Talk:Clitoris/Archive10

message: Any reasonable person without an agenda should see that illustrations are far more appropriate than actual photographs. I've never seen so much hot air. Haizum 15:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Haizum, your comments about the article or images are welcome. WP:AGF reminds everyone to to respect other users. Saying that other users are unreasonable will not help. regards  --FloNight 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a reasonable person with no agenda, and I can't see why illustrations would be more appropriate than photographs. Both serve different purposes, and both are appropriate for this article. thx1138 09:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At any rate, that vagina pictured is absolutely heinous. Haizum 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean :Image:Sarahvulva.jpg? Hey, I'd hit that. 69.252.190.41 23:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  The "agenda" of all wikipedians is supposedly to make human knowledge available to whoever needs it. Whenever someone needs to get knowledge of an object (be it a body part or not) the very best way to get the knowledge is to perceive the object directly. Since Wikipedia cannot (yet) make a clitoris (or whatever other object) to present itself to the seeker of knowledge, the most accurate substitute is the best one. An accurate photograph is obviously a better than an ilustration, which by it's very nature will convey less real information. Considering ANY healthy  and normal body part "heinous" is quite unhealthy and reflects poor body image (my honest opinion, which nobody asked, I know ;o) ). Elmer Homero 11 October 2006 (Central)
===New picture===
The picture was just changed from Saravulva to something inferior IMO. Why was this change made? Anchoress 02:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the new picture is inferior to Sarahvulva.jpg in resolution and contrast.  But, Sarahvulvah.jpg showed the clitoral hood pulled back.  I thought it might be nice, for this particular wiki entry, to have a picture showing both the clitoris and the clitoral hood. HeWhoE 03:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nijelj, you're reverting the clitoris picture back to sarahvulva.jpg because you claim, "discussion on Talk has recently decided previously to revert such a change."  But the above two statements, one of which was posted by me, hardly constitute a discussion, and no decision was settled.  The new picture has larger labels that are slightly easier to read than sarahvulva.jpg when the picture is in its reduced size, inline in the article.  Once again, I agree that the new picture, in its full resolution, is inferior to the much larger sarahvulva.jpg, HOWEVER, for the purposes of this article, I think the new picture is better suited because it more narrowly focuses on the clitoris and the clitoral hood. I think sarahvulva.jpg is well-suited for the vulva article, but this is the clitoris article.  So, why not focus in on the clitoris?  HeWhoE 10:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: The picture was just changed from Saravulva to something inferior IMO. Why was this change made? Anchoress 02:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the new picture is inferior to Sarahvulva.jpg in resolution and contrast.  But, Sarahvulvah.jpg showed the clitoral hood pulled back.  I thought it might be nice, for this particular wiki entry, to have a picture showing both the clitoris and the clitoral hood. HeWhoE 03:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nijelj, you're reverting the clitoris picture back to sarahvulva.jpg because you claim, "discussion on Talk has recently decided previously to revert such a change."  But the above two statements, one of which was posted by me, hardly constitute a discussion, and no decision was settled.  The new picture has larger labels that are slightly easier to read than sarahvulva.jpg when the picture is in its reduced size, inline in the article.  Once again, I agree that the new picture, in its full resolution, is inferior to the much larger sarahvulva.jpg, HOWEVER, for the purposes of this article, I think the new picture is better suited because it more narrowly focuses on the clitoris and the clitoral hood. I think sarahvulva.jpg is well-suited for the vulva article, but this is the clitoris article.  So, why not focus in on the clitoris?  HeWhoE 10:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New picture

message: This image, which the article uses, has recently been added to the MediaWiki:Bad image list, which prevents the image from being displayed in-line in articles, as a result a recent vandalbot attack. This change will only be temporary, and the image will be back working properly in a day or so. Sorry for the inconvenience. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Sarahvulva.jpg]] 

message: I suggest that the photographs of human genitalia be de-inlined, so that they will be displayed on the article page as shown in the example here. We would still preserve access to the photographs for readers who wished to view them, but they would not be obtrusively displayed to readers who do not want to view explicit photographs of human genitalia. John254 05:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please direct any further discussion on this proposal(s) to :Talk:Vulva#Proposed_de-inlining_of_pictures_containing_graphic_nudity --Clawed 11:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed de-inlining of pictures containing graphic nudity

message: I was checking recent changes, and saw that the Matt Jaeger article had changed from a "clinical researcher" to a radio DJ. The Jaeger article had this info since October 2002, but it turned out the "clinical researcher" gets no google hits. What links here led to this article, where it had been in the text since October 2001! Likewise no results for "Garabedian" except for obvious wiki mirrors. This seems suspiciously like a college prank that survived nearly 5 years. Can anyone verify anything about either of these people? Gimmetrow 20:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Matt Jaeger" 

message: First off, this is not about the appropriateness of the images.  This is an article about the clitoris, therefore an image and/or illustration of the clitoris is fine.
But Great Jumpin' Jehosophat, five?  This page is more cluttered than the attic of a flea market.  It's ugly.  It's as crowded as a pawnshop.
I'd like to propose we trim the number of images down to this article to two:  One diagram, and one photograph.    I'd like to further propose that they should be laid out thoughtfully so they are not falling on top of one another, like they do today.  What do people think?  Nandesuka 13:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid confusing the issue, let's first get consensus that there are too many images and that they should be trimmed, before we start picking favorites -- sound good?  Nandesuka 14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if there are too many images, remove the ones that don't add much to the article. fem_isa_2.gif and gray408 are both anatomical drawings illustrating the entire female reproductive system and musculature. They are not really very relevant to an article on the clitoris. The photos do at least show the location of the clitoris and the remaining anatomical one (clitoris_inner_anatomy.gif) does at least show the attachments and the local structures and should be retained. Bobble2 15:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In what sense can we have 'too many'?  Is this just another attempt to remove some clear and illustrative images that also irritate those of an extremely conservative disposition?  It's interesting that the image chosen above has had all the colour removed (desaturated) so as not to look too realistic, has been cropped so heavily that the—perhaps inexperienced, possibly male—viewer is left with no context or size reference and, most importantly, does not show a clitoris at all.  Every image here adds something to the overall concept.  We could maybe choose better ones to replace one or two, if we had more to choose from, but I do not accept that we have too many. --Nigelj 19:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the sense that you don't need 15 images to display what could be displayed in one or two images. There are only a couple of angles to look at this. A side angle that would cover where the clitoris goes into the body and an exterior view to give an example of where its located. Thats all thats needed, anything else is excessive.--Crossmr 20:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there's the size of the exposed part, of the part immediately under the skin, of the extent either side under the labia.  Then there's the variation in all of these between individuals...  The differences when erect... The relationship with the rest of the anatomy...  And no-one's talking about 15 images - there's only 5 now. --Nigelj 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wanted to get into variation between individuals you could easily approach hundreds of images.  Which isn't going to happen in the article. Size can be described, we don't need an image detailing every possible difference and angle of the clitoris. We currently have a stream of images down the right side of the article and it doesn't really add any benefit to the article.--Crossmr 20:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally don't have any problem with the number of images, but if we're going to get rid of any, I vote for: grey, humanvulva, fem_isa, in that order. I think the Clitoris Inner Anatomy and Saravulva images are the most useful, the humanvulva is the most useless, the  and the grey is the most gross. Anchoress 00:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on grey, it really adds nothing to the article.--Crossmr 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see discussion at Talk:Vulva#%22Cluttered%22 with images%3F --Nigelj 19:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images! 

message: If you go to the supermarket and are offended by MILK CARTONS then... DON'T GO TO THE SUPERMARKET, but if you dive in its at your own risk!  This is an encyclopeadia, and it is for the good of knowledge.  It is respectful if you think SOME knowledge should be banned off of YOUR own life, but not of others.  If you have a problem with certain kinds of images, then look for other articles where you are not likely to find them and... too bad friend!  If you are offended by naked limes, don't go to the lime section at the supermarket, but please don't ban limes off of supermarkets because YOU are offended!  People can look at whatever they want and if they don't want to they are not obbliged, but why should they BAN everything they don't like just because THEY don't like it?
Freedom!!  Tolerance!!  Please!!  
The article as it is, with a diversity of visual aids, is great the way it is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.82.167.234 (talk • contribs) 00:26, September 13, 2006.
:This has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with only using an appropriate amount of images in a given article.--Crossmr 21:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the range of human variation, I would think that more is appropriate. Trollderella 02:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is an Encyclopeadia!  Don't like it don't come!

message: As far as I remember, human beings are one of the few animals to have a clitoris.  Additional information on what other animals have it, as well as what social and biological evolutionionary factors may have given rise to it, would be informative.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.82.167.234 (talk • contribs) 00:26, September 13, 2006.
My pony has a clitoris 193.63.48.253 13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-human clitorises (clitorides)

message: If you look at the talk pages of other wikipedia articles, you will see little mention of too many images; there are irrelevant discussions everywhere to be sure, but it seems that we are supposed to understand genitalia without visual clues.  Men and women both need to know the anatomy of the clitoris, and without images and graphics, it's difficult to understand the terms.  Look at the page on the eye for example.  Too many images?  No, too much discussion on the talk page about creationism!  Let's keep all our efforts focused on presenting information clearly and completely - because the readers' reactions are beyond our control.  If this comment has been improperyly inserted, I apologize. My first effort.Knoxautoguy 15:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant discussions 

message: Sorry for revert, it looked like a red link to me, but I see that it works now.  Atom 21:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: clitoromegaly link 

message: Well, I would too.  But if someone else did not, it's not any of OUR business, and it is an appropiate image since it depicts the vulva in that international website and that is the purpose of the image(for the record, all websites are international... and just out of curiosity, if it was national you wouldn't?).  
Now if you like you can always add your OWN picture and pollish your nails first!!  
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.251.20.141 (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up.--Threedots dead 13:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: God bless. --BiT 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks!  But... That's YOU not HER!

message: Look, the photo was a surprise to see, but I understand the value of having one.  Still, not to be too crass, but aren't there more photogenic vaginal areas available?  They do exist, you know. --216.9.250.6 05:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't about vaginal areas, it's about the clitoris. Provide a good quality picture that actually shows the clitoris as well as the current one, provide the correct licensing information, and upload it. I'm sure all the other people who (for whatever reason, I truly don't understand) find the photo repugnant will thank you. But please don't replace the photo with one that just shows labia, mons, etc, because that's not what the article is about. Anchoress 06:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with this. And seriously, what is so gross and horribly offensive about the pictures? I'm really confused. Every article that has pictures of female genitalia also has a bunch of people complaining about how unaesthetic they are. It drives me crazy! What is the matter with people?!CerealBabyMilk 21:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These people are silly Americans. 193.63.48.253 13:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We tried to find clitoris pictures of silly people at "the University of London Computer Centre", but could not find any.  Atom 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just so hideous. Sorry to whoever owns it, but it's vile. Even the ladies hands are sickly. 82.163.180.84 23:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Can't say I'm all that fussed about the fingernails myself, but this is an anatomy article, not pornography, and in my opinion a picture of a shaved vulva would be the inappropriate option. --Kelly holden 11:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Many are shaved, it has nothing to do with porn. 129.44.172.8 06:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Women are supposed to have pubic hair unless they're prepubescent. CerealBabyMilk 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And all men are supposed to have facial hair, and all people of both sexes are supposed to have horrible body odor. Right? See, there's this thing called choice, and this other thing called taste. Rpresser 06:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes Jesus Christ! All young maidens around the world shall stop cleaning their fingernails because of this picture, and start sticking them into their vaginae! What ever can we do?! =P Lol! Some people.. I think it's better that she's unshaved (well not clean shaved), shows it more naturally. --BiT 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yikes... is there a better picture? 

message: Maybe I have this wrong, but almost the entire record of the 2005 discussion page is missing from the archives. Page 8 stops in January 2005, and the current page starts in February 2006. Anyone have a clue?--Shtove 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing archives 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}} 

message: I know some people thought it was ugly before, but I was too lazy to make a better version... but if it's going to be the top image, I guess I better :) This is a drawn version made to look more like a classic anatomy drawing. I think it looks better myself, but the old one is still on the commons if people prefer it. I'm releasing this one to the public domain, though, don't know why I didn't before. Amphis 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the internal anatomy pic 

message: While I personally agree with the contents of the paragraph about intersexed individuals, I'm not really sure that its entirety is appropriate as part of this article, for a couple of reasons. One is that it's not actually about the clitoris, it's partly about botched circumcisions: this makes it seem like it would be more appropriate for pages on the penis, circumcision, and/or intersex individuals. Another is that the "list of reasons for controversy" read a little too much like opinion (particularly in their statements on the validity of circumcision) and probably need better citation than they currently have. Right now it seems like the work of a radical trans activist - which, again, I basically agree with, but my agreement with an opinion doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in a given Wikipedia article. 4.131.35.158 07:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was wondering where the source for that was.  Well, I think I have a textbook that supports some of the content that we can use if we decide to keep the paragraph. Darkfrog24 23:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intersex controversy paragraph 

message: I think it is great to have a photograph, however I do find it interesting that this is the Clitoris page and in the picture shown you cannot see the clitoris, however the vagina is largely marked.  I will be looking for another photo to improve upon the one we have here now. In the meantime, pls let me know your considerations aside from any prejudices you may have about the appearance of pubic hair.  I am not likely to change my mind about that one. Thank you. Cometh 01:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I do not find these useful, very outdated and incomplete information, especially the one with the root of the clitoris cut off.  I agree we don't need to over do the amount of graphics we have, but useful ones would be better.  I am looking.  Cometh 01:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gray's Anatomy Pics 

message: Under the section "Recognition of Existence", we find this:
:"Colombo's claim was disputed by his successor at Padua, Gabriele Falloppio (who discovered the fallopian tube), who claimed that he was the first to discover the clitoris."
This whole section, to me, seems to be written from the standpoint of upper-class male scientists: after all, hadn't women already known about the clitoris for tens of thousands of years? Or did they just never look down there? I bet even a large number of men knew about the existence of the clitoris before Fallopio. 
Saying Gabrielle Falloppio "was the first to discover the clitoris" is just as biased as, and slightly more silly than, saying that Columbus was "the first to discover America".
Now, the section does couch itself acceptably early on when it says "Medical literature first recognized the existence of the clitoris in the 16th century"; but even then, that seems to suggest that the existence of the clitoris was subject to recognition by medical literature. I'd re-write that particular sentence as "Medical literature did not write about the existence of the clitoris until the 16th century", just to make it clear that it was medical literature's fault, and not the fault of the clitoris.
I'm sorry if this sounds really silly, but any postmodernist would have a field day examining the biases in this section.
I don't want to jump in and re-write this section myself, as after all it's covered by a project team and they really should make the rules; but, I just wanted to point out an instance of unconscious bias that priveleged intellectual male authors may never notice. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horribly POV paragraph