Talk:Clitoris/Archive 3

message: The image currently used is on dubious legal grounds, has many detractors due to it's original 'porn'-like appearance, does not show the clitoris clearly and is of low resolution when magnified in the later versions. I propose a new image be created specifically for Wikipedia which negates all of the above. Sadly it cannot help those who insist any photo is inappropriate, but reading the entire discussion over several pages, it appears this group has been out-voted. (Poll on whether new image would be beneficial removed per 'too premature' comment by David Gerard) Nicholas
:Well you can't have a poll for this sort of thing. Why would you need one? It's pretty clear that everyone would vote yes anyway. The point is, we have no other image at the moment, and we cannot force someone to create a new image! Theresa Knott  (The torn steak) 05:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: its original lysdexia 07:01, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating A New Image 

message: I think people are putting the porn pic back just to keep the controversy going.  I really think the solution I offered should have been sufficient.  KeyStroke 02:54, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
Lets be honest with ourselves, shall we?  The only reason for consistantly putting the same photo back (and refusing to accept any compromise, such as the one I provided) is to simply "push the envelope" on what is accepted, morally.  The photo doesn't add anything more than the (detailed) anatomical drawng I had linked to.  The photo is being added back because it is pornography, and there is a desire to push people of moral character out of Wikipedia, and to claim this "ground" for an amoral humanistic populace.
And.... to be honest.... it is working.  I notice that 198 hasn't returned to these discussions (nor to editing the page), most likely because of leaving Wikipedia for good, in disgust.  I, too, have considered leaving in disgust.  Is this the culture we wish to promote?  That the few in number get trampled on?  That those without moral standrds drive out those with them?  
I have considered leaving, not looking back, but I think I owe it to other people of morals that will come here to see the process through.  To see if the process works, and to see if the judgements are fair.
If it were any other conflict (other than sexual) then those who have taken a unilateral position, unwilling to achieve a compromise, would have been seen for that and would have been repremanded for their actions as being vandalism.  Yet, I, and others of moral character, have offered compromise, and alternatives, yet it is the position that is unwilling to compormise, the unilateral position, that is upheld by the admins, not the position of those (like myself) who are trying to work within the system and offering compromise.
Let me repeat: If it were any other issue those who unilateraly keep putting the same image back, and ignoring offers of compromise, would have been considerd vandals. KeyStroke 01:09, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
:A compromise should generally not be offered in a manner you did (i.e., by inserting a link with a warning to a new image), especially when a subject turns out to be as controversial as this one seems to be.  While your solution might be acceptable, it still goes against the established consensus.  The proper way to offer a compromise in this case would be opening of (yet another) survey describing your proposition.  The solution you offered was not covered by previous surveys, so a whole new survey should be started.  If your solution is accepted by the community, fine.  If not, you are expected to comply with the majority (if you are unable to comply and would prefer to leave Wikipedia, this, while regrettable, will be your decision).--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:46, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
:Also, just to clarify—Schneelocke protected the article not because he was unwilling to compromise, but because policies dictate protecting the most recent version that was established before the revert wars had started (a so-called wrong version).  Your accusations of vandalism are thus ungrounded.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:54, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
:I believe User:KeyStroke should not state things like That those without moral standrds drive out those with them and Yet, I, and others of moral character, have offered compromise. Such statements are highly POV and likely to incite hostilities. Remember that everyone here has moral standards, which are neither higher nor lower than one's own, just different, and that tolerance and compromise be the bywords to which one should adhere. Nicholas 21:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Now, why didn't that solution work for everyone?