Talk:Clitoris/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Clitoris. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Questions for Cantus

Cantus, will you please answer the questions about the source of your Image:Vagina Clitoris.jpg and the legal status thereof?

I have already asked you about it here and I have asked on your talk page where you have already posted your comments directly above as well as directly below my questions, so I assume that you must have read them.

This is important because if it turns out that we cannot legally use the image you have uploaded it would make the reverting war resulting in article protection as well as the entire discussion with the Image Poll below a completely pointless waste of time.

Please answer. Thank you. Rafał Pocztarski 06:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:Vagina Clitoris.jpg has been added to Wikipedia:Copyright problems#September 5. Rafał Pocztarski 04:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

pronunciation

I'm still not convinced that

"klih TOHR ihs, British ["klaItQr@s] KLY tor ihs

even belong in this article. It is certainly NOT true that the British pronunciation is "KLY -". It's "KLIHT uh rihs", the first pronunciation given in the article -- Tarquin 17:07, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As I said before, the Oxford English Dictionary disagrees. If you want to do a variety survey of the entire country to find out what percentage of people use a different pronunciation, from all classes and regions, and your results show that no one actually says the word that way, then go ahead and remove it. I think, until then, we should trust the "definitive dictionary of Modern English, especially British English." Just because you've never heard a word pronounced in a particular way doesn't mean people in other places don't say it that way. For example, until recently, I had no idea that a large number of English speakers don't pronounce the 'l' in "almond". And given that "clitoris" is not the kind of word that gets bandied about a lot in the (spoken) mass media, it seems likely that different pronunciations from your own may be quite widespread. Since you seem to disagree that the second and third pronunciations are valid, why don't you add it to List of words of disputed pronunciation? -- Nohat 06:50, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I find it important to point out that you're quoting the second edition of 1989. My sixth edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 2000, lists only one pronunciation: ['klIt@rIs] (SAMPA; IPA [ˈklɪtərɪs]). I do not think that we should trust any "definitive dictionary of Modern English" if it's fifteen years old. EldKatt 10:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm British and believe me, NO-ONE pronounces it KLY... You haven't provided evidence, by the way, your screenshot doesn't show the pronunciation. Exile

It does show the pronunciation (at the start on the left). However, I agree it's talking nonsense. In 25 years of living in the UK I've never yet heard anyone use this pronunciation. Marnanel 00:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the popular beat combo The Stranglers used the KLY... pronunciation in their song "Peaches"... -- The Anome 08:50, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that should be taken as an instance -- it was probably done like that to avoid censorship -- Tarquin 09:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--

He actually pronounces it kliht AHR ihs (i.e. rhymes with guitarist :-)

chocolateboy 11:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation (again)

Most of the pronunciation stuff is square boxes - is there a reason for this? It looks odd. 195.158.9.78 10:40, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is the International Phonetic Alphabet transcription. To not put it in [square brackets] or /slashes/ (depending on usage) would be incorrect. Livajo 17:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The current picture is missing, although some older versions are available. Wonder how that happened?
Tualha 02:14, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That is odd. I've commented it out for now. I tried to revert to the existing, older version, but no joy. See wikipedia:bug reports, I guess. Martin 21:37, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I re-uploaded the image, which seems to have fixed it for now. Martin 11:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Clitoris on the main page?

The link in the "See also" section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/1/19/Clitoris.jpg

brings up a page that says,

Not Found The requested URL was not found on this server. Please try our main page.

and then redirects to the main page.

Yes, it seems to be broken. I'm going to try again one more time... well it's lasted a bit longer. Martin 22:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

image

If someone is going to remove the penis photos from the penis page and in effect, insinuating that MY penis is offensive! im going to be pissed. It's not the same with clitoris ofcourse, but for solidarity's sake, im upset. BL 23:25, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Seems that User:Cantus decided to remove the image. Personally I think that it is appropriate, though I will not revert his change directly. Consensus? UPDATE: Ah, this seems to be an ongoing argument. I'm staying out of it. Palnu 08:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I want to know is what Cantus does for a job to read up on clitorises at work - David Gerard 09:10, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That was only an example... there are multiple others. The fact is that it is inappropriate to have such an explicitly graphic image on display without any warning. --Cantus 09:53, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the title of the article a "warning"?

chocolateboy 11:19, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He should tell his boss "but it's not porn, it's an encyclopedia!" I'd love to see this spurious policy that Wikipedia is to be "work-friendly" - David Gerard 11:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most encyclopedias don't carry real pictures of human body parts, for obvious reasons. --Cantus 02:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not "obvious" to me. Could you explain it more fully? And stop marking major changes as minor? - Hephaestos|§ 02:15, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll explain, but you already know. Pictures of the sexual organs of actual people are stimulating to most human males. That’s why pornography exists. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate. What that means is that the most value to an individual for reading an encyclopedia will occur when that individual is younger, and not older. Therefore the audience for an encyclopedia needs to be those who are young (still in grade school, or middle school, or even high school). Viewing pictures that excite (pornography) is not appropriate for those who are young. To prevent Wikipedia from becoming banned by parents and by software meant to filter out porn, we need to be responsible and not include pictures that can excite young males. Here is the test: Imagine a 13 yr old middle school student browsing Wikipedia at school and finding this page. What would his reaction be? Would it be "Hmmmm, very educational, I will read the text in depth and learn from this." or would his reaction be to call his buddy over and say "Look! I found a picture of a pussy on Wikipedia! Isn’t that NASTY!". We want the reaction to all articles on Wikipedia to be the first one, not the second one. Note, it is not that I believe all informative articles regarding sexuality should be removed. In fact I contributed quite a lot to sexual attraction. But I did so without being provocative and vulgar. Whoever determined to include a photo of actual sexual organs of a person was just being provocative and trying to incite conflict (which they have achieved). It adds nothing to the intellectual value of the article and removes all trustworthiness from the entire encyclopedia. KeyStroke 21:25, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

I suspect that most 13 year old boys will first look at the picture then read every word of the article over several times. Which is a good thing IMO. I also suspect that most 13 year old girls will do exactly the same, seeing as sexual topics are fascinating to young people of that age. Quite a lot of girls don't actually know what a clitoris is (I suspect a lot of boys don't either) A straightfoward photograph shwoing what a clitoris looks like is educational in itself. I do not consider it innapropriate to show exciting photographs to children. I consider censorship innappropriate. Having said that, I do agree that the original uploader of this image was probably trying to stir up trouble. However since that time many people have supported the inclusion of a colour image (Personally I would rather have one with better copyright info). Remember that your argument above could have been applied to showing female ankles 120 years ago. Or female hair or arms in certain countries today (it's always female body parts that children need protection from isn't it?) Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 22:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What a marvellous piece of logic, indeed :O) - Yeah, that's progress! Let's proceed with foreskin reconstruction encyclopedia and we'll show the world how deeply intellectual this porn culture has become! Incidentally, TK - did you know that 120 years ago there were NO ENCYCLOPEDIAS focussing on the finer aspects of female ankles to start with? Do YOU know that 98% of the clitoris mass is NEVER seen ? Did you know that even in Victorian times people cared to spend more time doing the actual thing instead of talking, talking talking as you do on your non-talk page advertizing your needs? Moreover, "progressive" ankle shots did not show knees or knots in the same breath! Why on earth do you display the whole perineal region to "show" the clitoris - which is not seen AT ALL either? Why nailpolish on a photograph of the gross vulvar anatomy ? Why "vote" on it - to replace common sense or what? Why not increasing field depth in that photo, and inserting two painted tits in the background while we are here :O) ~(People easily offended and PERSONALLY ATTACKED by painted tits please avoid TK user page. Come here instead and contemplate the academic digression on high university ideas, and "censorship" on the matters of "clitoris" encyclopedically :O) - irismeister 15:53, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Lets examine your statement of "I do not consider it inappropriate to show exciting photographs to children." Now, taken verbatim I agree with you. I uploaded Image:A37 Cessna firing Rockets.jpg, which is the most exciting picture my (now deceased) father ever took in his whole career at Cessna. But you have to realize there is a difference between intellectually exciting, and sexually exciting. Are you actually advocating showing sexually exciting pictures to young boys? Are you actually advocating that Wikipedia facilitate such a criminal act? Not only is that against the law, but I can tell you that is how sexual predators work. I speak from personal experience, having been the victim of a sexual predator who (a male) who showed me sexually exciting photos when I was a pre-teen boy and took advantage of my inability to control my sexual excitement. Is this what you are advocating? On another point... I do want as many 13 yr old boys to be able to see my fathers best work Image:A37 Cessna firing Rockets.jpg, and Wikipedia is my best opportunity for that to happen. So this means I don't want Wikipedia to wind up on ban lists (like Net-Nanny, if it still exists). As an admin, there is nothing you can do to prevent churches, private schools, home-schooling parents and governments based on a religious fundamentalism from banning this site, with one exception... and that is to take the moral responsibility to make sure that no sexually exciting photos wind up here. Remember the moral lesson of Spider-Man "With great power, comes great responsibility." Please live up to your responsibility as the internet site that is growing the fastest in popularity. The drawing at the top of the article is sufficient. We don't need to show a pornographic photo to children. One last point (and it goes to your statement of "I consider censorship inappropriate"... Is the purpose of Wikipedia to be a mechanism for engineering social or political change? I believe that the sixth entry under What Wikipedia is not states that it is not to be "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind"... which would include your personal advocacy against censorship. Please live up to the policies of Wikipedia and realize that your personal feelings about (what you consider) censorship should not be enforced by your admin powers. KeyStroke 01:04, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not consider a picture of a part of the female anatomy as a criminal act and I very much doubt the law courts would either. I'm sorry that you were sexually abused as a child but I can't see how your argument above holds water. You were abused therefore we'd better censor wikipedia? Surely dealing with the abusers rather than denying victims the knowledge of part of the female anatomy looks like is the best way to go? You are right about nannyware. There is absolutely nothing we can do about censorship by schools churches etc. I don't see why that means we should do there censoring for them out of fear of what they might do. This is primarily an adult encylopedia anyway - what about adults who don't know what a clitoris looks like? Are they to be denied the information? As for you argument about propaganda - again it's irrelavent. We are talking of censorship of wikipedia , not going to the censorship article and advocating that it's bad. As for your last comment -I am offended that you would say such a thing. I have every right to argue my feelings here. I have not used my admin powers to enforce my views. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your actions belie your words. By protecting the page in the state that you argue for you used admin powers to enforce your viewpoint. You have placed yourself in the position of judge in this matter, and have given us sufficient evidence of your prejudice towards one side of the issue. A prudent person with your powers would recuse themselves and let another admin who is less biased toward either side of the argument take over. The fact that you have not done so shows your intent to abuse your powers. It is a conflict of interest to be the admin who determines the outcome of this situation, and be someone who is arguing one side of the conflict. KeyStroke 11:48, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

Theresa, why don't you do something decent instead? Didn't my ninetysix bans at the tip of your trembling hand and "shivering expectation" as you put it (look at "our" archives) provide at least a zest of vicariant satisfaction to your addictive "administrative" behavior? Yeah, how about criminalizing stupidity too ? And what a beautiful piece of "no personal attack" policy in insinuating sorrow for what in the next word is downright insulting! I am disgusted by your pretentious little hypocritical baseness. Denying victims the right to see, er ? Aren't you ASHAME of yourself, young lady? Personally attacking anyone still not admiring your painted tits ? With insinuations about how sorry you are for "child abuse" in other editors? No personal attack, er? Go push that ban bottom once more right now for "my personal attack on you here" - If only it could provide you with at least some surrogate of satisfaction! Didn't you remember what the Arbitration Committee instucted you to do. Won't you shupt up for once? And YOU a paragon of anti-censorship? YOU - WHO CUT with your own hands 217 pages of my medical articles, have the GUTS to pretend you are anti-censorship? Am I dreaming ? DECENCY, anyone? You are only showing misery of character - empowered nonsense, fantasies becoming virtue. Sorry - I forgot this is the "encyclopaedic offspring of Bomis :O) - irismeister 16:07, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

When I protected the page 198 was removing the picture repeatedly against the views of the majoritory of other users. I beleive I acted properly given the circumstances. However since you have called my impartiality into question I an happy to unprotect the article as i do not wish to force my viewpoint on anyone else. You should note however that if you remove the picture without consensus among other wikipedians then someone will simply add it back in. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 13:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK - I think I have hit upon a solution that will be amicable to everyone. I actually was inspired to come up with this solution by visiting Theresa's User page. On that user page, she has a link to an image, but a warning to not look if you don't want to see what it is going to show. This caused me to think about having a link on this page to an external pic of the female sexual organs. That way, everyone gets what they want: Those who want to see such an image can click on the link and go there and see it (if their filters will allow). Those who want to protect their children from seeing such an image can simply include the destination site in their banned list. BTW: If a more explicit image is needed, simply replace the destination link with one of your own, which takes people to whatever image you deem appropriate. KeyStroke 01:50, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Sounds good but only puts the corpse in the neighbour's garden. It does not change the evidence about the murder by "moving" this body in other jurisdiction! My twelve-month INTENSIVE experience with censorship of any DECENT fact in this Bomipedia has demonstrated that:

There is no use in arguing with TK and the gang of four - or the Wikipolice at large - they ban you when they can't argue decently with logic and facts :O)
First step in removing evidence and matters of fact is MOVING this factology around, to fool and annoy the editors.
Personal attack is to say something different than the line of the party :O) UReitherwizUSoraterrost :O)
You can only edit in the short time left between two successive bans :O)
Whatever you do, is in expectation of your future hard ban, for which TK secretely trembles in expectation ;O)

In conclusion, let's kill the corpse, dispose of the body, and call the coroner while we do something decent ourselves in stead. And let's show kids what a clitoris is, not what TK thinks she know this is by voting in a gross image of the perineum instead :O)' Why do I lose my time here ? - irismeister 16:24, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

I'm sorry about this keystroke. Irismiester follows me around wikipedia spouting this sort of stuff. He's been temporary banned twice by the arbitration committee for making personal attacks and is currently under a personal attack parole, whereby any admin is authorised to block him for 24 hours every time he does it.He's checked my contributions list and that is why he is ranting here. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 18:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image

Is it too much to ask to attempt to keep this encyclopedia G-rated and safe for all the family? I support a version which links to the clitoris image, but does not display it in the article page. Is this really too much to ask? This sort of thing can get this whole site blocked from libraries. Besides that image is quite vulgar. (the clitoris itself is not, but the image elements are) --Cantus 02:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Responded to on Talk:Penis. →Raul654 03:10, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

I think we need a picture, but I really hope we one day replace this one that frankly looks like it's been lifted from porn. -- Tarquin 08:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is too much. There is no consensus for anything of the sort. Why don't you try putting fuck on VFD. - David Gerard 11:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes. G rated. A child, being born, might see, looking back, a vagina and a clitoris. Being breast fed, it should see breasts as well. So, eliminate images of a penis, and let female genitalia and mammaries stand. Ronabop 11:55, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yawn. --Cantus 03:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we could arrange to visually "bleep out" that terrible sight, so that they might be spared the trauma, by arranging for childbirth to occur in darkness? But even then, further shocks are likely later in life, as the poor unfortunate of either sex discovers their own genitalia... perhaps we should make everyone wear The Garment To Cover The Entire Human Body at all times, in addition to bowdlerizing all the encyclopedias?

Seriously, if you don't want to see a picture of a clitoris, not looking at an encylopedia article entitled "clitoris" might be a good precaution. -- The Anome 13:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yawn. --Cantus 03:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's too much to ask. The appropriate number of images is one or more for each reasonably frequently encountered variation in appearance - the book Famalia provides a fair initial selection of variations. The idea is to educate and inform, not to educate and inform only at the level some think appropriate for some 4 year olds. However, there is discusson of a tagging system which could be used to let those who want filtering choose to have a filtered view. Meanwhile, I suggest that you use one of the large number of filtering programs. Jamesday 03:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could we at least get a non-vulgar version of a clitoris? A porn performer spreading herself with her large painted nails doesn't seem like a good way to illustrate a clitoris. A drawing would be MUCH preferable. It is not at all clear to me from that photo what a clitoris is or looks like. The graphic needs to be more general. --Cantus 03:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The war paint has been removed. Perhaps you saw an older version by mistake? Martin 11:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nope, I'm referring to the current version. --Cantus 00:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A photo seems perfectly appropriate, that's life...(and the good part of life, I know it's better to show weapons & violent images). May be something less vulgar, but for the time being we have to stay with that. Tom

Don't see why people are objecting to the current graphic. What's "vulgar" about it? Do we have to show a vulva that looks unattractive or something? It's a nice, clear photo.

The current picture gives the wrong impression that the clitoris be identical with the tiny glans visible through the clitoral hood. Especially the circle in the enlarged part is misleading. However, this picture shows the vaginal opening much better than the one on vulva, so maybe we should exchange the two pictures (of course, the black lines and the enlarged part would have to be removed, and labels added).

More importantly, we need a drawing showing the entire clitoris, including the "inverted V" shape of the crus. See for example figures 7-22 and 7-23 in http://www.the-clitoris.com/1r4/anatomy/disectb.jpg . AxelBoldt 13:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not really a wrong impression: it's important that people know where to find the externally visible part of the clitoris. I don't think it's misleading, but it could be improved by the addition of more diagrams. Marnanel 13:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Captioning

Wikipedia:Captions wants better captioning and Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions has put clitoris on its list of pages needing better captions. For the photo, how about:

"Due to its central role in the physiology of female sexual arousal, the clitoris, and its male counterpart the penis, are taboo in many societies."

If you come up with something good, don't forget to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions --Kop 07:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It could be useful to find or make a B/W photo of a clitoris. Black and white can be even more informative than color in some circumstances, while it is certainly less pornographic. See circumcision for an example of genital pics that are quite informative, but (I think) not particularly arousing. Shimmin 03:12, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's much too much to ask to have the entire encyclopædia done on the level of World Book. How should we obtain the G rating? Someone searches for clitoris, we send back "Naughty you! Go to bed without supper!"?

I'm sorry, but if you look up clitoris, you shouldn't be utterly shocked to see a picture of one. A photo done in good taste is perfectly fine. Remember that lots of people do not know where the clitoris is or how to find it. It's not as if we were being gratuitously smutty. By the way, if little children find these pictures, I say more power to them. I hope they learn a few things about clitorides. Shorne 08:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the state of decency

A well done drawing is better than a pornographic picture which will offend a lot of people. Jesus Christ would agree. Don't behave like children, please. --Cantus 20:46, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

"Jesus Christ would agree." — I'm not quite sure if I should regard this as a brilliantly hilarious joke or if I should feel offended at what could be seen as religious subversion by an apparent Christian (because I'm myself a polytheist, but I don't see myself ramming my religion down anybody else's throat). Actually, second thought, if it's not intended as a joke, then I shall choose not to feel offended but instead shall resign myself to concluding that Hanlon's Razor applies. Ropers 00:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll assume Hanlon's Razor applies to your post as well. --Cantus 07:30, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Cantus, you are a liar, meaning that you don't know what you're talking about. Jesus told everyone to become as little children, and offended many people saying that he came to bring a sword and not peace. lysdexia 07:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What does Jesus Christ have to do with the matter, and how do you know his opinions on photographic depictions of the human body? Marnanel 00:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A picture can be informative without necessarily being pornographic. Then again, if you have a necktie fettish, you might find Image:Neck_Tie_Platter.jpg positively erotic. Should we do something more to make the photo here less "pornographic" and yet just as informative? Black & white might help, but I would caution against further cropping. If we were to get another picture with some inanimate apparatus (e.g. chopsticks) doing the necessary displacement of the labia rather than fingers, that might also help. But I agree that the picture we have is better than none until someone goes to the trouble to make a special picture. -- ke4roh 00:56, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

The drawing I put up is MUCH better for an encyclopedia. You people just don't get it. You just think it's cool and bold to have a porn picture. It's not. --Cantus 02:35, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how should the photography of clitoris look like, so it could not be considered “a porn picture”? Rafał Pocztarski 05:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would Cantus be happy with the same pose as in the diagram, except as a photograph? If not, why not? -- The Anome 07:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedias use drawings instead of pictures, because: a) Not all human parts are/look the same. In a drawing parts are sharply drawn out so they can be better distinguished from other parts. This way people can understand and learn the global structure. A real photograph is just a lot of flesh. b) Encyclopedias are for all ages and all types of people. Real photographs of genitalia are reserved for medical books which have limited access and have a special purpose. Third, the current picture is porn and suitable not even for a medical book. I'm reverting again, and I hope you people truly understand what I'm going for here. --Cantus 00:41, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Please leave it as is. It actually helped me much more than all those "non-pornographic" drawings in "serious" encyclopedias. --202.14.216.128 10:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The drawing is good for one who is familiar with female anatomy, but is it good for the unfamiliar? (I ask to learn the answer, not to cast doubt on the suitability of the drawing.) -- ke4roh 00:53, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

a) is a fair point: there are things which diagrams show better than photographs. However, I think there are things that can be shown by a photograph as well: a simple photo like this is more concrete, and I think both would help someone who was learning about human anatomy in different ways. So I think we need both. b) just begs the question. c) is meaningless unless you define what you mean by "porn". In summary: no, I don't really understand what you're going for here. Marnanel 01:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe the photograph should be in black-and-white, to reduce the "pornographic" effect that Cantus argues. At least the colors in the photo look subdued. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 01:02, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

A photo makes this Wiki less accessable to those who are shocked by such photos. On the other hand, the pro-Clitoris crowd does not get short-sheeted by a drawing, provided it's a quality one. I say nix the photo. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif Read this]] 07:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Memo to admins: 4th revert outside 24 hours. --Cantus 05:42, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

What we can do

we can use one of the photographs we have now if it is legal
1. as is
2. edited
we can use the diagram we have when its legal status is clarified by Cantus
1. as is
2. edited
someone can draw a new diagram
someone can take a new photograph
we can find a drawing we could use
1. which is properly licensed or in the public domain
2. asking copyright holder to license it
we can find a photograph we could use
1. which is properly licensed or in the public domain
2. asking copyright holder to license it

Which image should we use to show the location of the clitoris?

Aren't the headings rather POV? Marnanel 14:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the opinions from section headers (both sides [1] [2]) to points in Pros and Cons sections. Rafał Pocztarski 14:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rrjanbiah, please stop removing opinions of other people from pros and cons. You have removed “pornographic” from photo cons and even “encyclopedic” from drawing pros as not clearly defined, and yet there are “accurate, scientific and encylopedic image” and “meant for researchers who want to know more about clitoris” in photo pros, which are just as subjective as those which you have removed. All of those are opinions and as such are subjective. Some of us will not agree with all of them, and that is the very reason we have this poll. I will restore the removed opinions of Cantus once again, this time adding proper attribution. Instead of removing arguments of other people please refute them. Otherwise there is no point of having a discussion page. I am not asking you to define ”childish cartoon” and I have moved this opinion of yours from the section title to the point in drawing cons, so please don’t demand from others to define “encyclopedic” especially when you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Clitoris&diff=5586545&oldid=5585156

have entitled] the photo section as “This accurate, scientific and encylopedic image” yourself. Rafał Pocztarski 14:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have restored the removed opinions adding proper attribution. Please sign any new opinions and please do not remove opinions of others. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 15:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This photo

File:ClitorisNewLoc2.jpg

Rrjanbiah 11:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Marnanel 14:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
but in black and white [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 17:28, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Colour, as is - David Gerard 19:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The best photo -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:20, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
I appreciate people's squeamishness but the future orgasms of woman kind are in the balance here. Let's usher in a new era of female pleasure (that way us men won't get nagged so much), and cut down on clumsy fumbling... Seriously, it's a very clear picture, there is a certain class to it (the one below looks scary in comparison)--[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 23:49, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
chocolateboy 01:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Very illustrative. --Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 01:55, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Simply more accurate and informative than a drawing, certainly not pornographic. —siro χ o 05:54, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
If a woman spreading her vagina is not pornographic, I don't know what is. --Cantus 06:05, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

It's not pornographic in this context, it's a medical picture showing a body part. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:14, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
I guess, one should spread her vagina to show clitoris. --Rrjanbiah 11:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it possible that you might consider any photograph of clitoris acceptable but you are only against using those particular ones? Also, could you please answer if you are the author of the diagram you have uploaded? Please add the copyright notice and a license. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 06:58, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If that particular configuration, that pose were being used to illustrate nudity I'd agree - Cantus - that the spreading were inappropriate. However, this is about the clitoris. As such, the spreading is a necessary evil. We wouldn't see it without the spreading. I mean, I suppose we could try and find a picture of the spreading being done by a pair of metal clasps or something... but frankly I think we'd be exciting a whole new, and rather disturbed crowd. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 11:02, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see what the big fuss about this picture is. It illustrates the subject better than any of the other pictures, and it's not really pornographic. Unless, of course, you consider the human body inherently pornographic. I say use this one. Kairos 23:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The issue is not really the subject matter but the fact that the image is almost certainly a pornogrpahic one, and therefore copyright. There don't seem to be any better alternatives - so this poll seems rather biased. ed g2s • talk 23:24, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Please keep in mind that the scary picture below and the classy one above are actually one and the same photo and the latter is made from the former by flipping it horizontally and repainting the fingernails—compare it to this one. I say it in case it is not obvious and someone would prefer having a single, clear picture without the magnification which doesn't actually show any more details. Rafał Pocztarski 01:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Yes, I was aware of that. The colour balance has changed too, which I think is good - it's clearer. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 11:04, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I also think that the version retouched by Mbecker looks better, however it seems secondary to its legal status (same for every photograph on this page). I hope JohnQ or Marymary will answer and clarify this issue. Incidentally, we have the same problem with the drawing by Cantus except that, unlike the photo, no one has ever said that drawing is properly licensed or in the public domain. I hope Cantus will finally answer my questions and clarify this issue as well. He was the one who has added {{imagevio}} to Image:ClitorisNewLoc2.jpg so I suppose he is concerned with the legal status of images on Wikipedia, but I'd rather be sure and have a copyright notice and license statement added to Image:Vagina Clitoris.jpg. Rafał Pocztarski 05:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I really cannot understand how people find the current picture clearer than the original. The current version is clearly inferior when it comes to clarity because of the additional JPEG compression that has been done. An old version that has disappeared from the english version, but is used on the german wikipedia is better. With current version we have a "zoom" that doesn't really zoom, a white background that should be transparent (I think), a "JPEG fuzzed detail" view and if you look a little closer you can even see the black ring that has been obfuscated. The version in use on the german wikipedia, solves all of those points except for still being "JPEG fuzzy". A clear closeup as an illustration or photo, as suggested, would of course also be very helpful. --Dittaeva 22:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You’re right. I finally compared them side by side and this photo has indeed much lower quality than the German version. The JPEG compression artifacts are much more visible and the entire image seems out of focus, while the clitoris itself has been tempered with while removing the black circle, which is also visible. Previosly I thought that it was made using a picture without the circle but it turns out that the clitoris was redrawn where the circle used to be. Still, even the German version is a little bit out of focus when compared to the original. The only real difference is lower contrast and cropping the image but it can be done without such losses in quality by saving as PNG or with using lower JPEG compression. The thumbnails on this page are misleading, because larger images are scaled down more than the smaller ones, so one has to compare tham at 1:1 scale to see the real difference in quality. Still, there is the issue of legal status of all of the images discussed here which means that we’ll probably have to get something new anyway. Rafał Pocztarski 04:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pros

accurate, scientific and encylopedic image, meant for researchers who want to know more about clitoris —Rrjanbiah
yes, I'm sure many researchers will find the wikipedia's image to be especially informative (bullshit)

Cons

inadequate pornographic image lifted from the web —Cantus
Unsupported statement - give source to back your assertion that it's "lifted from the web" - David Gerard 19:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(discussion moved to Legal status section below)
shows clitoris as it is (it a con?) —Rrjanbiah
~~In French, maybe~~ No, that's not a point against given it's an illustration for the article - David Gerard 16:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree that Picture is pornographic!!--198 23:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I want to see the crura clitoridis, the intricate vascular meshwork, the trabeculae carnae - in all, 98% of this organ. Does the article on ear show only the earring ? I can see nailpolish, a somewhat forced introitus, and almost nothing else. This is symptomatic of the superficiality of our collaborative editing, I'm afraid. - irismeister 23:59, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Legal status

public domain? copyright infringement? unverified?

IIRC the person who uploaded this image was not trustworthy. AFAIK he has never said who the photographer actually was only that he knew the woman. I personally believe that ther is a very good chance that this picture is a copyvio (if I'm wrong about this I apologise) Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If that is the case then we have no image we can legally use but there are other things we can do besides using one of the two images we have now (the photo uploaded by Guanaco and the diagram by Cantus). Rafał Pocztarski 07:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who is exactly not trustworthy in your opinion? Image:ClitorisNewLoc2.jpg was uploaded by Guanaco and changed from {{imagevio}} by Cantus to {{PD}} by Guanaco, referring to JohnQ and Marymary, as a version edited by User:Mbecker using Image:Clitoris.jpg uploaded by Tanin. Most of the links to previous versions of Image:Clitoris.jpg are Forbidden or Not found, but looking at the history it seems that Dittaeva has added {{PD}} to Image:Clitoris.jpg referring to de:Bild:20030520015715!Clitoris.jpg on the German Wikipedia, which in turn was uploaded by Kurt Jansson as public domain referring to Image:Clitoris.jpg on the English Wikipedia—“Bild der Klitoris (public domain, aus der englischen Wikipedia).” Please correct me if I had made any mistake, but there seems to be a circular dependency between the public domain status of EN and DE versions of clitoris images. There is also Image:ClitorisNewLoc.jpg uploaded by MyRedDice. Rafał Pocztarski 08:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I should have made myself clearer. The original photo was uploaded by JohnQ. I am not happy with his explanation (or lack of it). The discussion here makes me suspect that the image is in fact a copyvio. If it were not for this suspicion I would vote for a colour photo rather than a diagram. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 11:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. So in other words, there are three statements indirectly suggesting the public domain status of this image, according to User:JohnQ:

“There is no copyright on this image.” (context)
“Nope. But I know who took it. Let put it another way then!” (answer to: Did you take the photograph yourself?) (context)
“Source : Personnal. Status : Free.” (context)

The last one was posted by User:Marymary and later signed with “JohnQ” by 80.11.238.49. User:JohnQ has no user page, User:Marymary contains only “Hi, this user is gonna be deleted very soon....” See also: User talk:JohnQ, User talk:Marymary. This starts to look rather problematic, owever the problem will be solved as soon as the author of this image either writes a proper copyright notice and a license statement on Image:ClitorisNewLoc2.jpg or formally dedicates [3] it to the public domain, or possibly refers to another source with the same information, even if only giving a URL. It would be effortless for the author and would finally end the legal dispute, so we could focus on the content of the image. I will ask User:JohnQ and User:Marymary on their talk pages. Rafał Pocztarski 04:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The original image, as supporters of the new photo have commented, does look like porn. And it does look like the vulva rather than the clitoris is the emphasis. The dubious source of this picture alone should condemn it. I think we should look at this as an opportunity to find a more clitoral picture anyway. CHL 04:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

-or-

Original photo

File:ClitorisNewLoc2-original.jpg

This is the original photo which the above photo was made from.

Pros

...

Cons

Too much detail compared to the version above. Marnanel 19:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Does look like a porn shot, unlike the above photo - David Gerard 19:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Does not display pink nailpolish - a must for Wikipedia, as per NPOV policies - irismeister 23:55, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Legal status

same as above

-or-

This drawing

File:Vagina Clitoris.jpg

Cantus 07:47, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Pros

adept and respectful encyclopedic diagram —Cantus
doesn't show clitoris, but shows clitoris —Rrjanbiah
I agree with Cantus here--198 00:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
obviously there is no "consensus" to include the porn image

Cons

childish cartoon —Rrjanbiah
greatly inferior to an actual photo, being substituted out of squeamishness - David Gerard 19:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
See above -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:21, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
This well done drawing seems to suffer one shortcoming — it's not clear that the anatomy has been displaced from its resting position. -- ke4roh 23:47, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Silly.--Eloquence * 19:15, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
172 22:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Has a Nineteenth Century air about it. It could be Victorian - Lumos3 19:42, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I can't tell at a glance what it is. For some reason pubic hair is missing. lysdexia 07:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Legal status

Unknown, uploaded on August 30 by Cantus.

Have you drawn it yourself? Please add a copyright notice and a license please. Also, if you still have the original, please upload it as PNG instead of JPEG. Please see: Wikipedia:Uploading images. Rafał Pocztarski 15:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

-or-