Talk:Clitoris/Image discussion

Here's a question from a newbie -- how can we include this picture (click here) (http://www.the-clitoris.com/jpg/anatomy/anatom3.jpg), since definitely, a picture is worth about 3000 words when it comes to the largely unknown clitoral anatomy.. -- Gjalexei

I would be more concerned about the copyrights to the picture than to any offense to prudery. Eclecticology, Thursday, July 11, 2002

---

The newly uploaded picture is indeed informative, but perhaps slightly, erm, un-encyclopedic in style. (Most other encyclopedias would prefer something rather like an anatomical textbook illustration). Any opinions, please? Kosebamse 21:24 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

discussion is on Image talk:Clitoris.jpg -- Tarquin 21:26 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

I think that a draw is really not so informative. Moreover, in books of medicine you can find pictures of everything (whatever it seems gross or not, and don't think this is the issue). I think we are not used to see this kind of picture, because it was culturally admitted that showing this was an offense. But, it's nothing more that the most natural thing. The is no censure for the word Fuck in this encyclopedia, as it reflects just the reality, I think it should be the same here. JohnQ[?]

OK, we seem to have a solution: a clickable link to the image, with a warning telling people exactly what they will see if they click the link. Whilst I don't care about the image (although I think it should have been smaller), many people might be offended, and they can be accommodated in this way without self-censorship on our part. I agree, the nice nail-varnish definitely adds a certain something to this image. The Anome 22:08 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

I wonder about the case in pornography. While an illustration can be good enough for this article, can we really tell people what is a pornography without what does it look. -- Taku 22:10 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

You're talking about in the pornography article, right? Or other appearances of might-be-pornography throught the 'pedia? -- John Owens 22:13 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

No, I think words will do just fine for that. We should be a serious encyclopedia first and foremost. That means we should deal with subjects such as pornography and genital anatomy, but not in a titillating way. I think the presence of this image with the warning text is the right balance for this article: no such image is needed to describe pornography. The Anome 22:16 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Actually I have started to wonder more general policy for pornography related to topics. For example, if we started to cover some famous porn sites, we probably need to offer a link in external link section. Besides, if those kind of article started to be organized very well, wikipedia can be a good directory for porn sites. It is unfortunately legally quite risky. For example, while there are many objections, some local governments in Japan have a policy that even linking to porn site is illegal. -- Taku 22:30 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Well it is a good thing that the server isn't in Japan then. :) Seriously though, we've gone over this already on the talk archive of Aria Giovanni (an article on a porn star with a weblink to her web page - which has frontal nudity on it). But if the laws of the nation you are in say that it is illegal to place such a link on a page then you should not place a such a link on any page. However, since I'm in the US it is legal for me to place such a link on a page (whether or not it is relevant to the article or appropriate for Wikipedia are different matters). So there are two sides to the issue here; what is legal for a Wikipedia user to do and what is legal for the Wikipedia server to contain. --mav

A note for anon. I fully suport having a suitable illustration available. However, an image of a porn star spreading, is not suitable. Personally, I am not in the slightest offended by it. But it's not something that ought to be directly linked to by the Wiklipedia, certainly not without discussion in advance and a consensus decision on the matter. Tannin 08:20 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the image in question is sufficiently informative, obscuring as it does the subject anatomy. I would agree that any photographic image ought be externally linked, but would prefer an archival site. Personal or pornographic sites come and go and are likely to produce a broken link in the future. BobCMU76 08:28 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I think that any relevant picture has its place, no matter if it's offensive for some cultures. A picture of a foot wouldn't be considered as offensive as it's a US web site. But for come other people, a picutre of a foot is clearly offensive. I believe that freedom should prevail Wiki -- (Tanin with 1 "N")[?]

It is not just a matter of "freedom" but a matter of appropriateness and professional presentation. A diagram would be far more appropriate and professional (I've already drawn one but I'm having technical difficulties on transferring that to a digital format so that I can annotate and upload to file). --mav

Why a diagram would be far more professional? If you want to show to someone what a cow is, you show him a picture of it. I can bet that there are far more photographs here to represent any object than diagrams. So, why be hyporcritical and just show things as they are... A. (Tanin with 1 "N")[?]

Because that is how textbooks and other encyclopedias do things - it is the norm of the industry. It also in non-controversial and thus will not cause a great deal of wasted edits on talk pages discussing the image. This will be the last edit I waste on this subject. --mav

All please note the distinction between the Tanin[?] with 1 "N" - a newly created account which is famous only for posting links to a porn snap - and the Tannin you have all come to know and love. Err ... well .. come to know, anyway. :) Tannin 09:04 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Already spotted :) And I doubt Jimbo would approve of such a close username, possibly chosen to cause confusion. It's going to be a diagram. Just drop it. -- Tarquin 09:06 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

If you want to have an encyclopedia as the other one, don't bother wasting time here, sure! Juste go for the Britannica, this will be better. But apparently, this encyclopedia has something different as it could really reflect all realities. We can find the "Fuck" page or about any other subject considered as taboo. And that's normal. That's exactly the same here. As I told Tannin before : "Do you think really that I have any interest in porn? Absolutly not. As you say, if I would like to find porn, I could just go to one of thousand of porn sites. I think this is relevant. Tell me, if you see a picture of a cow on the cow page, would you remove it? No, no. Even if the cow is not beautiful. So, it's exactly the same. Sorry to disappoint you, but it's not a provocative action, I do think it has its place here. Give me an acceptable and RATIONAL reason to remove it. " - A.

Sooo, apparently, the encyclopedia is just operated by sysop, no true speech then. Your behavior is defintely not rational.

Everyone seems to agree except one contributor. Page protected. For the record, I think a picture could be acceptable, but it would need to be tastefully done -- Tarquin 09:16 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Protected. That's the way of dictatorship. No even one single rationnal argument was put forward. Except "it's not tasteful". Really, do you think this is thoughtful? A.

"the encyclopedia is just operated by sysop, no true speech then" -- no other encyclopedia lets people edit in the first place! If anything, a diagram will be much clearer. The girl in your photo has a tiny clitoris which is pretty much invisible. -- Tarquin 09:22 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

It's possible to add a diagram AND a picture. I think this case is a pretty common case. 100 years ago, it was totally impossible to use the word Fuck in an encylopedia, because it was against the culture (doesn't mean it's justified). It has evolved and today, we understand that it is not really important to censor such words. That's not essential. Obviously, even clever people use them. What is important, is to have a NPOV, and something that is morally justified. I mean, not going against the concept of general happiness. For instance, if you would have a page about Nazi, defending this idea, this would be definitely bad, as it goes against the general interest of people. Regarding our issue, it's not the case I guess. Really, think about it thoroughly. From a NPOV a cow and a clitoris should have a page alike. Even for the picture. A.

You don't understand NPOV. You're repeating yourself. I'm out. DNFTT. -- Tarquin 09:25 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

You're not arguing. A.

---

I strongly disagree that a "diagram will be much clearer". People need to see genitalia the way they look like in reality, a diagram is always an abstraction. However, I agree that the uploaded image is not very tasteful, primarily because of the nail polish and the porn-like lighting -- these are connotations we want to avoid in an encyclopedia. It is also not particularly helpful in identifying the clitoris itself. What would be most helpful is a collection of clitoris photos, I faintly remember a feminist photo project that collected plenty of those. This allows the viewer to see the clitoris in different shapes, sizes and states of erection.

However, leaving the image in the article might motivate other contributors to find a better one. I am not quite happy with John Q.'s copyright declaration, though, simply because I don't trust him. His answers were evasive and he is not a long-time contributor. --Eloquence 15:07 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Really? I'm sure that the woman will reconigze herself... lol. Crop it even further if you are soooo afraid. Copyright was not such an issue for other articles. I have post many other articles with pictures and nobody even bothered about the copyright. Or is it something else? A.

If you consider this an issue like any other, then why don't you tell us the the photographer's identity and email address, so we can inquire about when the photo was made, and what its copyright status is? It is not the woman who holds the copyright, it is the photographer. Furthermore, it is incorrect that copyright is not an issue for other photos -- the copyright question will be raised for any photo that gets a certain amount of attention. --Eloquence 15:59 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I have restored the version without the link to the porn photo, and, seeing as the Manynames Vandal still hasn't got the point, protected the page until he settles down and works through this controversial matter in a civilised manner. This does not include vandalisim of multiple pages, throwing insults around the place, and creating multiple identities.

This is a sensitive matter, and needs to be approached in a calm and sensible way, with an awareness that many people will find explicit images offensive, and that there needs to be discussion and a consenus before a major change is made.

Personally, I have no objection whatever to explicit imagery: it's not something that offends me. However, this is not about my personal taste (or indeed any other individual's personal taste), it is about respect for other people and upholding a community standard until such time as there is a clear consensus that the standard should be changed. Tannin 16:28 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Tannin, protecting a page in an edit war in which you yourself are involved is not acceptable.

You are mistaken. See below. Tannin

See Wikipedia:Protected page. I have unprotected the page for the time being. If you think our anonymous friend has committed enough violations of our policies to be banned, then ban him. I don't think so, however. The only major problem I see is the copyright status of the image. --Eloquence 16:58 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Quite right, Eloquence. Or at least it would be right if I had been involved in the page, which I have not. I (and other users) reverted to protect it the first few times, then Tarquin protected it. There was vandalisim by this user all over the place, he was sticking explicit penis pictures in random pages and I don't just mean links to them - Bryon banned him but he got around it with new IDs. Later, it seemed to have died down, so I unprotected the page. Soon, I realised that this had been a mistake, for our vandal friend went right back and stuck the porn link in again. In a moment, I'll check to see that he is not around and the page is still in its pre-vandal state. If need be, I'll reprotect it. Tannin 17:24 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

JohnQ says he is not the same person. Do we have any diffs that show that he is? --Eloquence

He already admitted it on a talk page somewhere. Not that there was any need, it stuck out like ... er ... like the things that stick out, dogs have 'em. (BTW, like you, I would be in favour of a modest relaxation of our rather stuffy policy re images, but only provided it came about as the result of a consensus, rather than as the byproduct of unilaterial vandalisim.) Tannin 17:34 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Image:Wiki.png (/wiki/Image:wiki.png) shows that JohnQ uploaded a version of the penis picture in place of the Wikipedia logo. See also this diff (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Amphibology&diff=905789&oldid=905788) -- sannse 17:47 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Well, the last time I tried to talk to you, you told me "I'm out". Apparently this is not consistent. Moreover, I don't think that we're going to debate and talk so much time each time we add a picture or anything.... JohnQ

JohnQ, you are getting your Tarquins and Tannins mixed up. They are two different people. -- sannse 16:39 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

You're right. All apologies. JohnQ is getting tired ..... JohnQ

Is that apologies for changing the Wikipedia logo to an image of a penis? Or apologies for using multiple user names to insert images of genitalia into various unrelated articles? Or apologies for vandalising Talk and User pages? Or do you consider all of this to actually give weight to your arguments here? -- sannse 17:04 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

El, I protected the page, because as far as I could tell, everyone agreed not to link the image except JohnQ / MaryMary / whatever. The problem is also the suitability of the image. -- Tarquin 17:03 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Ok. The guy now has gone too far. He's just created Clitoris uncensored[?] as a minor edit. that's against our policy. -- Tarquin 17:03 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Too far? Policy? That's a free encyclopedia. Know what you want guys! (some sysop agrees with me) JohnQ

JohnQ, no, Wikipedia is not a place for you to put whatever you want. You are now violating our rules, and you are violating Wiki-Etiquette. If you continue to do so, you will be banned from editing Wikipedia. --Eloquence 17:07 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Sannse. I believe that removing the text I added was vandalism as you didn't respect my legitimate expression. Moreover, sysops refuised to talk about it, which is clearly against the policy I guess. Otherwise, I'm always open to discuss JohnQ

Eloquence, don't worry, I won't bother you further from now on. Actually, I was curious to see if a free encyclopedia could be really free of any cultural prejudice. And it's unfortunately not. Unluckily, it recalls me the censorship of the media in US. I would be happy to have a long talk with you about it, but apparently, it's not possible. And I agree, that's your encyclopedia, I don't want to be too unrespectful. (lost penis images were not mine) JohnQ.

JohnQ, there are certainly cultural prejudices, but those in favor of having explicit content where it is useful will not be very supportive when the copyright status of an image is not clear. I am sure we will have one or several nice free photos of clitorides eventually. --Eloquence 17:15 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

If the copyright is the only issue, I can solve this quite easily I think, if you ask me to do so (I won't bother finding a picture if it's censored next!). JohnQ

If you can resolve the copyright issue (obtain permission from the photographer and tell us his/her identity), I will support linking to the picture, until one which a less pornography-like look can be found. --Eloquence

"free encyclopedia" doesn't mean you (or anyone) has a right of expression. That would make it a blog. This is a PEER-REVIEWED encyclopedia. Your image has beeen reviewed. -- Tarquin 17:25 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I still believe that a childrens wikipedia should be created, (altough read only)so all the articles on sex (except for the a/sexual reproduction, etc) are removed. Any RE:picture, as long as its tasteful, doen in a medical way(like in some medical encylopeadias) then i am ok with it. -fonzy

Well, when I was at school I had the opportunity to watch a video of a woman giving birth in biology class. That was absolutly not "tasteful". But defintely, informative and useful. (showing images of war is not tasteful either, but useful to know what it is, etc etc, I don't think that "tasteful" is a criteria, but agree to find the most esthetic picture (but don't agree to spend 1 year to find the picture)). JohnQ

---

The french page shows a picture. It doesn't seem to be a problem at all... 81.48.186.253[?] 07:34 May 11, 2003 (UTC) [[1] (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris)]

Well that's not quite true now is it, you added it and it got repeatedly removed, you just choose a time to write this when it hasn't been removed. -- Ams80 08:01 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

No no, it as not removed, it was just properly linked, just follow the link "Photo Attention, cette photo peut choquer certaines personnes " on the page and you will see (with a warning text, fair). Currently testing on the german and spanish page ;-) JohnQ

TESTING? Is that what you call it? Jeez, you are a prime chump. How much does your alleged big four employer pay you to be this stupid? -- Tarquin 08:44 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Tarquin, why did you remove the picture from the German article? Is it because of the unclear copyright situation? --Kurt Jansson 09:15 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Yup. If someone is working on a diagram, then it will do for all languages. And let's not give this guy any encouragement. -- Tarquin 09:18 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a photo, but of course we can have both. --Kurt Jansson 09:24 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Seconded. In the current state, french don't seem to mind using a live pict rather than a diagram if it's a media link. Though not necessarily "that" picture. User:anthere

A Picture says more than 1000 words and more than 100 digrams. So if we can get a non-copyrighted, non-pornograhic, but anyway a clear(!) picture, I would opt for that. An additional diagram should show what cannot be shown on a photograph: A side view, showing how the clitoris extends into the body. Ulrich.fuchs 10:31 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Tarquin, you defintely like to have things done your way don't you? Just keep your mind busy with the english version. People in Germany will take their decision and people in France will take their decision too. There is no copyright on this picture. It pays me USD 2500. ;-) Marymary 09:26 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Exactly. French people would prefer a better picture. So this picture remains on the french page until someone has found something better! That's the way it works. Moreover, I think that it's interesting to post on foreign pages, as it allows us to have a more global approach and NPOV. I just post it on the foreign sites, as a suggestion, that has nothing to do with vandalism. Marymary 09:50 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not just sure Marymary is fair ; he is also known as "Tarquinn", "JohnQ" and some IPs he used to put his clito-pict on every wikipedias
Alvaro 12:47 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

---

not that I'm a prude, but I think a drawing would be more tasteful. (the blue nail-polish really adds a certain .... erm....) What's the copyright on this image? -- Tarquin 21:21 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

I think that a draw is really not so informative. Moreover, in books of medicine you can find pictures of everything (bowels, hearts) (whatever it seems gross or not, and don't think this is the issue). I think we are not used to see this kind of picture, because it was culturally admitted that showing this was an offense. But, it's nothing more that the most natural thing. There is no censure for the word Fuck in this encyclopedia, as it reflects just the reality, I think it should be the same here. JohnQ[?]

I'd vote for a drawing, or at least a less porn-like image. I have no problem with porn, personally, but I can just imagine the rage of parents whose children might be using wikipedia as a reference. Sure, it's just reality, but it may be considered in poor taste by some. -- Wapcaplet 21:36 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

After those last few uploads, it's not like you can say you don't have a fondness for uploading images that are sure to spark controversy, apparently for that purpose. How about contributing some real content, like that section about why people hate the RIAA I suggested? -- John Owens 21:37 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

I'm thinking about that (RIAA). Sure. But I have just a thought about that clitoris thing. Really, I think many people don't know really what it is. I don't see any problem with young people seeing that. Half of them know what it looks like (girls). And they don't seem to be more pervert. JohnQ[?]

You might not have a problem with seeing it... I don't have a problem with seeing it, but there are many people who would object to it. By the way, how do you know this image is not copyrighted? Did you take the photograph yourself? -- Wapcaplet 21:44 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Nope. But I know who took it. Let put it another way then! JohnQ[?]

":I'd vote for a drawing, or at least a less porn-like image." -- yup. -- Tarquin 22:06 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

The trouble is such a photo is considered offensive by some people. Maybe they are stupid, wrong but we can't impose our will to them. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia and we don't want to offend people by it. -- Taku 22:08 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the link - see the village pump. I think everybody needs to discuss this and the context warrants censorship until a decision is made. Cgs

Cf policy on foul language if "foul language" or "foul pictures" are useful to make a good article, then I believe we should use them. In this case the picture is not, to my mind, overtly pornographic, though of course a warning is certainly appropriate. Martin

---

• Clitoris : Unable to post a picture. It was generally admitted that a picture would be relevant as for any other articles in this encyclopedia, but with a clear warning text. Talk:Clitoris But Tannin keep reverting the page and Tarquin even blocked it without giving any further explanations and arguments. The uncensored page is at Clitoris_uncensored[?]

If you feel this should not be this way, feel free to leave a message here and to Tannin

it was me that locked the page, and the above is wrong. consensus was that a diagram would be more suitable. -- Tarquin 16:31 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Some people wanted a diagram other a picture. There was even a start regarding a foul image policy at Wikipedia:Profanity.

Yes, and about 7 of them were you, under various aliases after you were banned for vandalising articles. Tannin

Ok, that's a bit easy. I have always used JohnQ to defend the case. RedDices and Eloquence are old members. JohnQ

(above from wikipedia:censorship)

---

I think we should provide a link to the photo as well. I personally find it easier to visualize anatomy with a photo as opposed to a drawing. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't provide a link to both, and let people decide on thier own what they want to look at. If no one has any objections, I will add a link. MB 18:11 14 May 2003 (UTC)

Beat you to it! :) People should note that Mbecker has made a less offensive version of the picture. Martin 21:29 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Having just seen the "offending" photograph, I can't help wondering what the row was about. Unless there is a problem with the copyright, I cannot see why the photograph is causing such a problem. It is clear and factual, nothing more. As for line drawinga, I detest them. Most vere between 'an OK representation' to 'pathetically bad'. A picture is 100 times better than a line drawing IMHO. In addition, most line drawings I have seen via computers do not look well on screen. I'd choose a picture over a line drawing every time. But then, given that nature or nuture has decreed that I have no more interest in that anatomy shown than I have reading Lady Chatterley's Lover in latin, maybe I am missing something. Yes we have to be sensitive to cultures that may take offence at things, but we do show women's faces uncovered even though some people believe that a woman's face should be covered, etc etc we have a duty as an encyclopædia to show encyclopædic content. And showing what the clitoris is, is I believe perfectly encyclopædic. FearÉÍREANN 01:36 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Did you look at the original version (blue nail varnish) or the new version? There isn't a great deal of difference, but the overall impression is now much improved IMO. It no longer has the same feeling of a cropped porn picture. A lot of the discussion was about copyright and I'm not sure that that has really been resolved. My other objection was aesthetic, but I withdraw that - I agree the photo is informative. If we are OK on the copyright front I think the end product is good. -- sannse 07:12 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Don't qoute me on this, but I was told by someone once, that as long as an image is 10% different than the original, you don't have to worry about copyrights. I just uploaded a new version. I believe that it is at least 10% different. Tell me what you think. MB 01:57 20 May 2003 (UTC)

The zoom seems kind of unnecessary, especially since there isn't much actual zoom going on. Also, I don't know about the 10% thing. Sounds like pretty flimsy legal precedent to me. Surely there are *some* non-copyrighted photographs out there that could be used? Or at least find a photo that we could get permission for... I have to say that this image is much better than the original, though. -- Wapcaplet 02:11 20 May 2003 (UTC)