Talk:Clitoris/Image discussion

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.

Here's a question from a newbie -- how can we include this picture (click here), 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 shows that JohnQ uploaded a version of the penis picture in place of the Wikipedia logo. See also this diff -- 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: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]]

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 User: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)

It bugs me that we do not show the picture of the clitoris in context but only link to it. Thereby we imply that sexual matters are not normal, whereas other matters are -- and contribute to the sex-shame association in western society. That's a POV decision. It would be NPOV to treat the clitoris photo like every other photo. Unless there are objections, I will include a thumbnail version in the article. --Eloquence 06:59 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it's really unacceptably POV to recognize that some (read: many) readers would find it offensive or at least distasteful. I personally would rather not see an explicit anus photo on anus (or on goatse.cx for that matter), or an explicit photo on bukkake. A textbook-type drawn diagram would be fine by me to embed though, and linking the explicit photo is okay too. --Delirium 07:05 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The goatse.cx/anus analogy is flawed -- most people associate the anus with excretion, and there is natural aversion to excretion because the lack of such aversion could contribute to the spread of disease (evolutionary disadvantage). Still, an aesthetic picture of the anus could be done. The goatse.cx image shows an unnaturally stretched anus, with the intestine clearly visible, which is the main reason for its effect on most viewers -- an analogously unnaturally stretched vagina would also be far from aesthetic.

As for bukkake, the problem here is that it would actually get us into trouble with pornography laws -- otherwise I would have no objection to having an image in that article, because it would explain the contents well.

We need certain standards of offensiveness, but basic human anatomy needs to be explained properly and without implicit associations of shame. --Eloquence 07:18 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Eloquence. However, my objection to the photo is that it does not actually show the clitoris at all, so it's not terribly informative! GRAHAMUK 07:06 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It shows the clitoris, just not an easily distinguisable, erect clitoris. If I skwint a little I think I can make it out :). MB 07:25 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hopefully, by exposing the photo, we will eventually get one that exposes the clitoris. --Eloquence

I'm not sure how old this discussion is, but the photo has been removed once again, despite this discussion. MB 07:28 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I just started this discussion, as the dates seem to indicate ;-). The photo is currently only linked to. --Eloquence 07:30 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK, let's get some opinions. This refers to any photo of the clitoris, not necessarily the one we are currently using (whether that should be replaced is a separate matter). Just an informal listing, not a vote:

A photo of the clitoris should be embedded in the article:
Eloquence, Kurt Jansson, fonzy (but not the image uploaded. I would prefer a more medical photo.), MB, Hephaestos, Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick (to me a drawn illustration would actually seem more prurient), goatasaur, AW, RickK (I do think there should be a photo, but the one we had looked like something taken from a p0rn site.), Ryan_Cable

Arguments:

Photos and drawings serve different purposes. Drawings are useful abstractions to explain the functional anatomy; photos are helpful to children and adults alike in order to actually understand and identify the respective body parts as they occur in nature. We definitely need a photo; a drawing would also be nice, but an accurate public domain or FDL drawing would probably be hard to come by. --Eloquence

It strikes me as silly that we can have photos of a corpse embedded in an article, but people get antsy over an anatomical picture of a body part that half the human race possesses. Anyone voluntarily viewing an article entitled "clitoris" should know what to expect. I would prefer a picture and a medical diagram. Lord knows I need all the help I can get. -- goatasaur 18:29 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

User:Goatasaur said most of this already, but I think we should have both a picture and a medical diagram. Anyone who is likely to be offended by either will be offended by the article itself, and we're not in the business of omitting factual information to avoid offending people who didn't have to read the article in the first place. (We're not talking about including a photo of a clitoris in an article where it wouldn't be expected, say on Black and white photography or even Human anatomy. Vicki Rosenzweig 21:44 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Only a drawing of the clitoris should be embedded in the article, a photo could be linked to:
Delirium, Evercat, The Anome, Wapcaplet, sannse, CGS, User:Anthere, Dante Alighieri

A photo could be linked to? A photo should be linked to. That's the important thing - this article should have a photo available. From an encyclopedic point of view, it doesn't really matter whether it's embedded in the article, available on a seperate link, or in a pullout poster. Linking to the image is a great compromise, and I support it for that reason.Martin 00:31 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Arguments:

I think a drawing is more informative and encyclopedic, and as an added bonus less likely to offend. Delirium
- I couldn't care less if someone is offended by the photo, but I think that drawings are, on the balance, liable to be more useful for anatomical illustration. See Kosebamse's comment and links below. --Dante Alighieri 20:57 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
In an ideal world we could have a photo embedded, but in this world I think forcing people to click the link is a better choice. Evercat
A drawing is much more tasteful and can be clearer than a photo, if done right. See Breast, for example. Wapcaplet

Yeah, I got that breast drawing from the fda, it is great, unfortunately, they don't have any drawing of the vulva area. I was a little disappointed. Also note, that there are photo's on the Breast reconstruction page, and I think that they are worth much more than a drawing. And IMHO, those photos are more offensive than that of a vagaina. MB 18:26 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A photo is too personal - it's not a photo of a clit, it's a photo of someone's clit. So I would prefer a drawing. A photo would be ok to link to, if we could get a less erotic picture (the hue of the image, her pose, her fingernails, make it more than instructional). CGS 22:32 9 Jul 2003 (UTC).

You obviously haven't looked at the photo recently. The color is more realistic. the fingernails aren't painted. And, if she were at a gyn, her pose would be the same (except it would be other peoples fingers maybe). Would it be more acceptable if someone else was holding her vulva open? Maybe if she was a fat old hag, would that make it more instructional ;). MB 22:47 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It still looks porny somehow. If she was at the gyn, she would be lying flat on her back. CGS 22:54 9 Jul 2003 (UTC).

Exams at the gyn are not done lying flat on the back. User:anthere

Both should be provided, as they hold different information. However, given the number of people feeling offended by the sight of a real clitoris, it would be better to use a media link with a warning. Even if that picture does not suit you (I have no problem with it myself), I won't help personally for a nicer and not cp version. User:Anthere

Whether the photo is embedded or not doesn't particularly concern me, to be honest. What I do have a strong opinion on is that a photo is important. Medical drawings of the sexual organs have a nasty habit of not looking anything like the organs in question. As others have said, the photo can assist the reader to find the clitoris in a way that a medical drawing probably wouldn't, and judging by the number of jokes about the subject this is a piece of information the Wikipedia should definitely provide. I don't have any problem with the photo used, but if others think they can obtain a better one go for it. --Robert Merkel 23:08 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Neither a photo nor a drawing should be embedded, but a photo or drawing should be linked to:

Deb (I'm for this option, not because I find a picture distasteful, but thinking of those accessing the article without knowing what to expect)

No picture should be used at all, embedded or as a link:

Don't care, but a photo should exist
User:Robert Merkel

Don't really care if it's drawn or photographed, embedded or linked, but it must be tasteful, not just retouched porn
Tannin

On what form a drawing should take:

The whole point of the current picture seems to be to locate the clitoris. This is hardly the most useful type of picture. I'd prefer to see a medical diagram that shows things like its internal structure and how it connects to other parts of the body. Compare for example the breast picture. Evercat 18:23 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Under certain circumstances, it is quite useful to be able to locate the clitoris ;-). One does not preclude the other - we should have an informative drawing and a clear picture, --Eloquence

What I find interesting is that the people against the photo argue that other people could be offended -- not them, but this mysterious group of other persons. Is there anyone who is personally offended by a picture of a clitoris in an article about the clitoris? --Eloquence 18:40 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't say offended, but I am somewhat discomforted by seeing explicit images unexpectedly - I would prefer to be warned by the link. I have no objection to such images when I am expecting them - quite the opposite in the right situation ;) -- sannse 21:28 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I too would prefer not to see these sorts of things, though I'm not sure "offended" is the right term. It's simply something I'd rather not see unless I explicitly clicked on a link to see it. When I'm reading through factual information it's jarring to see images like that. It'd also make it a bit difficult to read wikipedia at, say, a library. --Delirium 00:46 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

When I was small, and naive, I had trouble understanding the drawings they gave us in sex ed, they just didn't seem to fit onto the female body as it's normally seen from a small boy (it's the up-skirt angle that does it). A drawing would have to be relateable, from further back perhaps (so the vulva doesn't look like a piece of fruit hanging in the air). CGS 22:32 9 Jul 2003 (UTC).

As far as I am concerned, drawings should if all possible be avoided with photographs getting priority. I have rarely seen an accurate drawing of anything. They always reflect the POV vision of the artist, usually reflecting either the desire to draw attention to something by making it more prominent than reality, or a product of a desire to self-censorship. If I ever come across two books, one with drawn illustrations, one with pictures I will always buy the latter. I cannot see what the problem is with a picture of a clitoris. We are writing an encyclopædia, right, not a kiddie's book? I agree totally with Eloquence and Goatasaur above. Sure, some kids might get a 'thrill' out of the image, but newspapers carry page three images of naked women, and they are seen by kids. Kids are surrounded by highly sexed images on MTV, by teenage magazines, etc. All we are doing here is simply showing a factual image on a part of the body. I'd far prefer children learned about a clitoris here in a clinical and factual manner than rely of sexed up exploitative imagery on MTV and teen magazines. I find the whole ungoing (boy is it ungoing!) row here ill thought-out and misguided.

I've been off line for some minutes. I rang a friend who is a parent of two teenage kids, a boy and girl. She is also quite conservative. In her words "tell them not to worry. I would much rather Aoife and David learned about sexual matters factually from their website than from music videos and magazines." She doesn't understand why there is a problem with the image, as it is perfectly factual, accurate and non-exploitative. I agree totally with her. If we (correctly) show a picture of a dead Rachel Corrie, what is the problem with a simple factual image that isn't remotely porny or exploitative, merely 100% factual? It sounds like a victorian-style censorship of images of a 'lady'. FearÉIREANN 23:25 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I tend to disagree that drawings are worse than photos. Photography has been around for more than a century, but medical and biological textbooks/atlases still rely heavily on drawings. Why? Because a drawing can represent the typical features of a structure, the platonic ideal so to speak, be it of a clitoris, a leaf, or a piece of plankton. Photos on the other hand are and often easier to grasp, but may not be sufficient for the more professionally interested. IMO an encyclopedia should have both, photos for quick and easy understanding and drawings for in-depth detail and structure. It is true that drawings represent a POV, but in anatomy, that is usually the POV of a professional trained to make his work as objective and informative as possible. Look at the drawings of Frank Netter, grandmaster of medical illustration, (examples at http://www.graphicwitness.com/netter/gallery/index.html ), or those of Craig Luce (http://www.medical-illustration.com/MedHandPainted.htm ), and you'll know what I mean. Kosebamse 09:26 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Slightly OT, but why don't we have an image of the penis? --Robert Merkel 23:16 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, if you go take a picture of a penis, and upload it, I would have nothing against it being embedded in an article. MB 23:20 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I can't see why not. The only practical problem is that there is no one standard penis; some are small, some long, some think, some thin, etc. Also, whereas most Americans have their penises circumcised, most people outside the US don't, so you could have a whole circumcised/uncircumcised debate!!! FearÉIREANN 23:25 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

HELLO! Clitoris' are the same way. MB 23:32 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Though Vaginas are quite rarely removed, clitoris are. So we also need the pict of a unlucky african girl ?

That would be useful for clitoridectomy, just like a picture of a circumcised penis would be useful for circumcision (and a picture of a circumcised clitoris for clitoridotomy). --Eloquence

We did have a picture of a penis. Sadly, those who feel a duty to guard Wikipedia against the vandal hordes deleted it after the person who uploaded it (JohnQ) inserted it into articles besides the one at penis. Write your own gag here.

I find it somewhat disturbing that when Mbecker and Eloquence argue that this article should contain a picture of a clitoris, we are able to have a mature and sensible debate. When a newcomer makes the exact same arguments he is treated with rather less courtesy. Wikipedia:You're not welcome, newcomers? Martin

I agree totally. Are you offering a replacement picture, Martin? :-) FearÉIREANN 00:43 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I already have a hand on the 'pedia - that's enough for now :)

(to Martin) Strange that you, too, support a link as a "compromise" even though there are only two people who have expressly stated that they, personally, would be somewhat shocked/distracted (not even offended!) by a photo. Could it be that the so-called moral majority is no majority at all, but has merely successfully instilled that belief? --Eloquence 01:10 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The moral majority has been cowed into hiding their true feelings and beliefs. 99% of those who want a compromise because "others" might be offended, are also speaking on their own behalf. They don't come out in the open because they are scared of being labelled as bigots, old-fashioned, oppressive, and irrelevant. Well, I am not a coward. Make me a third person against a picture of the clitoris. A medical diagram of the various parts and their relation to each other would be fine with me, but a picture of a clitoris isn't appropriate here. My friend Henry Makow would have a thing or two to say on this topic! --Moshe Nackmen 01:33 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"The moral majority is neither moral, nor in the majority." -Anonymous

"The religious right is neither religious, nor right." -Anonymous

It's been my experience that it is the occassion that people label those who "come out" with their "beliefs" (although troublingly few seem to realize that they are beliefs and not facts) are labeled as bigots, old-fashioned, oppressive, and irrelevant because there have been, historically and contemporarily, far too many people with those same beliefs who have been bigots, old-fashioned, oppressive, and irrelevant. Hey, if the shoe fits... --Dante Alighieri 21:21 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

99% of those who want a compromise because "others" might be offended, are also speaking on their own behalf. And you know that how? --Eloquence

You're talking to a retired shrink, son. --Moshe Nackmen 01:41 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's a great compromise because it gives us the best of both worlds - we get a good encyclopedic article on an important subject, and we don't cause offense, or shock, or distract. Everybody wins.

I don't buy it. There's no reason to appease every minority. What we lose I have already explained above. --Eloquence

There are more than two people who've expressed distaste, incidentally - see Talk:Clitoris/Image discussion for some of them. Martin 01:49 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The original photo has been substantially edited to make it more appealing. This is what I call a compromise. --Eloquence

I prefer the anatomical diagram first proposed on Talk:Clitoris/Image discussion. It was very informative. Using it I would have no problem finding my wifes clitoris. No photo can make it as clear as this diagram. --Moshe Nackmen 02:21 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

While that diagram is certainly informative, it still doesn't replace a photo. You've never going to see a female genital that looks like that (unless you decide to disect one) so it isn't informative in the way a photo is. MB 06:23 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Both are necessary. 172

My personally preferred solution would be: have the diagram embedded (top/right of the article), with a caption below it that says something along the lines of "click here for an explicit photograph" (similar placement to the "click for larger version" that some pictures have below them). I don't think we need a giant "WARNING YOU MAY BE OFFENDED" disclaimer, but a simple descriptive link would suffice. I do think it should be more prominently placed that currently, hence the suggestion to put it under the diagram rather than at the bottom, where it is now. --Delirium 07:19 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How about this compromise? The image of George W. Bush offends me; so remove that if the image of the clitoris (which has never offended me) is not posted. If George W. Bush remains, post the image at question.

The point of this sarcastic comment is to point out that the picture is appropriate if it is of a clinical and factual manner in this context, regardless of whether or not someone finds it upsetting. Some might find other images upsetting too, especially those of a political nature, but we don’t refrain from posting images of, for instance, Hitler, Himler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and others of that ilk.

To disagree with Jtdirl, who is right more often than anyone probably, the diagram should be included along with the photo.

172

Any photo of George Bush used on this site would have to be recognisably a photo of him -- a photo of his back, for example, wouldn't do, and I'm sure everyone involved in this discussion would oppose it.

However, when someone made the point, way up above, that clitorises, like vaginas and penises, vary enormously in appearance, everyone seemed to ignore it as an argument against a photo of a clitoris. Deb 20:49 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think it's an argument for adding more than one photo to the article. So the reader can see the great variations that exist. --Kurt Jansson 21:12 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well if they're going to link to a picture of a clitoris, it ought to be one thats large and easy to see. You can barely see that one. A good half-incher - that's all I've got to say. -豎&#30505sv

We have a photo at child and another at flower, both things that vary considerably in appearance. A photo will give some idea of the general appearance of a clitoris. -- sannse 21:18 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a new compromise. What about having the photo low down on the page, below what would be visible on first opening the article. Then having a sentence at the top: "this article contains images of clitorises" (please note, I'm not suggesting "WARNING! This article contains clitorises! Proceed at your own risk! etc. etc.", just a small note). That way a random surfer won't be confronted with an unexpected explicit image -- sannse 21:22 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What if I want to read the whole text without seeing the picture? Besides, I think everyone agrees such warnings are iritating. Better to just link (with an adequate description). Evercat 21:27 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

~~Later tonight (when I get home)~~ I am going to edit Clitoris to make it a "compromise." Hopefully this will move things along. MB 21:42 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Here's a new suggestion for a compromise. An embedded diagram. An embedded image that shows just the clitoris much magnified (with a good makro), but not the surrounding vulva proper. And lastly a third photograph linked, which would contain a neutral non-pornographic photograph of the clitoris in its natural surroundings, so that folks who wanted to could get a realistic idea of where it is in relation to what. I don't think a photo which showed only the clitoris could possibly be shocking or titillating to anyone. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 22:09 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, we will need a high-res photo of the female genitals for this solution to work. The current photo wouldn't work (as you can see, my "zoom" is pretty lame). So would anyone like to contribute thier (or someone else's whom permission they have) vulva? MB 22:46 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK, sorry, pet-peeve time. Please stop using the word vagina when you mean the word vulva... and MB isn't the only one "guilty" of this "crime". :) --Dante Alighieri 01:29 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. MB 05:19 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just making a note here -- that not a single Female bothered themselves with this silly little discussion. :) -S

Actually User:Deb is female, and I suspect at least 1 or 2 others are. MB 17:19 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

At least four women have taken part, and I count seven other people who have used neutral names and have not (as far as I've seen) specified their gender -- sannse 18:36 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

yes; I asked for a picture for the clitoridectomy article, and mentionned an important fact some apparently are not aware : Exams at the gyn are not always done lying flat on the back. Anthère

Wow, with all of these female contributors, you think one of them would be able to contribute a photo! MB 20:27 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

amazing that it took such as long time to ask. French people were not so timorous :-) Well, I also said above I won't help personally for a nicer and not cp version :-) Anthère

Actually, I asked a few posts ago, I guess you didn't see it. MB 21:39 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to say "only if you do the same for penis". But I'm too afraid you'll take me up on it ;) My privates stay private I'm afraid. -- sannse 21:38 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wow, it's been 2 years since the last comment. Here goes:

The point is that the picture should be informative. It should not be a requirement of the image that it succeeds in sexually stimulating the viewer.

If someone gets sexually stimulated by looking at a bland, non-porno-style picture, that's their look out. But we all know that subtle elements in images can make a person (or even a body part) enticing or sexy.

Wikipedia is not supposed to suppress sex, or to promote it. All it should promote is knowledge. The criteria for a picture should be:

does it display all the parts clearly?
does it help the reader / viewer understand the anatomy of the organ(s) involved?

We should not be trying to find the sexiest, most stimulating / enticing picture possible for the general article on the clitoris. (see clitoris).

Now, the cunnilingus article is different. That is an act which involves deliberate stimulation. If we choose to depict that, it's going to be hard to avoid interesting the viewer. Even then, we should be circumspect, and consider the feelings of librarians, etc. A separate image gallery could be one click away, without doing any harm to the integrity of the article. Uncle Ed 16:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)