Wikipedia:Use of pics of genitals in articles

I would like to raise this issue here as I believe it is a matter that needs to be discussed beyond the narrow confines of the articles themselves. I responded to Theresa Knott on Talk:Male_circumcision#circumsized_penis as follows:

Theresa you seem to be using this talk page to cover issues relating to pictures in a number of articles. My main issue is with the use of a pic in the clitoris article which does not show the clitoris itself but rather a close up of the external female genitals. It seems rather pointless to me and supports my position that the view that any pic will do prevails whether it is of the subject or not. I can see why some people are offended. Now take the following for example [1] and tell me which (your pic or this drawing) gives the reader a better understandinhg of the anatomy of the clitoris. As to the "desperate need" to depict an erect penis in the Penis article: I can't see any particular value in inserting a picture of an erect penis into the main body of the article when there are already images of flacid penises. What is achieved by this "in your face" style? Why not have a link to off site images of one or two erections? My comment on quality of the pics in the circumcision article relates to the black and white images. Perhaps there are colour images available? I am sorry to say that once again it appears that you have shown poor judgement Theresa. It is just not good enough to place a pic on the clitoris page of a full frontal view of the external female genitals with a line indicating that somewhere under the prepuce/skin (somewhere there)lies the clitoris. It is very unprofessional. I would like your opinion as to how we should deal with the Anus with regard to pics? Robert the Bruce

I am happy that the position seems to be that the use of pics on Wikipedia is acceptable, but all I ask is that these pics be selected on the basis of suitability and educational value and not as is clearly the case with the clitoris pic "any pic will do". Clearly the people who are involved with the selection and insertion of these pics should be supervised until some policy is formed. - Robert the Bruce 03:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was not a matter of "any pic will do". There were two less-than-ideal images available and the one that was GFDL was chosen over the one without source. It is _still_ less-than-ideal, and should possibly be replaced / complemented by an image actually showing the clitoris, not only pointing out its location.

Exactly what is your question regarding the anus article? — David Remahl 09:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• You seem to have missed my point. David, the fact that a less-than-ideal pic has been deliberately retained unfortunately does indicate that the policy of “any pic will do” prevails. Can we please display a degree of maturity here where we cease to display an almost childlike desperation to include explicit pics of human genitals? If the policy indeed is that pics may/should be used then let us at least use suitable and tasteful examples. In the absence of suitable educational images is it not better to have none than insert porn as a place marker? The picture in question (on the clitoris page) is in reality more than just "less-than-ideal" in that it does not depict the clitoris at all and just "says" its in there somewhere. Its quite disgraceful really. Now further anyone who met a few of them in his time will realise that the point of interest is size variations one comes across and the mere location can be depicted by a simple drawing. The link I posted (above) actually provides all the information one needs to know in this regard and am concerned about the mentality which demands the insertion of a full frontal view of the external female genitals which does not show the subject of the article in question. As I stated. The people involved in that fiasco need to be supervised. - Robert the Bruce 04:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert as I think I already said on the penis page. The value of the pic is in showing where the clitoris in relation to the other female organs. I didn't put the picture there Robert,someone else did. there was a month long vote on whther we should have a picture in the article and the consensus was very clear. I respect, and even at times enforce community consensus. I'm sorry that you don't like it but tough, consensus is how we do things around here. Naturally if someone can come up with a better picture, I'm sure the community will support that. As for the erect penis - I replaced one picture with another.You didn't complain about the erect penis that was there before - so I can only assume that your dislike of me is your motivation. However if the community (that means everyone, not just you) prefers the old picture, that's fine by me.

David i tink his question about the anus is would i show a picture of one. My answer is yes I would, however i don't get to make the decision, the community does. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

there was a month long vote on whther we should have a picture in the article I remember there being a vote on "Who would vote for replacing the second image on this page with this link? anatomical drawing" but that was hardly about "whether or not we should have a picture in the article". In fact, I voted No even though I think we shouldn't have a picture in the article (but rather link to a picture outside the article). I don't think we need a picture in clitoris any more than we need a picture in goatse.cx. I think the encyclopedia is best served by keeping the image as a link. anthony 警告 00:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Yes that process was hardly a case study in how to build consensus. With a carefully worded question (like so often happens with referendum questions) the real issue is often not the subject of the vote. So we stand at the point where wikipedians (supposedly) accept the use of pics in anatomy articles even when they are less than suitable and are of a "pornographic" nature. That is why I suggested that the people involved in this "month long vote" be supervised in future as quite obviously they are lacking the responsibility and judgement to manage such consensus building and policy formulation. - Robert the Bruce 04:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You want everyone who voted to be supervised? Or is it just the people who "carefully worded the question"? Who would do the supervision (Silly me - you of course) Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 06:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Wrong again Theresa. Lets work through this one more time then shall we? People who display poor judgement should be supervised ... and that specifically means those involved in the whole fiasco around the clitoris picture (for they are doing Wikipedia harm). I am asking that someone step forward and take on the challenge of supervising the "kids". If I wanted to do so personally I would have jumped to it already ... but I have no such inclination. - Robert the Bruce 04:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My point seems to have been lost in Robert's reply. AFAICT, there was not a vote on whether we should have a picture in the article. anthony 警告 14:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just want to point that that the real problem here is that the people who want the picture think the people who don't want it are being unnecessarily prudish to point of decreasing the value of Wikipedia because it would exclude potentially valuable information, and the people who don't want the picture think the people who want it are being unnecessarily sexually perverted to the point of decreasing the value of Wikipedia because they are including smutty pictures that have marginal or no informative value. I hope that if we acknowledge this we can move forward to finding a mutually agreeable solution, provided the participating parties are willing to cooperate. Nohat 07:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion, such images are valuable and should remain in their articles or be replaced by higher quality images if available. Illustrations are fine, but photos show details often not depicted in drawings. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 09:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• With respect you have not added to this debate as it is not a question about whether pics should be used in conjunction with or on their own but rather whether any crappy low quality porn pic will do (as seems to be the case). My plea is for maturity where we get beyond the need to insert any "in your face" pic of the human genitals for the hell of it. We should use only high quality, tasteful pics. Clearly the people who have been involved in the selection and posting of the current pics should be supervised from now on as they clearly are lacking the required judgement in this regard. - Robert the Bruce 21:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Supervised by who? People already view each other's edits. Consensus is, we should have a picture. If you don't believe me, try removing it and see what happens. People want a "in your face" (as you put it) picture. The picture that is there now is better than the old one becasue it's copyright status is clear. The old picture stayed on the page for over a yeat - despite several people trying to remove it. Why? Becasue the community wants what you call a "crappy porn pic" read the all clitoris talk page. You think the image is not very good -find a better one. You think the image should go altogether (because it's not up to your standards) Start a new poll if you must. But stop all this talk of supervising other people and follow good wiki manners. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:08, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Consensus. I am interested in your definition of consensus with regard to Wikipedia. I am specically interested in your take on how consensus was built around the this issue of the pic. Your question was:

QUESTION: Who would vote for replacing the second image on this page with this link? anatomical drawing

Who decided that that specific anatomical drawing was the only alternative? Who decided that the pic which incidentally does not show the clitoris was the only alternative? Theresa, suffice it to say that that charade of consensus building through a badly worded (or should one say cunningly worded) question does a disservice to Wikipedia. Now what did the question in fact ask? Wikipedians were asked if they wanted that specific pic or that specific drawing. Now please do not misinterpret the result as being a ringing endorsement of that pic to remain in the article. The pic does not show the clitoris. The pic is inappropriate in the context of the article. The people who were involved in that shambles have signalled load and clear that they do not have the judgement and thus should not be allowed to get involved in such travesties of consensus building again. - Robert the Bruce 04:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't my question Robert. I merely voted, I didn't formulate the question. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Theresa, you are enforcing that disgraceful example of how not build consensus. You have threatened
me on at least two occasions "to see what will happen" if I dare to delete that pic. You have 
adopted a threatening defence of that disgraceful process. You are therefore up to your neck in 
this issue Theresa. I protested at the time over the wording of the question and you slapped me
down. This situation is of your making Theresa. You have shown poor judgement. You must now
fix the mess you have made. - Robert the Bruce 05:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert read the page - all of it -every single bit of the archive. You appear to think that I or some other admin worded the poll. You are wrong. It was worded by someone who wanted to delete the picture. He worded that way because he thought itwas a good idea to link offsite - the community didn't agree. He said we could substitute another picture if we didn't like that one (you'd know this if you read the archive innstead of assuming you know best) what's more it's not the only poll we've had. We've had various others on this issue with all pretty much the same result. And we've had numerous discussions about it too. Some of those discussion can be found on the clitoris archive - some on the penis, some were here on the VP. You don't like the picture? remove it and see what happens - ypu'll come face to face with consensus then. Yoy think the picture isn't good enough - find a better one. Theresa knott 08:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Theresa it is not my responsibility to "find a better pic" to replace one inserted as a result of extraordinary poor judgement. I can, however, understand why you need to try and save face on this. the so-called consensus that was achieved was that the pic was prefered to the specific anatomical drawing offered. Do you understand this simple fact? I'll try again ... the specific pic was prefered to the specific anantomical drawing offered. The vote was not about the pic itself. Now why don't you hold another cute little vote and ask whether a pic which does not display the subject of the article should stay or be deleted thereby leaving the article wiothout a pic until a suitable one has been found. - Robert the Bruce 15:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do it yourself Robert.You're the one who wants the picture removed Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 16:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Are suggesting I should act in an arbitrary fashion Theresa? I believe you should clean up your own mess Theresa. Doing that will perhaps help you to avoid the same errors of judgement which led to this fiasco in the first place. - Robert the Bruce 17:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• My mess? You didn't read the talk page did you? Again - you want something done - do it, or shut up please Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, your mess Theresa. Fix your mess don't expect others to do so so that you can appear to save face. - Robert the Bruce 05:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why is it my mess Robert. I didn't insert either picture, i didn't start the vote. I might as well call it your mess. There's nothing to save face for. If you don't like it - lump it. As far as I am concered the current picture is fine. I have no intention of removing it. If you try to remove it, i will add it back in. If I'm not around, someone else will, because i have community consensus on my side.However if you replace it or suppliment it with a better one, then great. But if you are not willing to do that kindly shup up already Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Theresa I appreciate just how embarrassing this is for you. You were party to a decision (a travesty of consensus) that led to a picture of the vulva being place on the clitoris page. The consensus you refer to was a vote to select the pic of the vulva or an anatomical drawing. It was an "either, or" vote. It was a badly worded question which ultimately led to a bad result. The current pic on the Vulva page is superior as it is not an oblique shot. I say again Theresa that your judgement has once again been found wanting. Two points. The "consensus" you arrived at through the vote was that the current vulva pic on the clitoris page was favoured over the anatomical drawing. Nothing else. To claim anything else would be disingenuous. Read the question again:

QUESTION: Who would vote for replacing the second image on this page with this link?  
anatomical drawing

• What consensus do you think was arrived at through the vote? Perhaps you should ask someone you trust to explain all this to you. Secondly, this issue has raised a number of problem areas here on Wikipedia. It is evident that there is no mechanism to control those admin/sysop types who have a "gunslinger" mentality. Ever heard of "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (who guards the guards?). With apparently 300 odd admins out there this becomes more urgent by the day. Is it not important that Wikipedia does not provide a playground for "little tin gods"? The issue over the pic on the clitoris article is merely a symptom of a greater problem.
• What I suggest in the meantime (while a suitable pic of a clitoris is being located) is that the current picture is removed and replaced with a link to this anatomical drawing. As a sop to those whose feeelings may be hurt by this course of action the pic of the vulva from the Vulva article may be inserted as a place holder. - Robert the Bruce 04:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was not a "party to the decision" I merely voted on it -same as you did. I'm not intersted in your suggestion. If you remove the picture I will put it back in.Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why is this discussion continuing on the Village Pump? I see no sign of general interest in this: it has turned into an argument between two contributors over a particular picture in a particular article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:15, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

You're right.I'm sorry - I wont respond anymore. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you remove the picture I will put it back in. Theresa, you don't seem to be trying to reach consensus on this matter. If you put the picture back in I will remove it. How about that? anthony 警告 14:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How would you like to reach consensus on this matter? Theresa merely stated that she would re-add it as that is her given WikiRight, as much as it is mine to add it back in. Robert's comments in this discussion lean strongly towards trolling and are far from constructive. I too welcome a better image, but this one is better than none, and that seems to be the community consensus. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 21:25, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to reach consensus through compromise. We should link to the image without displaying it inline. anthony 警告 22:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Practically every picture in Wikipedia can be considered offensive to some readers. Are you prepared to replace every image with a link to it? In that case, we might as well do that in the software (or let users turn off image viewing in their clients). That would be a lot more efficient than manually replacing every image that someone finds offensive with a link. — David Remahl 22:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Linking only to the vaginal pictures is hopelessly POV and I, for one, will not support it. Timbo 22:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Forget compromise - this is a red herring. It's fairly obvious that the vast majority of people want a picture in the article - this much has been implied (if not all-and-all demonstrated) in numerous previous polls across multiple talk pages. So to the prudes here who are advocating removing the picture - see how many users will revert you. Oh, and Anthony, under the standing order, editing warring and/or disruptive editing on your part is grounds for a 24 hour ban, so consider yourself warned. →Raul654 06:00, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Forget compromise? Wow! Now onto the semantics. "Fairly obvious" is not good enough. The vote if you remember was an "either or" choice over a specific pic or a link to a drawing. Once again the:

QUESTION: Who would vote for replacing the second image on this page with this link?

anatomical drawing

A badly worded question will always produce a bad result. The situation is made worse by those trying to defend the retention of an unsuitable pic to the death. Sadly for Wikipedia, this defence includes grossly misrepresenting the result of the vote. This is not good. It plays right into the hands of those who want no photos of human genitalia at all in that the current picture does not even depict the clitoris and because of the oblique view of the shot does not even give an adequate location indicator. This is a battle not worth fighting. This drawing is the best illustration of the clitoris that I have found. It should be used as a link to get past copyvio issues. The current picture should be deleted and until a suitable picture is found there should be no pic in the article. I would add that there should be no issue around whether a suitable pic should be included and any discussion should be limited to the educational suitability of the recommended picture. This issue has come about through the extraordinarily poor judgement and maturity of those who were involved in the process from the early stages. This needs to be fixed. - Robert the Bruce 01:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're like a stuck record that no one is listening to. Saying the current image should be deleted over and over again will not make someone delete it. This is the true meaning of consensus Robert.You cannot make people do you you want them too and repeating yourself over and over again will not achieve anything. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The true meaning of consensus can be found here. I believe the process was flawed and that the results of the votes are being misrepresented to the extent that the community needs to take steps to: one, ensure this travesty does not happen again, and two, that those responsibile for the fiasco should be supervised in future. Thats it in a nutshell. Do you have a problem with this? - Robert the Bruce 03:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)