents. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 22:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
KeyStroke, you really have to work on your understanding of the NPOV policy...
  1. Your suggested link would be just as easy for "gleeful teenagers" to show to their friends.
  2. The image is not pornographic, in the context of Wikipedia it is not intended to excite. I was a human male teenager not too long ago, and I can tell you that this image is far from exciting... Whatever taboos your supposedly "moral" upbringing has given you, in my opinion, apparently distorted your view of sexuality.
  3. How does "encyclopaedia" imply that the site only contains information that a certain parent finds "acceptable"? "Encyclopaedia" means: "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. (...) In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge." — The American Heritage Dictionary. Based on that definition, I think parents should expect to find a _very_ large array of topics in an enyclopaedia.
  4. What your US state says has no effect on Wikipedia policy, unless that state happens to be Florida.
  5. I sincerely hope that every library in the United States is "contributing to the delinquency of a minor", because a library without a book on human anatomy would be a travesty.
  6. Wikipedia contains a lot of information that certain groups of people find objectionable. It is not feasible to note them all on the first page, like you suggest, therefore a link to the general disclaimer is available on every page. — David Remahl 23:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm rather shocked by Keystroke's comments. Thinking that a photograph of the female genital on an encyclopedia would lead to sexual addiction is absolutely insane. Kids are more likely to type the word into Google images if they want to see something like that - they won't come to an encyclopedia looking for porn. violet/riga (t) 00:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Loosing indent) After reading Theresa's remarks, I went looking for the disclaimers. I have been reading articles, here, for at least six months, and contributing for at least four. I never knew the disclaimers existed until today. I found the disclaimers hidden four levels deep off the Main Page:

Main Page ===> Wikipedia:Copyrights ===> Wikipedia:General disclaimer ===> Wikipedia:Content disclaimer

What I found there stated this:

  • Some Wikipedia articles discuss words or language that are considered profane, vulgar or offensive by some readers. See Wikipedia:profanity for more information.
  • 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 photographs of human anatomy.

After finding, and reading, the content disclaimer, I have come to three conclusions:

  1. Wikipedia is not suited for children. Wikipedia should not be listed as a "trusted site".
  2. A general disclaimer should be prominently displayed on the Main Page that says "Some Wikipedia content may be considered by parents as being unsuitable for their children."
  3. We need a child-safe Wikipedia

I want to email Jimbo with my observations/recommendations, but I don't know if that is the accepted route to get them heard without bias. KeyStroke 06:18, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Feel free to email Jimbo (or, if you want, leave a message on his talk page). FWIW, I _agree_ that "Wikipedia should not be listed as a 'trusted site'" (not that I know completely what you mean by that term...). No site should be unconditionally trusted by default, and the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia at any time makes it obvious that the content cannot be guaranteed. That said, I believe Wikipedia is suitable for children, if under parental (or other) supervision. I don't think there is any information in Wikipedia that could harm a child, if he/she reads the site under parental supervision. The world is a scary place, sometimes, and Wikipedia aims to document a lot of it, so parental guidance is advised. There should be no disclaimer on the main page. Since parents hold such widely varying opinions on what is suitable for their children, and an encyclopaedia by its very nature holds a lot of varying information, the disclaimer is self-evident.
A "child-safe" Wikipedia could never be NPOV, since someone would have to make the judgment of what is suitable for children. Therefore I don't think WikiMedia should involve itself in such an endeavour. You should, however, be aware of the fact that anyone may fork Wikipedia, if they find that Wikipedia's goals or methods conflict with their personal conviction. — David Remahl 08:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keystroke the disclaimers are on every page.You don't need to go to the main page or the copyright page. In the monobook skin look at the very bottom of this page (It's probably at the bottom of the page in other skins as well but i haven't checked) There are 4 links, the copyleft licence, about wikipedia, disclaimers, and mediawiki. From the general disclaimer you can then go to the content disclaimer. So it's two levels down, not four. Also if you email Jimbo be sure to wikipedia in the subject field. He gets a lot of mail and doing this stops his spam filter.Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 09:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ever picked up a printed encyclopedia and seen the pictures in there? Without any warning on the front cover? Our current disclaimer system works fine. violet/riga (t) 10:10, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In what way is this place not "child safe". What you are trying to do is remove eveyoneelse right to free speech. As Wikipedia not being a trusted site, what is un tustworthy about it? That it doesn't have your personal bias? and you assume everything in the world does. It is you that introduce bias into this.--Jirate 11:28, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
Many people don't want their children to view such images, that's obvious enough, but as I said above there are many better and easier sources of porn than wikipedia. violet/riga (t) 11:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I understand that, but it isn't a safety issue.--Jirate 11:57, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

If a kid really isn't ready to see a picture of a clitoris, then his parents or guardians should browse the internet with him, especially a site like Wikipedia. I have no interest in bypassing net-nannies by removing a picture, as that would be dishonest to our readers. Perhaps we could make a special project "Kidipedia" for kids only? —siroχo 23:12, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Siroxo. We have the content disclaimer, there is no need to tag individual articles. And the 'spoiler' arguement does't hold water, because unlike spoilers, there is no plot or content that would be ruined by reading about it here. →Raul654 02:39, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

[sigh....] Let's just do our consensus thing and move on to articles that actually need attention:

Poll: Disclaimer presence

Ends 8-Nov-2004

Vote status: 6/11/0

We have a disclaimer that has been phrased in as NPOV a way as is possible:

This article contains photographs of human genitalia.

In the interest of trying to appease as many people as possible, recognizing the fact that no one is going to be 100% happy about it, please vote on having this particular disclaimer in the interest of compromise, and of otherwise leaving this very fine article alone:

Support:

  1. func(talk) 18:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Assuming we decide to keep the photo, then yes I support this disclaimer Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 18:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Just the facts, ma'am. Shimmin 19:16, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Many people find genitalia to be something private, and feel uncomfortable when exposed to it. It is not Wikipedia's mission to teach those people to change their minds. The inclusion of a warning would show Wikipedia cares for all its readers. –Cantus…☎ 22:22, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  5. A good compromise plus French wikipedia has similar disclaimer [4]--198 23:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. I personally think the disclaimer is unneccesary, but I think that as a compromise it's the best we're likely to get. Shane King 00:55, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I believe that having a general disclaimer is sufficient.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:28, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  2. No warning is required as ther is nothing dangerous in the article.--Jirate 18:30, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
  3. There is no need for a warning; a clitoris is nothing offensive. -- Schnee 18:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Echo the above statements. violet/riga (t) 18:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. I support having some sort of disclaimer but this formulation is silly. Gadykozma 20:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. Putting a silly warning above photos of human genitalia will perpetuate the (reprehensible, imo) point of view that people should be ashamed of their bodies, and I won't support having Wikipedia do that. ~leif ☺ HELO 20:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Where will it stop? Anything that anyone could possibly find offensive? No thank you. Mark Richards 22:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. I also oppose - after all, if a person is looking up "clitoris", then they will probably not be especially offended to see a simple image of that particular organ. Should we put such disclaimers on this article, or perhaps this one? ClockworkTroll 23:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. Ejrrjs 23:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. We should put NPOV disclaimers on _every_ article saying that they may contain encyclopaedic information about the topic in the title. David Remahl 00:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • LOL! Sorry, but this had me rolling on the floor. ;-) func(talk) 01:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. We already link to the disclaimers from every article in the database. No need for seperate ones. →Raul654 00:59, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

October 8 was more than two weeks ago. That being said, the poll above is not over yet, so please stop this nonsense until it is. -- Schnee 18:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The other poll concerns replacing an image. This concerns a disclaimer. Sorry about the date: 2 weeks is what I meant. func(talk) 18:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gadykozma, why is this formulation silly? It is a bare statement of fact. func(talk) 22:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the suggested disclaimer is optimal. — David Remahl 00:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The poll introduction, however, is leading and represents only the compromising position (not that there is anything wrong with compromising, I appreciate the attempt to reach consensus...) — David Remahl 00:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Net Nanny and others

Surely the best way around this for a list or lists of pages that various people want blocked or redirected, made available to NetNanny and for that to block or redirect accordingly. The list could be stored on Wikipedia. It would mean pursuading the authors of Wikipedia to play ball.--Jirate 01:05, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

No, why should we do their job for them? They're free to create lists of pages that they want to block, either automatically or manually, but why should we compile a list for them? But if anyone wants to spend time doing this, please go ahead... — David Remahl 01:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Because it will increase the utility of the encylopedia. I'm sure some of the users would be prepared to do this. And of course it's not just open to NetNanny any blocking software can do it.--Jirate 01:21, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clitoris/Archive_4&oldid=6864709"