Talk:Human anus/Archive 1

message: I have to say, an anus image would be totally appropriate. As things stand now,
there isn't even a real picture of an anus.
Not that I would enjoy seeing one of course (gross), but it would be appropriate.
In fact, the anus should be shown in all its variety: male anus (very hairy), female anus (not too hairy), and the goatse image (yuck... in the section on "sexual" stuff of course) 65.34.186.143 08:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Judicious use of a few more photos would indeed be appropriate, since this is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry. The Goatse anus, however, is sufficiently outside the mainstream that including a photo here would be more inflammatory than informative. 70.177.90.39 20:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To better illustrate variety in anuses, I am including a photo of a hairy male anus. Eyeon 04:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The anuses are taking over!  First we had just one, and we decided that on balance it was a tolerable shock and illustrated the article well... but then we got an ugly hairy arse in a low-res photo in which the anus itself cannot really be seen.  I'm not sure that the consensus to allow the other photo also covers this one.  — Chameleon 08:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both images now shown are fine! Thanks for a simple solution Eyeon!. I do stand by my assertion that anatomical photos should not appear to derived from pornography but now agree with 70.177.90.39 that there is room for both 'anatomically correct' and other images types in other articles.195.92.67.75 08:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment I made has been pasted in from a separate discussion, "Shall we use a medical photo?". I'd like to remain neutral over this issue please. However, ugliness or hairiness shouldn't be an issue in deciding whether or not to remove one of the images. .195.92.67.75 22:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that male anus is particularly unpleasant to look at. Eyeon 07:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor do I, but I don't find it particularly illustrative, either. The female image is an objectively better photo, and there is little enough difference between the two varieties that two images is redundant. Tverbeek 17:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shall there be multiple photos?

message: m:Don't vote on everything.  It's obviously a useful picture so voting on it is superfluous and only gives scope for pointless grundyism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti referendum

message: :Nobody who sets up his own category just so he can use the pompous phrase "give scope for pointless grundyism" deserves to live. 68.97.208.123 10:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti Tony Sidaway

message: Does anyone really care much about Anti anything? These date back to mid 2005, I set up my anti anti campaign!
JayKeaton 10:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti Anti

message: As far as anus pictures so, that one isn't too bad.  Anything bigger, dirtier, hairier, or more dilated would really be pushing things too far, but that one is just about tolerable, and illustrates the anus well.  My one concern is that it is probably a copyvio.  — Chameleon 23:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Is anyone in favour of replacing this photo with one taken from an anatomy/medical website? I suspect people aren't offended by the anus itself but by the sourcing of the photo from a pornographic image. I support the inclusion of a photo but would prefer that the photo was one taken for eduational purposes with the consent of the individual providing the anus. Appearance (eg. hair etc.) shouldn't matter as long as the relevant anatomy is visible and the image is a fair representation of what anatomists/medical professionals consider 'normal'.--195.92.67.68 20:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's first see the proposed alternative and then decide.  — Chameleon 21:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current photo shows a completely normal anus and it is without copyright issues. Substituting a different image is unlikely to placate those who have been deleting it. 70.177.90.39 18:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of substituting a different photo wouldn't be to placate anyone. Any anatomy textbook or other reference work/encyclopedia wouldn't feature the current photo. Anatomists generally follow an international standardised system of representing parts of the body for ease of comparison etc. All other educational media also follow this method. The perineum is usually shown from below with the thighs abducted; deviations from this are reserved for highlighting 'abnormalities'. Although the article covers more than just anatomy I see no reason why Wikipedia should use different criteria. Secondly, an educational photo of any part of the body should probably not be sourced from pornography and certainly not without the consent of the individual.--195.92.67.67 00:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no 'international standard' for anatomy photography. If there were, none of the articles in Wikipedia currently conform. Nor should they. Wikipedia is not an anatomy textbook and should not strive to be. In addition, there is no evidence that the photo was sourced improperly. 70.177.90.39 02:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you look at an anatomy textbook (Gray's Anatomy is the authority but Snell's/Grant's Atlas or indeed any other such book would be fine). Before we get to any specifics they all describe 'the anatomical position' which is the international standard whose existence you deny. Other articles on body parts feature illustrations or photos which use these criteria (eg.hand, penis, vagina, perineum). Regarding your second point, I fully agree that Wikipedia shouldn't strive to be an anatomy textbook, just as it shouldn't be a biology or chemistry textbook. However, an article cannot ignore the fundamentals of the subject it addresses. An article on, for example, carbon could ignore the periodic table and discuss only coal and diamond, but this would be far from ideal. The anatomical position is equally fundamental to anatomy and can't be ignored by any encyclopedia. Finally, the burden should be on us to prove that photos of intimate body parts are properly sourced. The absence of evidence to the contrary simply isn't enough, particularly where a photo appears to be derived from pornography.--195.92.67.209 21:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny. My copy of Gray's Anatomy doesn't have a single photograph in it. Which edition are you referring to? In reference to the sourcing of images, are you proposing that Wikipedia adopt a different standard for the documentation of an image if the subject is an intimate body part? 70.177.90.39 23:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gray's uses illustrations. Other textbooks use photos for surface anatomy. However, both photos and drawings conform to the same basic principles by which the body is represented in anatomy or any other reference work. These fundamental principles can't be ignored. To do so seriously damages the educational authority of the article. As for your second point the burden of proof rests on us for every image. Images which are obviously derived from a copyrighted source are removed. In this case the angle and position make it highly likely that it is cropped from a pornographic image, in which case we obviously don't have copyright. Copyright aside, for the benefit of the article it is best to have a photo which doesn't appear to be taken from pornography.--195.92.67.75 23:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Inclusion of a Gray's Anatomy illustration would benefit the article. This can be done without deleting the current photo. What fundamental principles of illustration does this photograph violate, can you cite your source for these principles, and should we remove all anatomy images that do not conform to these principles? 70.177.90.39 00:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited and rotated the image so that it is now 'shown from below with the thighs abducted.' Ta-da, it now 'conforms to fundamental principles'. If User:195.92.67.209 still complains, it will show that his argument, like Jeeves' arguments, was dishonest. Eyeon 02:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both images now shown are fine! Thanks for a simple solution Eyeon!. I do stand by my assertion that anatomical photos should not appear to derived from pornography but now agree with 70.177.90.39 that there is room for both 'anatomically correct' and other image types in other articles.195.92.67.75 08:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shall there be only medical photos?

message: Newcomer to this dispute... I believe the photo issue is secondary to the fact that 90% to 100% of this article should be deleted.  This article is superfluous and also ridiculously skewed toward the human species.   Most animals have some form of anus.  Few other species possess anuses resembling the human anus, and in the absence of humans, virtually none of their anuses serve in an erotic capacity.   The anus in all its glory is sufficiently described elsewhere on Wikipedia (how many anal erotica articles do we have, again?)  Quite frankly, this article should be stripped down to pointers to Freud, anal erotica, and the digestive system, or even deleted altogether.  Otherwise, article should be renamed to "Butthole" to accurately reflect the assembled prurient interests driving it. 219.102.32.92 10:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The biodiversity argument was earlier exposed as a dishonest one, because those who bring it up here only complain about biodiversity when it comes to this specific orifice. Even if honestly offered, the biodiversity argument fails. The anus is remarkably similar across species. Teeth are different, noses are different...but the wrinkly little anus is almost ubiquitous. And your complaint that anuses don't play a role in animal sexuality, is demonstrably false. In any case, the way to resolve a biodiversity problem is to add information, not to delete it. 70.177.90.39 17:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, kindly do not assert dishonesty; unless you can prove intent, it is merely error. And you have not successfully proven error nor dishonesty.  First, anuses are not remarkably similar across species, unless you suffer from a strong bias toward the mammal phylum.  The anuses of the reptile, fish, insect, crustacean, amphibian, mollusk do not resemble the human anus in appearance (I could go on and on).  Humans and mammals are greatly in the minority in the animal kingdom, if you weren't aware.  Also, you offered a photo of same-sex animal mounting as proof of anal eroticism in animals, but this link mentioned nothing about anal penetration.  That borders on dishonesty.  Mounting is about mounting.  You are making assumptions on animal sexuality based on your knowledge of human sexuality, and generally there is no penetration involved.   Third, I affirm that most organ articles here violate the concept of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary".  If I were to turn the selectivity argument around on you, I'd have to ask why you (or someone like you) aren't going around adding a sexual function clause to every such article. 219.102.32.92 22:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An argument can suffer from dishonesty without intent, and to dismiss such an argument as 'mere error' would be a mistake. To say the argument is dishonest is not to say that one's position on the argument is wrong, it is to say that the argument itself is wrong. The biodiversity argument has indeed been exposed as dishonest. 1) The way to resolve a biodiversity problem is to add information, not to delete it. 2) I should have cited a better article, but the pictures of dogs humping were just too funny. Animals do indeed penetrate when mounted; it has been observed in animals as diverse as rams and albatrosses.  3) There is nothing inconsistent about my pro-photo views. I'm defending sexuality in only this anatomy article because the issue of sexuality is under attack in only this anatomy article. 70.177.90.39 03:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexuality is important to this article and should stay. It should also be noted that the anus does play a role in the sexual behaviour of many animals. See "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl--195.92.67.75 00:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shall there be no reference to sexuality?

message: How about we remove that image? I see there's been discussion about that before but I guess nothing has been done. Wikipedia's goal is to inform but not to shove things in people's faces that we may assume they don't want to see. Everyking 05:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who comes to this page and does't want to see that? Its a clean and healthy female anus! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 06:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can safely say that a large majority of people who come to this page don't want to see that. We may be talking about a percentage in excess of 90 or 95%. Everyking 08:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your wrong. If their not interested in the subject, why would they come here? I don't get it. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they're twelve years old and doing a project on the excretory system in school. --EatAlbertaBeef 02:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And you think that image would be a diservice to them in that regard? When I was a kid I used to look up naughty things, and was often impressed by the thorough coverage I found in books of reference. Why should we be any more censorous than a health textbook? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I cannot believe you voluntarily ventured over to the "anus" page of Wikipedia and were offended when you actually saw a picture of it. Lighten up, geez. What did you expect to see when you came here? 66.36.141.32 22:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: There is nothing inherently obscene about anything. But cultures impose standards. Wikipedia is not going to benefit people by posting "gross-out" or potentially offensive images (although if they require a separate click from the article to access it, that's fine, because then the person is making a deliberate choice about it). Instead we will just turn them away. Nor is Wikipedia itself going to benefit. If people avoid us, or at least articles like this one, then we suffer. In some cases it isn't so clear cut. But here we can say with considerable certainty that a large majority of people will be offended/disgusted. We are saying: "If this explicit image bothers you, then you'll just have to go without the information." Everyking 04:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I don't entirely object to the display of a picture on this page. However, it is obvious that the one in this article was taken from a pornographic image, that was probably copyrighted. A good medical image would be much more suitable. A pornographic image is just plain prurient. Wikipedia should be held to the same high standards as any other encyclopedia, even if it can be edited by anyone with a computer. If you wouldn't see it in world book, why should it be here?
:Because wp aspires to be more complete than World Book; and because sometimes it is better to have a less-good placeholder rather than nothing at all.
: Seconded. I don't think a photograph is strictly necessary, but if one is to be included it ought to be a medical image, or at least one which can be guaranteed to be free.  --Jonathan Drain  12:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need non-copyrighted, preferably medical image 

message: I got rid of all inapropriate texts and images(also removed the male bottom diagram, it also has penis.). Wikipedia is not a place for gross people to leave their stuff on! That guy was right, 12 year olds who are doing a project on the excretory system at school may come here, and the anus is a part of the excretory system. I only revealed 1/4 of the photograph with an anal sphincter. And I followed you guys, I removed the sexual section, its repulsive. If you have any proplems, let me know! 
Giant Blue Anteater 00:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And 12 year olds would have what harm of seeing an anus? They can see their own the mirror, FFS! Wikipedia is not a place for political correctness. Joffeloff 15:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I don't believe a photo of a 12-year-old's anus is appropriate. 68.0.118.116 05:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Got Rid of Nasty Stuff 

message: I notice that an anon has removed the 'male anatomy' diagram from the article and moved the 'female human anus' photo up to replace it. Whilst this may indeed be a better depiction of the anus, I'm certain that this edit is going to prove controversial. I did consider reverting it but I feel that I should ask for the opinions of the other editors on the matter beforehand. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind the change, though the anatomy image should be returned to the article somewhere. -- Ec5618 01:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female anus picture at the top of the article 

message: I had introduced an image of human male anus (by the bottom of the page), since it is significantly different from female anus (for instance, because of hairs). I did that twice, since an unregistered user keeps removing it. I gave a motivation for my edit in the summary, now I give it also on this page discussion. I am simply merging here images I found on it.wikipedia. Therefore, if somebody still removes the picture giving no explanation for his action, I will consider it censorship. --gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 13:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, women have hair too if it isn't removed. It is not a sex characteristic. If you look at chest there is one pic because it isn't necessary to show every part both with and without hair. Completely unnecessary. --Howdybob 17:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've returned the male anus. It's encyclopedic, useful, and a very nice image. It shows the anus better than the female one does, which is small, poorer quality and artificial (hair seems removed). The two provide nice symmetry for comparison. It shouldn't be removed just because it's male. --Kinst 23:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Possible, but probably very difficult... --Kinst 22:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The male anus has been removed by various users, once myself included.  I stand by this change as I believe the item is redundant, per the given reason for the addition of the male anus 'is different (for instance, because of hairs)' is lacking in principal or forethought.  The human anus is identical, a sphincter is a sphincter, every anus is different in aesthetics however we cannot list every anus, thus one example as per agreeed consensus in the archives is appropriate.  This entire talk page seems to be pro-anus photos or anti-anus photos, lay it to rest and let's get constructive on articles that need attention.  One anus is enough.  For those who need more anus than is displayed here, I am sure the great eternal internet will provide. Jachin 16:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One anus is never enough. 68.0.118.116 05:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male anus 

message: i see that there is a place to put "pro-photo" or "anti-photo" but i am not opposed to the photo of the female anus. i simply think it's unfair that the actual photo is of a female anus and the diagram is of a male. it seems to me, we are always seeing nicely shaven female anuses. i would like to see a nicely shaven male anus out of respect for fairness. let's not just be typical porn here okay.
:Then, shave your ass and post a photo. This is Wikipedia. Participate. 68.0.118.116 05:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: male anus

message: There is absolutely no problem with putting a picture of any normal human body part in anatomy articles, but this pair of images promotes sexist pornographic standards regarding grooming of men and women's anatomy. The woman's anus is clearly waxed, which is not the natural state of the adult female anatomy. The "breast" article should not show a set of obviously altered breasts as the sole image for similar reasons. I would guess that the female image came directly from a porn and I think it should either be removed or replaced by a more correct image.
i completely agree. Rocketqueen 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexist Images 

message: If Wikipedia is to be truly an "encyclopedia", it is something to be read by people of all ages.  Assuming that wikipedia is to be like a "real" encyclopedia, I think most would agree that a 10 year old flipping through an encyclopedia and finding a picture of two full-color human anuses is highly inappropriate.
Now I'm sure most of you are going to say, "oh it's up to the parents to filter what the kid sees and what not to see on the internet" which is a totally fine argument FOR THE INTERNET which is mostly porn anyway.  If we're to take Wikipedia seriously, lose the damn pics!
:Is it really necessary to start another section for this? We've been over this point, and as Wikipedia is not censored for minors, it is a moot point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as illistrated at that. That means including an image of a penis, an anus, a crucifix. We cannot ban what you or anyone else deems offensive, or inappropriate for minors. And please, shouting does not make your point more valid. -- Ec5618 07:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Official policy is that Wikipedia is not censored (for minors), and anatomy articles deserve photographs. The precedent is that sexual organs need photographs too. Don't take it up with poor Monsieur Anus. :-( --Kinst 00:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It kind of scares me that you guard this article with such fervor, Kinst.  Jachin 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted it twice a month since it came out two months ago. That's hardly obsessive. --Kinst 15:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To quote the [[Simpsons]], "What about the children!?"