Talk:Clitoris/Archive 5

message: The last edit by Robert the Bruce has just reminded me about the pictures of the internal parts of clitoris I was talking about in the past. Please see my comments and links in Talk:Clitoris/Archive3. If those or similar pictures cannot be included directly in the article, then maybe they should be at least linked to in External links. Rafał Pocztarski 19:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tip of the iceberg

message: I have found illustrations originally published in 1904, 1866 and 1844. The copyright of new editions of books they were printed in is more recent than the original publication dates of those illustrations, which means that even though the books themselves (at least the recent editions) may still be protected by the copyright, the illustrations copyright may have already expired and they may be in the public domain now, depanding on when did their authors die. See: Public domain copyright tags.
* Atlas of Human Anatomy Vol. 2 by Johannes Sobotta, Originally Published circa 1904, Copyright: Urban & Schwarzenberg, Munchen - Berlin - Wein 1974
* Gray's Anatomy by Henry Gray, Copyright 1977 Crown Publishers, Inc., Originally Edition Published 1866
* Fragments for a History of the Human Body, Part Three by Michel Feher, Copyright 1989, Urzone Inc., Original publication dates of 1651 and 1844 on the drawings
If there are no legal issues, then maybe some of those illustrations might be used in addition to photographs in the Clitoris article, either in the original form or after some editing, or possibly new illustrations based on the above ones might be drawn by someone skilled. Rafał Pocztarski 21:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be the best solution. For anyone who would like to help, I have an advice: when photographing clitoris, remember to not include any obscene body parts, like fingernails, especially when they are covered with disgusting blue nail polish. Needless to say, it would make the picture pornographic and the blue nail polish would have to be digitally replaced with less obscene pink one, like the last time, to make the picture suitable for children. It would be perfect if we had a picture of vulva with visible clitoral glans, provided it does not show any pornographic nail polish. Let everyone keep that in mind while taking vulva photographs. Rafał Pocztarski 07:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the hint, I think I’ve found it: Gray's Anatomy images with missing articles. I can’t see any clitoris, though. But only 300 out of over 1200 images has been uploaded so far. Rafał Pocztarski 10:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Public domain illustrations

message: One note about uploading new pictures. When anyone uploads a new picture, uploading it to Commons instead of the English Wikipedia will make it directly available on every language version of Wikipedia automatically without any copying needed. Rafał Pocztarski 21:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikimedia Commons

message: Incidentally, although I'm certain this page needed protection, the boilerplate reversions remind me of Wikipedia:Protection policy, which suggests we should not protect pages we are involved with. Please consider listing protection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection in the future. Cool Hand Luke 08:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in this case. In this case it was already clear that an edit war was going on and that's why it had to be locked. Also, I am not that involved in it. I have not made any edits in the main page except I think a few typos. I have discussed things on this talk page, but that's not a crime. So, sorry, but I disagree with you on this one. Especially when I feel you're implying that I'm deliberately stifling edits. Sorry if that sounds a little spiky, because you are a good editor CHL, and pretty neutral, but in this case I must vocally disagree with you. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and it appears you protected Vulva, not this article, and I agree you're not terribly involved in this article. Cool Hand Luke 19:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Story of my life. I get confused between vulva and clitoris. Sigh. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: No of course I don't think you're stiffling edits. This needed protection, and I believe a neutral editor would have quickly protected it—probably without judgement call on the vandalism issue. Cool Hand Luke 19:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: Can someone please explain why the human body is considered "offensive"? --Viriditas 11:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anatomy 

message: Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images: “This is a proposal to regulate the policy on graphic images that could be potentially disturbing to Wikipedia users. The policy shall be discussed for a period of two weeks, also giving users a chance to draft their own policy proposals, and the voting will start on December 15 and last for one week.” For anyone who is disturbed by penis, clitoris, or any other body parts (including fingernails covered with certain shades of nail polish), that discussion and a subsequent voting seems to be a good place to voice your opinion in a way more reasonable than vandalism and edit wars like the one that is taking place on Clitoris. Rafał Pocztarski 06:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A new policy is being discussed right now as we speak, and will be voted on December 15, which should be an interesting information even for those who want to maintain the status quo. Considering the number of your own comments there, many of them referencing Clitoris and Vulva articles where you keep removing the images, and your own Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images#Alternative policy by anthony proposal, I don’t seem to be the only one who finds that new policy relevant in the context of the situation we have here. Rafał Pocztarski 17:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've participated on that page and I find it extremely unlikely that any consensus will be reached.  So yeah, there will be a vote on December 15th, but then the page will be forgotten and we'll still have this problem to solve. As for "my alternative policy", it's really just a repetition of what we already have at Wikipedia:Profanity.  anthony 警告 22:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: *One can not reach consensus with a vote. One settles an issue where consensus has not been reached by a (winner take all) vote. So yes I agree with you it is unlikely that consensus will be reached on this matter and it will be settled by a vote. I just hope that no one claims that as a result consensus was reached (like with the previous vote here). - Robert the Bruce 03:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: **If a poll shows that there is an 80% or greater majority of people who believe that this image should be kept inline, then I will respect that.  anthony 警告 20:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I know that the policy is explicitly “not about images identified as pornographic” but the numerous references to nudity in general and the Clitoris article in particular, as well as literally tens of comments by people involved in removing pictures from Clitoris, Vulva and Penis articles, made me think that that referencing that discussion on Talk:Clitoris would be a good idea. Even if that is against the original intention, there is some support for the extension of this policy to “all images explicitly pornographic” nonetheless. Which I think should make that discussion relevant here, becasue the voting on December 15 will most likely include options that might affect photographs by Philo Vivero and Clawed. Rafał Pocztarski 04:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: *The sad problem here is that those who advocate the use of photos (as opposed to mere drawings) are shooting themselves (and their cause) in the foot through displaying shockingly poor judgement (and maturity) in the selection of photos for the various articles. The basis of selection should be the suitability and educational value of the selected pics. Wikipedia is not doing well in this department and will continue to fail in this regard until those whose actions have led to the current debacle are reigned in. For the record I support the use of photos where they are both "suitable and educational" but cannot support the use of a pic of the vulva on the clitoris page where the clitoris is not depicted. This is explicit display for the sake of it. It is immature, it is indefensible. In fact the situation is so bizarre that I tend to agree with the anti-pic/anti-porn group that what we are seeing in these articles is the deliberate attempt to insert porn. Disgraceful. - Robert the Bruce 05:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * At this point I'm just going to have to call troll. To say people are showing "shockingly" poor judgement and maturity is just trying to rile everyone up. Sorry you're so obsessed over this, but I suggest you sit back for a week and consider who's being immature and displaying poor judgement here. PhiloVivero 08:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disturbing images

message: As many have observed, the current image is annoying. It has a big, ugly copyright and text that isn't translatable or font/contrast fixable, etc. I have uploaded a new version without any text so that people can put whatever they feel like putting onto it. It is linked left, and you should see it pretty plainly.
On the "it doesn't show the clitoris" controversy: if you see a picture of a non-erect non-circumcised penis, would you say you can't see the penis because the foreskin is in the way? Well alright. You can't see the clitoris proper here, but the clitoral hood is pretty obvious, and is only obscured in the same sense that a penis is obscured by the foreskin. And besides, without cutting the woman open and destroying her genitals, you can only see about 5% of the clitoris on any woman, no matter how she tugs and pulls on the clitoral hood. So to supplement this image, we need only a diagram showing the internal (dissected) anatomy.
*I really don't know why you bothered. It is not a good picture of the vulva. Where did you get it from? A cut and paste from some skin pic? As to the "it doesn't show the clitoris" issue. Yes isn't it hilarious. Sadly the argument just serves to make it worse. Using the penis analogy one would say that it like placing a pic of an uncircumcised penis (with full coverage) on the glans page and saying ... well its under there some where ... use your imagination. This issue has now moved from the bizarre to the ridiculous. Sad for Wikipedia. The Vulva article needs a good vulva pic and the Clitoris article needs a good clitoris pic. Common sense really. - Robert the Bruce 09:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * This is an article about the CLITORIS, not about the CLITORIS GLANS. You really need to quit while you're ahead. I have a suggestion for you. Take all the energy you're just now thinking of expending making some useless reply about how the image is destroying modern society, and instead, click "random page" ten times, and on each load, contribute something useful to the article you see. That way, people will think of you as someone who contributes to a community effort, rather than as someone who sits in the corner, bitching and moaning about how those who are contributing aren't doing a good job. PhiloVivero 13:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: *Be careful with the civility angle or you just might get Tony Sidaway on your case (interesting to see what will happen). With your convoluted explanations you are just digging yourself in deeper. Go on, delete the crappy image and be done with it. - Robert the Bruce 15:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Human Vulva Image That's Annoying Text Free 

message: Persistent wardrobe malfunctionists deletionists might want to consider the case of Cantus, who was once handsome and tall as you.
chocolateboy 16:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Consider Cantus

message: In an attempt to end the edit wars by ascertaining without unambiguity the general opinion on the current photograph, which has been repeatedly removed and restored, I call a poll on the following question:
Question: Should this image appear in the Clitoris article?
 --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll on the current photograph

message: # --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Yes


message: *As I said above, the last poll was marred because it presented a bad set of options. Please give some time to construct polls with an eye toward consensus as polls are not the last word in consensus or even a very good mechanism. At the very least, questions alternatives should be clearly laid out and discussed before the creation of a poll as suggested at Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. I move to scrap this survey and to work toward constructing a better one. Cool Hand Luke 04:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Due to the numerous edit wars going on, I have protected this page. I'll lift it when I've seen some substantive discussion instead of mindless reverting. →Raul654 05:34, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
: Would you mind explaining what you would consider "substantive discussion"?Dr Zen 05:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion that makes a good faith attempt at achieving consensus. →Raul654 05:59, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, Raul. I'll be happy to kick off the discussion. I think the material Robert the Bruce cut was a good-faith addition to the article and was perfectly valid. Does Mr the Bruce think that people do not pierce any part of the clitoris? Does he think no one stretches it? If he does not, then he cannot be opposing the text on the grounds that it is not factual. There is no other ground for opposing its inclusion rather than editing it. 
Now could you please remove the protection so that this article can be edited and instead of preventing the wiki from working block Mr the Bruce from editing if he will not respect your request for discussion here?Dr Zen 06:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *It appears to me that it is you who needs some help on this Theresa. Clearly your behaviour towards me is neither rational nor normal. I would like to help you work through this (if we can find a suitable mediator/councillor. - Robert the Bruce 20:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I am happy to go through mediation with you Robert. That's why I offered it before - I'll put a request in to the mediation committee. Um you appear to have forgotton to answer the question above. So i'll repeat it - Why did you delete the paragraph without explanation? Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 21:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: About the article: What was wrong with the recent additions? Cool Hand Luke 04:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Both actions should be last resorts. I've asked him on his talk page to clarify. Cool Hand Luke 00:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the page was protected as a first resort, no?Dr Zen 01:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Rickyrab 01:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Horrible! but it raises my POINT the picture of clitoris depicted in the article is Pornographic. --198 04:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well that is a purty lady in my view.  Whether the current picture can be viewed as pornographic is neither here nor there.  My first wank book was the Sculpture entry of an Encyclopedia Britannica; I don't suppose the habits of small boys have changed much in the meantime. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  To quote from the above link... "pornography is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal..."  Nobody can say Wiki or any of its contributors have the goal or intent of getting somebody arosed in this article.  Furthermore, last time I checked, porn mags/videoes they didn't have labels to body parts.  Only invidividuals with an extremenly low threshold for sexual excitment are likely to be arosed from the current photo. The picture just ain't sexy.  Revmachine21 11:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe we should hide the vulva 

message: Wikipedians will be aware that of the brouhaha that has arisen around the issue of the deletion of a poor quality edit to the clitoris article. Of course like all things in life one needs to look behind the obvious to establish what the real issue is. The edit was as follows:
 In various cultures, the clitoris is sometimes pierced. Piercings of the clitoris include a
 piercing of the clitoral hood, and the Isabella piercing, among many others. Some cultures at
 various times in history have practiced stretching, which can enlarge the clitoris, or can make it
 more visible.
Note the first sentence. The use of the word "various" is not qualified. The use of the word "sometimes" is not qualified. So we don't know which cultures and the degree of prevalence. Very poor contribution to an encyclopedia. Now it may be lost on some that the name of the article is Clitoris so why would there be a reference to female genitalia in general rather than the clitoris specifically? Silly mistake made worse by the near pathological desperation to maintain this paragraph at all costs by others. Do we see a link to a pic of a pierced clitoris? Do we see a link to pic of a pierced clitoral-hood even? No! We can follow a link to a pic of a decorative "relatively new" type of piercing the "Isabella". We note that the neither the clitoris nor the clitorial hood are involved in this piercing. Off topic stuff should really be avoided one would think. On of course there are "many other" types of piercing the quantity and location of which readers are left to imagine. The last sentence continues with the use of the words "some" and "various" which sadly is just more of the same unsubstantiated trash which does not deserve to be found on the pages of an encyclopedia. Perhaps the first mistake is the changing of the title from "female circumcision" to "Altering the female genitalia". The original information accurately informed that in specific types of FGM the clitoris is pierced or clipped or whatever. The edit in question has not contributed to the quality of the article and the judgement and maturity of those who desperately defend this crap should be questioned. (Now I await my sanctimonious "friend" to claim this is a vicious personal attack on the person who made the edit). - Robert the Bruce 06:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Low quality edits are delt with by improving them, not deleting them. Clitoris piericing is not offtopic on the clitoris article, so the content should not have been deleted. Lack of sources are delt with by asking on the talk page where the contributer got the information from not deleting them.
.Piercing is an alteration of the female genitalia, as is stretching to make it bigger, so it is appropriate to go in the article, and shouldn't have been deleted. The real reason you delete the article, was becasue of who put it in. Otherwise you would have said the above when first asked, and not now, after being asked over and over and accused of being a vandal. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 09:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: *Not a very intelligent contribution there Theresa. Like with the issue around the pic here once again you seem to lose sight of the fact that this article is about the clitoris. As such it is not a blank canvas for the insertion of anything and everything as the spirit may move individuals. Genital piercing other than that pertaining to the clitoris and or its hood is off topic here and as such the sub-section should never have been altered from "Female circumcision" which dealt with how FGM in certain circumstances involves the clitoris. This inability to comprehend comes as no surprise here as there is now a pattern of a lack of comprehension forming. The Isabella piercing (of which a link to a pic was so kindly submitted) does not involve the clitoris. Now why should that worry you (after all you have fought tooth and nail to retain a pic of vulva which does not display the clitoris)? Again no surprise there. The pattern continues to form. BTW here is a better pic of the clitoris  - Robert the Bruce 15:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: What is the copyright status of that picture? (Note that we alreadt link to the clitoris com - it's an excellent site) Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 12:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I've got a better idea. We just ignore your trolling, and revert anything you do that is not good for the article. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 18:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, allowing that Robert must be taken to be acting in good faith, Theresa, why not just say that he is welcome to edit the article to improve it? He may not demand that DanP explains his edit; we all know that. No one has to defend anything because whatever they put can be edited. If Robert would like the edit "fleshed out", why, he can do it for himself! Please, no more protection of the page. That simply prevents good-faith editing of this page. If Robert reverts edits, block him for vandalism.Dr Zen 23:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the article should not be protected over this. This article has been protected too much. And yes - if someone vandalises they should be blocked. But because I have a history with Robert, and because Robert and I are supposed to be going into mediation (although he hasn't indicated which of the mediators are acceptable, and in fact is demanding that they be qualified to deal with OCD - which probably rules out all of them) then I can't be the one to block him. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 07:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The case of the low quality edit 

message: I'm trying to fathom why Robert made this change .  Surely female circumcision belongs as a subcategory of genital alteration?  Also it's not clear to me what particular text Robert is referring to when he says "I trust those so keen on retaining this excuse for an entry will flesh it out. Say within 48 hours or it gets deleted?".  Assuming, Robert, that you're referring to the text you have now partitioned from female circumcision under "Altering the female genitalia", what exactly is the problem with this entry? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *If Robert things he can delete valid material after 48 hours he is mistaken.Naturally i woulds like to see the section fleshed out too, with details. But the material should stay until it is fleshed out. If Robert tries to delete it I will add it back in. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 18:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: *I'm sure you would Theresa. I'm sure then you will explain why the non fleshed out stuff must stay. I notice no effort on your part to do the fleshing out yourself? Your job around here just to keep the plebs in line then? Self appointed of course. - Robert the Bruce 19:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Factually correct - even if rather sparce information stays in aticles. That's how things work in wikipedia. If everything had to be perfect within a short time frame, nothing would ever get writtem. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Removal of factual material - even if not perfect, is bad for wikipedia. Wikipedia is after an encylopedia. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 19:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Altering the female genitalia"-> "Female circumcision"+"Altering the female genitalia". Why?

message: I won't indulge in a revert war with those who wish to impose their views here. I have attempted to edit the wiki in keeping with the policy and another editor has reverted my edit. If he is that keen to have this picture, I know that he will revert it time and again. There is no use in forcing the issue with a hardliner. Dr Zen 07:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No revert war

message: We already know pretty much how everybody feels.  I would not support a proposal to exclude all possible clitoris photographs from this article, but as I've said earlier I'm open to persuasion.  In the meantime I have proposed that we ask for  the page protection to be lifted and replace the current photograph with a link to the same photograph for the few days that I think it will take for me to ask around my more exhibitionist friends and obtain a more appropriate GFDL picture. I suggest that this provides us with a way forward that grants concessions to all points of view except those who want to dig in their heels. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you except for linking the current picture, however temporary. Call me digging in my heels, but I'm offended by linking the picture for any amount of time. The skeptic in me also fears that the current antis will find something wrong with any new picture, and thus prolong the debate indefinitely. Timbo 18:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: You make some very good points. I'd rather just leave the picture inline until a new one came along, but in the interests of wikipedia and conflict resolution I'd support linking it until Monday. Let's go for it. Timbo 18:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: You have to admit that seems very unlikely to happen in the near future.  I think the only way that a true consensus is going to be formed is to give anyone the ability to automatically link to certain images rather than display them inline.  Even this is opposed by some hardliners, but I think we can get over that.  Then we get to fight over which will be the default for anonymous users, and that's probably something we can never come to a consensus about. anthony 警告 03:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think giving the people the option show all images as a link rather than displayed is very sensible. If it's done for all images rather than "offensive ones" we stifle all argument over - "is this particular pic offensive or not?" I'll not comment on what the default for non logged in users should be - we can argue about that later. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 09:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's precisely what I was referring to by the "hardliner" argument.  Giving people the option to link to all images which anyone finds offensive doesn't have to be controversial.  And if you don't intend to turn on the option you shouldn't be involved in any controversy derived from the option anyway.  Further, if people are interested in a more finely tuned system we could come up with one.  One thing I suggest we start doing now is start tagging images to describe the content just like we tag images to describe the license.  anthony 警告 16:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem would be coming up with a NPOV tagging system.  This would preclude such labels as "content unsuitable for minors" and "objectionable", which are decidedly POV. "Photographic depict of primary sexual organs" on the other hand, is a possible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it's hard to come up with an NPOV tagging system.  "Some users may find this objectionable" would be NPOV, just as "The individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, and subsequent persons who place it into articles, assert that this qualifies as fair use" is. anthony 警告 19:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The latter statement refers to an identifiable set of people, whereas the former is very imprecise.  On what grounds does this poorly defined set of unidentified people find the picture objectionable and, even more important, how does a given user know that he probably does or does not belong to that group? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is crazy talk. NPOV does not mean "be neutral". Read the policy. It means "include all views". Tagging it "potentially offensive" is not POV if you know damned well that it might be offensive to someone; it's a statement of fact. Dr Zen 23:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  I've read the policy, but I'm not sure that you have read and understood my point.  "Potentially offensive" is too vague.  How do I know whether a given image is "potentially offensive"?  Or rather, unless the picture is of kittens of puppies, how do I know it is not? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, I do agree it's highly unlikely to happen soon, if ever. But I don't think it hurts for all contributors to keep in mind that it's a worthy goal, and not to be quite so dismissive of others' concerns, even if they seem unfounded. Dr Zen 04:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win. (Ford Prefect) And yes, I'm talking about them. Ejrrjs | What? 23:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You know that could apply either way? Personally, I don't mind a picture (although I do not like this picture). However, I know that there are people who do. I believe a consensual page would bring a solution that somewhat satisfied everyone. However, clearly, some believe there should be a picture regardless of others' views. There is a fundamental divide in Wikipedia, I fear, between those who believe it should be built on consensus as far as possible, and those who believe that the majority view should always prevail. Dr Zen 00:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I know, I've chosen my words to that effect. Personally, I don't mind NOT having a picture. There's no picture here: :es:Clítoris, but I won't bother to add one. However, I unconfortable with (other people's) stubborness. Should I yield for sake of "consensus"?. Consensus is not always possible. If that happens, it is better to rely on majorities, clear majorities as in this case. Ejrrjs | What? 12:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: *I would be interested in what the "majority" decided as indicated by the vote? For the record the question was: - Robert the Bruce 13:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: However, clearly, some believe there should be a picture regardless of others' views  This is a somewhat loaded statement.  One could equally say that "some believe that there should be no picture, regardless of the majority view that there should."  Those who want a picture are seriously mischaracterized by you when you falsely claim that they want any picture.  Those who want a picture have shown considerable latitude.  Some who do not want the current picture have also shown considerable latitude.  The term "hardliner" would only properly apply to those, should they exist, who would flat-out refuses to consider anything but no picture at all, or (and I'm pretty sure these people don't exist) would flat-out refuse to contemplate changing the current picture.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Well come on now. It's quite possible that they want this specific picture, not any picture. Casting yourself as against some crazy movement that's hell bent on absolutely any naughty picture they can find is not helpful to this process. Timbo 00:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, Timbo, both sides agreed not to include a picture temporarily. Part of the disagreement revolves around the unsuitability of this particular picture. The editors who are reverting the page did not even take part in the discussion. BTW, I call on you, since you are here, to help maintain the consensus page. Dr Zen 00:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agreed. Tony and Theresa agreed. Did the entire "side" agree? Obviously not, judging by the reverts on the page. You can fault them for not saying so on the talk page, but they've voiced their opinions in those edits. If they don't have a something to say beyond what has already been said here (for months), then I don't think refraining from repeating their edit comments in the talk page is inappropriate. And I'd love to maintain the "concensus" page, but we don't have one right now. Timbo 00:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Precisely.  For days we've been berated for acting as if being in the majority meant that we could run roughshod over the right of others to revert our favored version of the page.  Now Timbo, Theresa and I all agreed that we would try a linked version, and Theresa even went ahead and produced the linked version.  Now other members of the majority, and administrators who took the poll as a mandate for having a picture illustrating the clitoris, step in and revert our changes, and then they protect the page when the minority restarts the revert war.  And now this is where the minority learns that the freedom to revert what others have done cuts both ways.  There is no way except by widening the discussion and convincing the others--including the admins--that ours is the right way to proceed, to get out of this deadlock.   In my view this propensity of some on the minority side to engage in revert warring is not helping matters.  The various accusations being flung around against the administrators isn't helping matters, either.  The majority side wouldn't need administrators to impose its will in any case.  If admins were not involved in protecting this page, we would just sit around and conduct a round-robin reversion of attempts to remove the picture, and wait for the minority members with enouth stamina to keep it up to be blocked for breaking the 3RR.  Having administrators around cools such open warfare and encourages discussion of the kind we have had. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Again with the compromise proposal

message: I believe it's not on en, but still in nl here. It's a bit more explicit. I know there were unknown copyright issues, but other than that? Timbo 00:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been established that it's a copyvio. In any case, the poorness of the current photo is only half the problem. Still, solving half the problem would at least be a way forward! Dr Zen 00:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: "The poorness of the current photo is only half the problem," you say? Please outline your view of the entire problem so we can try to solve it. And the copyright issues notwithstanding, what's wrong with said picture? Timbo 00:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the foregoing discussion, where the problem is outlined in great detail. Dr Zen 00:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could be so kind as to reiterate here so that I and everyone that happens upon this page will be clear on exactly what your objections are. Timbo 01:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Listen Zen, I and others have had to repeat our views ad nauseum for months. Months. In the interest of clarity and expediting conflict resolution I think it would be a good idea if we were to state exactly what our views are in as concise a manner as possible. Timbo 01:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remember the old photo?