Talk:Clitoris/Archive 9

message: Some people find the image in the article useful. That is enough to warrent inclusion. If you want a better photo of the clitoris, stop complaining and go find one. If you want to get rid of it just because you wish to censor the article, too bad, it's not going anywhere, and that should be obvious by the edit wars that happen whenever it is removed.
For those willing to accept the comprimise which has been suggested OVER and OVER by both sides, a temporary censored version like the abu garib abuse article. Create it! No one has stopped you. Tony has indicated he thinks there are better solutions, but that he would not fight such an effort. I myself have stated MANY times that I think such a comprimise would be acceptable. No one that I have seen has voiced that such a solution would never be acceptable. I'm not going to censor the article for you, I have no problems with the article, but nothing is stopping you from creating Clitoris (censored).  — マイケル ₪ 05:43, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
* I would not oppose a test page.  I have some possible fixes for the editing bug and the cache bug that I would like to try out.  If I or someone else could get these to work to my own satisfaction, and a neutral pointer was agreed to for the no-pictures page, I would have no objection to such an article becoming medium-permanent, pending a proper site-wide image fix. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the censored page. Samboy 06:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bottom line 

message: 67.163.164.25 has edited clitoris.  Could everybody give the change a shufty and see if you think it's kosher?  I have asked the user if he can provide a source. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it in the meantime becasue the clitoris.com states "The clitoral glans has just as many nerve endings as does the penile glans, only in a much smaller area."  Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 21:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a quick google. I found a wide variety of views from "the same" to "clitoris has twice as many". I'm not sure what the clitoris.com site's claim to preeminence is in your view -- beyond grabbing the domain name! -- but I think it's right to leave such a clearly contested claim that adds nothing to the article out.Dr Zen 00:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Three times?

message: This site is actually a porn site, not an informative site at all. I'm going to "censor" the article by removing the link. I don't believe an encyclopaedia article on a part of the anatomy should link to pictures of that part of the anatomy included for sexual gratification (although perhaps a more relevant page might).Dr Zen 01:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I visited the site.   It contains no pornography that I can find but a lot of information.  There are more informative sites, but I wouldn't write this one off as a porn site. My main gripe about it is the extremely large number of advertising links to external sites. I had to scroll through four pages worth to get to the page content. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: clitoris-information.com

message: There seems to be one? —Ashley Y 00:57, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
I can't speak for more than myself, but see my comments above.  I don't think Dr Zen's edits and those of others who reversed them were any kind of problem for Clitoris--it was a low level war that caused minimal disruption--while the protection of the page is a problem for anyone who wants to edit the article.  The cure is worse than the disease. Please could we have our article back? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *An article about the clitoris with a picture of a clitoris is NPOV.  An article about a clitoris with no picture is not, it's censored.  (An article about a clitoris with a picture of only a prepuce is neither NPOV nor censored, it is merely flawed.)  Why you censor it is not relevant.  Rather than spending your time playing semantic peek-a-boo, how about finding some nice young woman who would like her non-copyvio pudendagraph immortalized in the annals of consensual codex? Blair P. Houghton 03:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is one POV that it is okay to display pictures of human genitals. It is another that it is not. All articles on Wikipedia are censored in the sense you are using. None contains everything that it might.Dr Zen 04:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: No. It's NPOV to consider only whether the image is useful, informative, or relevantly illustrative. It's POV to consider whose arbitrary cultural norms an image might offend. --Khendon 07:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: *Insisting on the truth? Searching one's soul? You sure are casting yourself as a martyr today. Timbo ( t a l k ) 08:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on unprotection 

message: The new disclaimer is very interesting, but I don't think it's at all helpful. Having an edit war over this is silly and likely harms consensus-mindedness.
At any rate, I'd like to propose a new survey. As per Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, I'd like the survey's terms to be established in advance. Previous survey's were marred because they didn't offer the best alternatives. For example, the overwhelming majority against replacing the picture with this link was a complete waste of time. What I have in mind for a survey question is whether we should offer an alternative version at the top of this page. The other version would not be a fork (as was justifiably VfD'd), but instead be a template-driven solution similar to what User:Violetriga made on her user page. I also think the text should be entirely non-judgemental like:
:This article can be viewed with selected images: present or omitted (again, like Violetriga's user page)
I think the survey should start in about 7-10 days, last about two weeks, and be a simple yes/no on this particular solution. We should reach a consensus on the exact terms. This survey should only address the display ("for prudes") issue, and not the seperate issue about whether the photo is topical. Comments? Cool Hand Luke 07:46, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What questions? Cool Hand Luke 05:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Call for new survey

message: A couple folks have been reverting the Template:Enduring single-issue dispute template.  This is a quick informal poll to gather consensus as to whether it should be there or not before its fate is decided at TfD.  Please log in before voting. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus far, the consensus is overwhelmingly to remove this template.  Please don't put it back unless consensus changes. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's fashionable to treat 2/3rds as a consensus, but this is simply not a democracy, and it doesn't make sense to speak of an "overwhelming" consensus when over 20% disagree. Cool Hand Luke 01:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: If they want to, they can vote for themselves. And it appears that Dr Zen is no longer editing, so I don't think we'll be seeing a vote from him. Timbo ( t a l k ) 02:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: I like playing the audio samples over and over. — Brim 07:52, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
:Hell, try saying Bulbourethral glands 200 times.  — MikeX (talk) 15:44, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
::I've removed the non-standard pronunciation guides, which didn't convey anything (how on earth is one supposed to pronounce "ih" in English) except that they did show which syllable had the stress, which was previously missing from the IPA transcriptions (I've added it). rossb 20:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Not to jump into the middle of a huge raging debate, but I assume that it has been noted that the photograph that we've chosen to illustrate clitoris doesn't actually show the clitoris. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
:You're right, it's absolutely the worst picture we could have chosen, except for every other one. →Raul654 13:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
::It is the worst form of depiction of a clitoris.  Except for all the others. Winston Churchill 19:25, Feb 18, 1945 (GMT) (this "amusing" comment left by User:Blair P. Houghton who didn't see fit to sign his "masterpiece". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)) (It would have defeated the joke, and anybody can check the history list to figure it out.   Besides, I suppose you're spending your non-Wikipedia time doing rewrites to the original manuscripts of The Divine Comedy, Mr. Imnothidinganythingnonotmenuh-uhh... --anonymousbutobvious, 00:00, Feb 18, 2005 (IOU).)
:Yes, this has been the topic of constant debate with one side saying it clearly shows the location of the clitoris so it is useful to the article and the other side saying that it is completely useless. It should be noted however that the side that says it is completely useless has often argued that it should be removed because it is offensive.  — マイケル ₪ 13:38, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
:::thus proving there are actually three sides to every story, because most of those calling it useless do so only because it doesn't show the thing it purports to show.  Blair P. Houghton 23:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's COMPLETELY useless, but I do think it's a bit funny. I don't find it offensive, and a brief background check of my position on the larger issue of censorship shows that I think most people who complain about being "offended" by stuff at Wikipedia should probably be banished to the moon or something. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:29, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I looked at the picture and found it very offensive.  Is there a more toned-down version that can be used? CHALK 07:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: What do you mean by "toned-down"? TIMBO (T A L K) 17:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Also what did you find offensive about the picture? Theresa Knott  (ask the rotten) 20:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obvious innit.  We need a picture that doesn't show a lady's naughty bits. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to belabor this into a parody of Who's on First, but, what we need is a picture that does show a lady's naughty bit, vice her labia. Blair P. Houghton 01:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suitability of image 

message: User:HeikoEvermann has removed the transwiki to tokipona because "Tokipona Wikipedia no longer exists".  It does seem to be serving pages:
http://tokipona.wikipedia.org/wiki/nena_unpa_meli
What's going on? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tokipona?

message: The text currently reads:
:Columbo'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. Caspar Bartholin, a 17th century Danish anatomist, dismissed both claims, arguing that the clitoris had been widely known to medical science since the 2nd century.
I recently read the relevant passages from Columbus and Fallopius in the original Latin. Columbus absolutely does claim to have discovered this (and this is far from the only amusing thing he says). Fallopius however appears to be making a different claim: while he does say that anyone who claims to have discovered this first obviously heard about it from him and took credit for it, he also cites Arabic and Ancient Greek authors who mention the organ. Therefore he can't possibly mean that he's literally the first person (or even man, or medic) to know about the clitoris. What he appears to mean is that he is the first contemporary european anatomist to discover it.
I would really like to see what Bartholin actually said about this debate. It would make it much easier to rewrite this paragraph if I knew exactly what his actual contribution to this sequence was. Does anyone know where I could find that text? --Iustinus 08:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Discovery" 

message: The article says: "The only known exception to this is in the Spotted Hyena, where the urogenital system is modified so that the female urinates, mates and gives birth via an enlarged, erectile clitoris." There are two problems with this. First, a female mammal mates by accepting a male's penis into her vagina and gives birth through her vagina. A spotted hyena with her clitoris removed would still be able to mate and give birth. I think the article is trying to say that the urinary tract of the female spotted hyena passes through the clitoris, but what does mating and giving birth have to do with that? Second, the urinary tract of the female lemur also passes through the clitoris. Anomalocaris 04:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usefully enough, the article on Spotted_Hyena answers your question. A spotted hyena has no external vagina, it has merged with their clitoris. Amphis 03:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyena Confusion

message: The alternate term for female circumcision is spelled once as "clitorectomy" and once as "clitoridectomy".  Are both correct?
:Clitoridectomy is correct. The combining form is clitorid-. —Keenan Pepper 13:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inconsistency? 

message: ::Descriptive labels on external links is appropriate and has nothing to do with censorship. --FloNight talk 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not censorship