Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
Which image should we use to show the location of the clitoris? |
Which image should we use to show the location of the clitoris? |
||
===This |
===This accurate, scientific and encylopedic image=== |
||
[[Image:ClitorisNewLoc2.jpg|thumb|center|]] |
[[Image:ClitorisNewLoc2.jpg|thumb|center|]] |
||
#[[User:Rrjanbiah|Rrjanbiah]] 11:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|||
or |
or |
||
===This |
===This childish cartoon=== |
||
[[Image:Vagina_Clitoris.jpg|thumb|center|]] |
[[Image:Vagina_Clitoris.jpg|thumb|center|]] |
Revision as of 11:53, 1 September 2004
- Talks about to put or not a photograph of a clitoris moved to Talk:Clitoris/Image discussion
- Older talk moved to Talk:Clitoris/Archive1
pronunciation
I'm still not convinced that
- "klih TOHR ihs, British ["klaItQr@s] KLY tor ihs
even belong in this article. It is certainly NOT true that the British pronunciation is "KLY -". It's "KLIHT uh rihs", the first pronunciation given in the article -- Tarquin 17:07, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- As I said before, the Oxford English Dictionary disagrees. If you want to do a variety survey of the entire country to find out what percentage of people use a different pronunciation, from all classes and regions, and your results show that no one actually says the word that way, then go ahead and remove it. I think, until then, we should trust the "definitive dictionary of Modern English, especially British English." Just because you've never heard a word pronounced in a particular way doesn't mean people in other places don't say it that way. For example, until recently, I had no idea that a large number of English speakers don't pronounce the 'l' in "almond". And given that "clitoris" is not the kind of word that gets bandied about a lot in the (spoken) mass media, it seems likely that different pronunciations from your own may be quite widespread. Since you seem to disagree that the second and third pronunciations are valid, why don't you add it to List of words of disputed pronunciation? -- Nohat 06:50, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm British and believe me, NO-ONE pronounces it KLY... You haven't provided evidence, by the way, your screenshot doesn't show the pronunciation. Exile
- It does show the pronunciation (at the start on the left). However, I agree it's talking nonsense. In 25 years of living in the UK I've never yet heard anyone use this pronunciation. Marnanel 00:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I seem to recall that the popular beat combo The Stranglers used the KLY... pronunciation in their song "Peaches"... -- The Anome 08:50, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think that should be taken as an instance -- it was probably done like that to avoid censorship -- Tarquin 09:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- --
- He actually pronounces it kliht AHR ihs (i.e. rhymes with guitarist :-)
- chocolateboy 11:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The current picture is missing, although some older versions are available. Wonder how that happened?
Tualha 02:14, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- That is odd. I've commented it out for now. I tried to revert to the existing, older version, but no joy. See wikipedia:bug reports, I guess. Martin 21:37, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I re-uploaded the image, which seems to have fixed it for now. Martin 11:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Clitoris on the main page?
The link in the "See also" section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/1/19/Clitoris.jpg
brings up a page that says,
Not Found The requested URL was not found on this server. Please try our main page.
and then redirects to the main page.
- Yes, it seems to be broken. I'm going to try again one more time... well it's lasted a bit longer. Martin 22:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
image
If someone is going to remove the penis photos from the penis page and in effect, insinuating that MY penis is offensive! im going to be pissed. It's not the same with clitoris ofcourse, but for solidarity's sake, im upset. BL 23:25, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Seems that User:Cantus decided to remove the image. Personally I think that it is appropriate, though I will not revert his change directly. Consensus? UPDATE: Ah, this seems to be an ongoing argument. I'm staying out of it. Palnu 08:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- What I want to know is what Cantus does for a job to read up on clitorises at work - David Gerard 09:10, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- That was only an example... there are multiple others. The fact is that it is inappropriate to have such an explicitly graphic image on display without any warning. --Cantus 09:53, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Isn't the title of the article a "warning"?
- chocolateboy 11:19, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- He should tell his boss "but it's not porn, it's an encyclopedia!" I'd love to see this spurious policy that Wikipedia is to be "work-friendly" - David Gerard 11:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Most encyclopedias don't carry real pictures of human body parts, for obvious reasons. --Cantus 02:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- It's not "obvious" to me. Could you explain it more fully? And stop marking major changes as minor? - Hephaestos|§ 02:15, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Image
Is it too much to ask to attempt to keep this encyclopedia G-rated and safe for all the family? I support a version which links to the clitoris image, but does not display it in the article page. Is this really too much to ask? This sort of thing can get this whole site blocked from libraries. Besides that image is quite vulgar. (the clitoris itself is not, but the image elements are) --Cantus 02:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Responded to on Talk:Penis. →Raul654 03:10, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I think we need a picture, but I really hope we one day replace this one that frankly looks like it's been lifted from porn. -- Tarquin 08:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it is too much. There is no consensus for anything of the sort. Why don't you try putting fuck on VFD. - David Gerard 11:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes. G rated. A child, being born, might see, looking back, a vagina and a clitoris. Being breast fed, it should see breasts as well. So, eliminate images of a penis, and let female genitalia and mammaries stand. Ronabop 11:55, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yawn. --Cantus 03:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could arrange to visually "bleep out" that terrible sight, so that they might be spared the trauma, by arranging for childbirth to occur in darkness? But even then, further shocks are likely later in life, as the poor unfortunate of either sex discovers their own genitalia... perhaps we should make everyone wear The Garment To Cover The Entire Human Body at all times, in addition to bowdlerizing all the encyclopedias?
- Seriously, if you don't want to see a picture of a clitoris, not looking at an encylopedia article entitled "clitoris" might be a good precaution. -- The Anome 13:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yawn. --Cantus 03:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's too much to ask. The appropriate number of images is one or more for each reasonably frequently encountered variation in appearance - the book Famalia provides a fair initial selection of variations. The idea is to educate and inform, not to educate and inform only at the level some think appropriate for some 4 year olds. However, there is discusson of a tagging system which could be used to let those who want filtering choose to have a filtered view. Meanwhile, I suggest that you use one of the large number of filtering programs. Jamesday 03:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Could we at least get a non-vulgar version of a clitoris? A porn performer spreading herself with her large painted nails doesn't seem like a good way to illustrate a clitoris. A drawing would be MUCH preferable. It is not at all clear to me from that photo what a clitoris is or looks like. The graphic needs to be more general. --Cantus 03:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The war paint has been removed. Perhaps you saw an older version by mistake? Martin 11:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm referring to the current version. --Cantus 00:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A photo seems perfectly appropriate, that's life...(and the good part of life, I know it's better to show weapons & violent images). May be something less vulgar, but for the time being we have to stay with that. Tom
Don't see why people are objecting to the current graphic. What's "vulgar" about it? Do we have to show a vulva that looks unattractive or something? It's a nice, clear photo.
The current picture gives the wrong impression that the clitoris be identical with the tiny glans visible through the clitoral hood. Especially the circle in the enlarged part is misleading. However, this picture shows the vaginal opening much better than the one on vulva, so maybe we should exchange the two pictures (of course, the black lines and the enlarged part would have to be removed, and labels added).
More importantly, we need a drawing showing the entire clitoris, including the "inverted V" shape of the crus. See for example figures 7-22 and 7-23 in http://www.the-clitoris.com/1r4/anatomy/disectb.jpg . AxelBoldt 13:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- It's not really a wrong impression: it's important that people know where to find the externally visible part of the clitoris. I don't think it's misleading, but it could be improved by the addition of more diagrams. Marnanel 13:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Captioning
Wikipedia:Captions wants better captioning and Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions has put clitoris on its list of pages needing better captions. For the photo, how about:
- "Due to its central role in the physiology of female sexual arousal, the clitoris, and its male counterpart the penis, are taboo in many societies."
If you come up with something good, don't forget to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions --Kop 07:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It could be useful to find or make a B/W photo of a clitoris. Black and white can be even more informative than color in some circumstances, while it is certainly less pornographic. See circumcision for an example of genital pics that are quite informative, but (I think) not particularly arousing. Shimmin 03:12, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the state of decency
A well done drawing is better than a pornographic picture which will offend a lot of people. Jesus Christ would agree. Don't behave like children, please. --Cantus 20:46, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
- What does Jesus Christ have to do with the matter, and how do you know his opinions on photographic depictions of the human body? Marnanel 00:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- A picture can be informative without necessarily being pornographic. Then again, if you have a necktie fettish, you might find Image:Neck_Tie_Platter.jpg positively erotic. Should we do something more to make the photo here less "pornographic" and yet just as informative? Black & white might help, but I would caution against further cropping. If we were to get another picture with some inanimate apparatus (e.g. chopsticks) doing the necessary displacement of the labia rather than fingers, that might also help. But I agree that the picture we have is better than none until someone goes to the trouble to make a special picture. -- ke4roh 00:56, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
- The drawing I put up is MUCH better for an encyclopedia. You people just don't get it. You just think it's cool and bold to have a porn picture. It's not. --Cantus 02:35, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, how should the photography of clitoris look like, so it could not be considered “a porn picture”? Rafał Pocztarski 05:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Would Cantus be happy with the same pose as in the diagram, except as a photograph? If not, why not? -- The Anome 07:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Encyclopedias use drawings instead of pictures, because: a) Not all human parts are/look the same. In a drawing parts are sharply drawn out so they can be better distinguished from other parts. This way people can understand and learn the global structure. A real photograph is just a lot of flesh. b) Encyclopedias are for all ages and all types of people. Real photographs of genitalia are reserved for medical books which have limited access and have a special purpose. Third, the current picture is porn and suitable not even for a medical book. I'm reverting again, and I hope you people truly understand what I'm going for here. --Cantus 00:41, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
- The drawing is good for one who is familiar with female anatomy, but is it good for the unfamiliar? (I ask to learn the answer, not to cast doubt on the suitability of the drawing.) -- ke4roh 00:53, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
- a) is a fair point: there are things which diagrams show better than photographs. However, I think there are things that can be shown by a photograph as well: a simple photo like this is more concrete, and I think both would help someone who was learning about human anatomy in different ways. So I think we need both. b) just begs the question. c) is meaningless unless you define what you mean by "porn". In summary: no, I don't really understand what you're going for here. Marnanel 01:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe the photograph should be in black-and-white, to reduce the "pornographic" effect that Cantus argues. At least the colors in the photo look subdued. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 01:02, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
A photo makes this Wiki less accessable to those who are shocked by such photos. On the other hand, the pro-Clitoris crowd does not get short-sheeted by a drawing, provided it's a quality one. I say nix the photo. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:Cubaflag15.gif Read this]] 07:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Memo to admins: 4th revert outside 24 hours. --Cantus 05:42, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Image Poll
Which image should we use to show the location of the clitoris?
This accurate, scientific and encylopedic image
- Rrjanbiah 11:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
or