pictures of genetalia - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

pictures of genetalia

User:Wik

Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Pictures of...

A

10 Jan 2004 10 Jan '04

11:42 a.m.

The pages on genetalia should not contain images of genetaila. There are basic taboo issues which we should make some attempt to respect. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

Reply

Show replies by date

Nikos-Optim

10 Jan 10 Jan

2:53 p.m.

--- A [name omitted for privacy reasons] <wikilir(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

The pages on genetalia should not contain images of genetaila. There are basic taboo issues which we should make some attempt to respect.

if this post is not a joke, I suppose you are referring to pages like http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis I see no problem. however, I would not have objections to the replacement of the photographs with diagrams, although I still don't see where the problem is. --Optim __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

Reply

tarquin

3 p.m.

Nikos-Optim wrote:

I see no problem. however, I would not have objections to the replacement of the photographs with diagrams, although I still don't see where the problem is.

Diagrams instead of photos would probably be better.

Reply

Nikos-Optim

6:14 p.m.

--- tarquin <tarquin(a)planetunreal.com> wrote:

Diagrams instead of photos would probably be better.

Since some people seem to have problems with photos, I agree to replace them with diagrams, find some other solution, but I also think it wouldn't hurt if we left the article unchanged - except if lots of people consider it offensive. --Optim. PS> Below I wrote some comments, my POV, feel free to ignore or left unread: It is really a surprise for me to see such a discussion in Wikipedia during ***2004***... (POV follows) I thought the dark ages were past. (POV ended) I know however that my liberal standards are a bit higher than most people, and I do admit that during reading this discussion on this subject I laughed many times thinking about the development of human spirit, (POV follows) from my point of view I find it ridiculous (POV ended) and it makes me to feel sad. Anyway, if pictures of sexual organs really offend some people, we should take care of this. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not be offensive. Better to use diagrams. I hope nobody will find them offensive! (humour follows) Now, I would like to make my own addition to the "offensive material" issue. Article [[Child]] has an offensive photograph! It is the photo of a White child. But not all children are white. There are black and yellow children too! So this article is offensive to non-Whites and it is written from a White's Point Of View, which is against the NPOV spirit! I strongly suggest to remove this photo and replace it with a photo showing three children: one white, one black and one yellow, representing the friendship between the races and the unity of humanity! (in case you are wondering, I am White). (humour ends) (more humour, dont read it) And additionally the current [[Penis]] article says "The penis is capable of erection for use in sexual intercourse." but this is POV, because erection is also used in [[Masturbation]]. So Masturbators would find this article offensive and POV! :) (more humour ends, continue reading below) ***Let's replace quickly the "questionable images" with diagrams or find some other solution which will keep everyone happy, and stop wasting our time with penises!*** with Best Wishes for Peace Profound (an unknown concept to humans), --Optim __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

Reply

Sascha Noyes

6:56 p.m.

On Saturday 10 January 2004 12:14 pm, Nikos-Optim wrote:

--- tarquin <tarquin(a)planetunreal.com> wrote:

Diagrams instead of photos would probably be better.

Since some people seem to have problems with photos, I agree to replace them with diagrams, find some other solution, but I also think it wouldn't hurt if we left the article unchanged - except if lots of people consider it offensive. --Optim.

I do not agree with replacing pictures with diagrams. Both are useful and informative.

Anyway, if pictures of sexual organs really offend some people, we should take care of this.

No we shouldn't. Only if they offend most people.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not be offensive.

Why? Some people find pictures of deities offensive. Doesn't mean we shouldn't include them. Best, Sascha Noyes -- Please encrypt all email. Public key available from www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc

Reply

tarquin

6:59 p.m.

Nikos-Optim wrote:

--- tarquin <tarquin(a)planetunreal.com> wrote:

Diagrams instead of photos would probably be better.

Since some people seem to have problems with photos, I agree to replace them with diagrams, find some other solution, but I also think it wouldn't hurt if we left the article unchanged - except if lots of people consider it offensive. --Optim.

Diagrams have the advantage of being clearer to understand. We have a great diagram of the heart :) I can use vector graphics programs, but I would need something to work from (I mean a diagram, not a model, btw)

Reply

Peter Jaros

11 Jan 11 Jan

4:39 a.m.

On Jan 10, 2004, at 12:14 PM, Nikos-Optim wrote:

--- tarquin <tarquin(a)planetunreal.com> wrote: (humour follows) Now, I would like to make my own addition to the "offensive material" issue. Article [[Child]] has an offensive photograph! It is the photo of a White child. But not all children are white. There are black and yellow children too! So this article is offensive to non-Whites and it is written from a White's Point Of View, which is against the NPOV spirit! I strongly suggest to remove this photo and replace it with a photo showing three children: one white, one black and one yellow, representing the friendship between the races and the unity of humanity! (in case you are wondering, I am White).

Amen! Personally, I find the picture on the [[Penis]] article *quite* offensive. Not all people have penises! This article is inherently sexist and should be deleted!

(humour ends)

(BTW, absolutely no offense to Matt, who brought up the skin color issue. Just having a little fun) :) Seriously, though, I agree that

> Diagrams instead of photos would probably be better.

If only because diagrams tell you much more (eg., [[Image:Maleana2.gif]] vs. [[Image:Erect_penis.gif]]). I have no objection to pictures, and I think they are entirely appropriate, but diagrams are more informative. If the two are deemed redundant, I'd rather have the diagrams. Peter --- Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity. --Harry Shearer, Le Show

Reply

Peter Jaros

10 Jan 10 Jan

8:21 p.m.

On Jan 10, 2004, at 9:00 AM, tarquin wrote:

Nikos-Optim wrote:

I see no problem. however, I would not have objections to the replacement of the photographs with diagrams, although I still don't see where the problem is.

Diagrams instead of photos would probably be better.

Perhaps an inline diagram and a linked photo, so as to less offend the casual reader who stumbles (somehow...) on an article he didn't want to read, à la [[breast]]. Peter --- Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity. --Harry Shearer, Le Show

Reply

Anthere

3:59 p.m.

Nikos-Optim a écrit:

--- A [name omitted for privacy reasons] <wikilir(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >The pages on genetalia should not contain images of >genetaila. There are basic taboo issues which we >should make some attempt to respect.

The natural state of a penis is with the skin. Not circumsized. In some places in the world, circumsision hold a very strong pov (jewish faith) and memories (WWII). It is not until I came to the US, and a very unwise doctor carelessly asked me to sign the paper wherupon I was supposed to agree to have my child defaced (maybe not the best word), and I had to loudly forbid such a move, that I realise that people could do circumsision for other reasons than religion really. I think the picture of the circumsized penis has nothing to do in that article and should be moved to the article about circumsision (a difficult word to spell). If no one does it, I will (open threat :-))

Reply

Arvind Narayanan

4 p.m.

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:59:05PM +0100, Anthere wrote:

The natural state of a penis is with the skin. Not circumsized.

The natural state of people is without clothes. Should we post only nude photographs of people we write about? [snip]

I think the picture of the circumsized penis has nothing to do in that article and should be moved to the article about circumsision (a difficult word to spell).

I don't agree. If a significant fraction of males worldwide are circumcised then certainly the picture is relevant to the article. Arvind -- Its all GNU to me

Reply

Anthere

4:41 p.m.

Arvind Narayanan a écrit:

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:59:05PM +0100, Anthere wrote:

The natural state of a penis is with the skin. Not circumsized.

The natural state of people is without clothes. Should we post only nude photographs of people we write about?

Yes, on an article about human, it is perfectly logical to see a human in its natural state : nude. See http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human In this case, the topic of the article is the *penis* Not *circumsision* ...an article on which there is *currently* no picture.

I think the picture of the circumsized penis has nothing to do in that article and should be moved to the article about circumsision (a difficult word to spell).

I don't agree. If a significant fraction of males worldwide are circumcised then certainly the picture is relevant to the article. Arvind

If so, let's change the picture legend. We put at the top of the article the natural picture of a penis, with a legend stating "this is a penis" Then, much more at the bottom of the article, we indicate that some people have their penis transformed, and we put the relevant picture with a label "circonsized penis" Labelling the normal penis a "uncircumsized penis" is POV.

Reply

Arvind Narayanan

4:20 p.m.

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:41:19PM +0100, Anthere wrote:

Arvind Narayanan a écrit:

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 03:59:05PM +0100, Anthere wrote:

The natural state of a penis is with the skin. Not circumsized.

The natural state of people is without clothes. Should we post only nude photographs of people we write about?

Yes, on an article about human, it is perfectly logical to see a human in its natural state : nude. See http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human In this case, the topic of the article is the *penis* Not *circumsision* ...an article on which there is *currently* no picture.

Agreed. Arvind -- Its all GNU to me

Reply

cprompt

5:09 p.m.

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 10:41, Anthere wrote:

If so, let's change the picture legend. We put at the top of the article the natural picture of a penis, with a legend stating "this is a penis" Then, much more at the bottom of the article, we indicate that some people have their penis transformed, and we put the relevant picture with a label "circonsized penis" Labelling the normal penis a "uncircumsized penis" is POV.

I recall reading that in the United States, most men are circumcised, and in the rest of the world, most men aren't. Since both circumcised and uncircumcised are fairly common, it makes sense to have them side-by-side for comparison. Since men with pierced penises (ouch) are rather uncommon (so I would think), if we were to have a picture of one, I'd agree it shouldn't receive the same attention as the pictures on the top of the article. As for having photos on the Wikipedia at all, I really see no reason we should go around getting rid of photos of genitalia. If someone is offended by a photo of a penis at [[Penis]], I have to wonder why they were going to that article in the first place.

Reply

Anthere

11:14 p.m.

cprompt a écrit:

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 10:41, Anthere wrote:

>Labelling the normal penis a "uncircumsized penis" is POV.

I repeat, labelling the normal penis a "uncircumsized" penis is POV It is like putting on an article about [[teenager]], with two pictures of two teenager girls, one white and one black : as legend, "a white girl" and "a non white girl".

I recall reading that in the United States, most men are circumcised, and in the rest of the world, most men aren't. Since both circumcised and uncircumcised are fairly common, it makes sense to have them side-by-side for comparison. Since men with pierced penises (ouch) are rather uncommon (so I would think), if we were to have a picture of one, I'd agree it shouldn't receive the same attention as the pictures on the top of the article.

in the United States, most men are circumcised in the rest of the world, most men aren't conclusion : both situations are common. I do not know why, but I feel like I could go on a rant here. I really do.

Reply

Alex T.

11:44 p.m.

Many people agree with you Anthere, even in the United States. This is an issue that has become galvanized because of the supposed "antisemite" connotations of circumcision (though moslems also practice this form of male genital mutilation as a religious right of the parents). J. Steven Svoboda, a Harvard Law School graduate started this UN recognized NGO: http://www.arclaw.org/ There are also some other sites to look at: http://www.mgmbill.org/ http://www.noharmm.org/home.htm This is a serious problem. If you chose to discuss it on this list it would not be a rant, Anthere, as I think most list members respect and value your opinions. It is certainly related to the issue of NPOV and is not off topic because of the discussion about what would be an accurate, unbiased depiction of the human anatomy. Alex (en:user:alex756) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthere" <anthere8(a)yahoo.com> To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 5:14 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: pictures of genetalia

cprompt a écrit:

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 10:41, Anthere wrote:

>Labelling the normal penis a "uncircumsized penis" is POV.

I repeat, labelling the normal penis a "uncircumsized" penis is POV It is like putting on an article about [[teenager]], with two pictures of two teenager girls, one white and one black : as legend, "a white girl" and "a non white girl".

I recall reading that in the United States, most men are circumcised, and in the rest of the world, most men aren't. Since both circumcised and uncircumcised are fairly common, it makes sense to have them side-by-side for comparison. Since men with pierced penises (ouch) are rather uncommon (so I would think), if we were to have a picture of one, I'd agree it shouldn't receive the same attention as the pictures on the top of the article.

in the United States, most men are circumcised in the rest of the world, most men aren't conclusion : both situations are common. I do not know why, but I feel like I could go on a rant here. I really do. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

erik_moeller＠gmx.de

11 Jan 11 Jan

12:09 a.m.

Alex-

Many people agree with you Anthere, even in the United States. This is an issue that has become galvanized because of the supposed "antisemite" connotations of circumcision (though moslems also practice this form of male genital mutilation as a religious right of the parents).

This is not the place for a circumcision flamewar. Many people feel that in spite of lacking a foreskin, they are fully sexually functional, and may even believe in the supposed medical benefits of the procedure. As a matter of fact, there are some recent studies which promote the belief that circumcision even prevents HIV. I say "promote the belief" because these studies are fundamentally methodologically flawed, but it is easy to see that people might believe them, given that they have been published in peer reviewed (US) journals and have received widespread (international) media attention. There are people who believe just as forcefully that circumcision is right, decent and proper as I believe that it is wrong, harmful and pointless, and there are internally consistent arguments that can be made for both sides. Few subjects are as eligible to turn into long lasting flamewars as this one. Please do not encourage rants on this subject -- they do not really contribute to a debate about inclusion standards. Wikipedia is not Usenet. It's not a place for advocacy of any kind. If anything, we should talk about how to make the article [[circumcision]] better, not about what's morally wrong with the procedure. Otherwise we might as well talk about the international arms trade, social equality, global warming and electronic voting machines, all very serious issues. Regards, Erik

Reply

Anthere

12:33 a.m.

Erik Moeller a écrit:

Alex-

Many people agree with you Anthere, even in the United States. This is an issue that has become galvanized because of the supposed "antisemite" connotations of circumcision (though moslems also practice this form of male genital mutilation as a religious right of the parents).

This is not the place for a circumcision flamewar. Many people feel that in spite of lacking a foreskin, they are fully sexually functional, and may even believe in the supposed medical benefits of the procedure. As a matter of fact, there are some recent studies which promote the belief that circumcision even prevents HIV. I say "promote the belief" because these studies are fundamentally methodologically flawed, but it is easy to see that people might believe them, given that they have been published in peer reviewed (US) journals and have received widespread (international) media attention. There are people who believe just as forcefully that circumcision is right, decent and proper as I believe that it is wrong, harmful and pointless, and there are internally consistent arguments that can be made for both sides. Few subjects are as eligible to turn into long lasting flamewars as this one. Please do not encourage rants on this subject -- they do not really contribute to a debate about inclusion standards. Wikipedia is not Usenet. It's not a place for advocacy of any kind. If anything, we should talk about how to make the article [[circumcision]] better, not about what's morally wrong with the procedure. Otherwise we might as well talk about the international arms trade, social equality, global warming and electronic voting machines, all very serious issues. Regards, Erik

I am going to improve the article right now, by moving to it what currently DOES NOT belong to the penis article. Which is *absolutely* the only position I have been holding. I was talking of NPOV and american bias, not of any morality issues.

Reply

Alex T.

12:40 a.m.

I think you missed my point Eric. The point being that Anthere has a perfectly valid complaint. There is nothing NPOV about circumsicion. It is not a fact, it is something that people do. As such it should not be used to slant an article one way or the other. No one is talking about advocacy here. If you want to advocate either way, then join one of the pro or anti circumcision groups. If you want to be objective then don't suggest that an article about genitals should feature genitals that have been altered by a medical procedure. Showing a circumsicised genital, male or female, is a culturally charged act, not something that should be taken for granted in an encyclopedia that is trying to be neutral. If someone wants to write an article about circumcision, that is where a circumsized male and female genitalia belong, just like I would not put an image of a person being murdered in an article about some purely private civil law topic such as breach of contract. It is just not appropriate. Certainly the pros and cons of circumcision should be discussed on the circumcision page, not on a page about genitals, male or female, otherwise, you are right Eric, Wikipedia will be nothing more than another verison of Usenet that is used to distort knowledge rather than clarifying what is knowledge and what is opinion. My main point being that Anthere bringing this up is showing that NPOV is not as easy as some people will make it out to be. To be culturally and socially neutral requires that one be sensitive and non-judgemental to all perspectives, otherwise NPOV is just another way to create propaganda that subtly controls by using sophisticated references that are hidden while appearing to be "objective" (whatever that means). Hopefully you will now understand where I am coming from, if I telegraphed my opinions and they did not register I hope this explaination gets through. Alex756 From: "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> To: <alex756(a)nyc.rr.com> Cc: <anthere8(a)yahoo.com>om>; <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: pictures of genetalia

Alex-

Many people agree with you Anthere, even in the United States. This is an issue that has become galvanized because of the supposed "antisemite" connotations of circumcision (though moslems also practice this form of male genital mutilation as a religious right of the parents).

This is not the place for a circumcision flamewar. Many people feel that in spite of lacking a foreskin, they are fully sexually functional, and may even believe in the supposed medical benefits of the procedure. As a matter of fact, there are some recent studies which promote the belief that circumcision even prevents HIV. I say "promote the belief" because these studies are fundamentally methodologically flawed, but it is easy to see that people might believe them, given that they have been published in peer reviewed (US) journals and have received widespread (international) media attention. There are people who believe just as forcefully that circumcision is right, decent and proper as I believe that it is wrong, harmful and pointless, and there are internally consistent arguments that can be made for both sides. Few subjects are as eligible to turn into long lasting flamewars as this one. Please do not encourage rants on this subject -- they do not really contribute to a debate about inclusion standards. Wikipedia is not Usenet. It's not a place for advocacy of any kind. If anything, we should talk about how to make the article [[circumcision]] better, not about what's morally wrong with the procedure. Otherwise we might as well talk about the international arms trade, social equality, global warming and electronic voting machines, all very serious issues. Regards, Erik

Reply

Anthere

12:53 a.m.

I am glad you understood Alex, and explained better than I did what the issue was. Thanks :-) I moved the pictures to the circumcision article. Alex T. a écrit:

I think you missed my point Eric. The point being that Anthere has a perfectly valid complaint. There is nothing NPOV about circumsicion. It is not a fact, it is something that people do. As such it should not be used to slant an article one way or the other. No one is talking about advocacy here. If you want to advocate either way, then join one of the pro or anti circumcision groups. If you want to be objective then don't suggest that an article about genitals should feature genitals that have been altered by a medical procedure. Showing a circumsicised genital, male or female, is a culturally charged act, not something that should be taken for granted in an encyclopedia that is trying to be neutral. If someone wants to write an article about circumcision, that is where a circumsized male and female genitalia belong, just like I would not put an image of a person being murdered in an article about some purely private civil law topic such as breach of contract. It is just not appropriate. Certainly the pros and cons of circumcision should be discussed on the circumcision page, not on a page about genitals, male or female, otherwise, you are right Eric, Wikipedia will be nothing more than another verison of Usenet that is used to distort knowledge rather than clarifying what is knowledge and what is opinion. My main point being that Anthere bringing this up is showing that NPOV is not as easy as some people will make it out to be. To be culturally and socially neutral requires that one be sensitive and non-judgemental to all perspectives, otherwise NPOV is just another way to create propaganda that subtly controls by using sophisticated references that are hidden while appearing to be "objective" (whatever that means). Hopefully you will now understand where I am coming from, if I telegraphed my opinions and they did not register I hope this explaination gets through. Alex756 From: "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> To: <alex756(a)nyc.rr.com> Cc: <anthere8(a)yahoo.com>om>; <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: pictures of genetalia

Alex-

Many people agree with you Anthere, even in the United States. This is an issue that has become galvanized because of the supposed "antisemite" connotations of circumcision (though moslems also practice this form of male genital mutilation as a religious right of the parents).

This is not the place for a circumcision flamewar. Many people feel that in spite of lacking a foreskin, they are fully sexually functional, and may even believe in the supposed medical benefits of the procedure. As a matter of fact, there are some recent studies which promote the belief that circumcision even prevents HIV. I say "promote the belief" because these studies are fundamentally methodologically flawed, but it is easy to see that people might believe them, given that they have been published in peer reviewed (US) journals and have received widespread (international) media attention. There are people who believe just as forcefully that circumcision is right, decent and proper as I believe that it is wrong, harmful and pointless, and there are internally consistent arguments that can be made for both sides. Few subjects are as eligible to turn into long lasting flamewars as this one. Please do not encourage rants on this subject -- they do not really contribute to a debate about inclusion standards. Wikipedia is not Usenet. It's not a place for advocacy of any kind. If anything, we should talk about how to make the article [[circumcision]] better, not about what's morally wrong with the procedure. Otherwise we might as well talk about the international arms trade, social equality, global warming and electronic voting machines, all very serious issues. Regards, Erik

Reply

erik_moeller＠gmx.de

1:01 a.m.

Alex-

No one is talking about advocacy here. If you want to advocate either way, then join one of the pro or anti circumcision groups. If you want to be objective then don't suggest that an article about genitals should feature genitals that have been altered by a medical procedure.

This medical procedure is also a wide-spread cultural phenomenon. Having a picture of an intact and a circumcised penis in an article about the human penis does not mean that you take circumcision for granted. In fact the article links to the one about [[circumcision]] three times, and describes the procedure and its cultural background briefly. Our job as an encyclopedia is to inform. And one thing people might ask themselves when they read the article [[penis]] is: Why does my penis not look like the one in the illustration/photo? As a matter of fact, studies have shown that many circ'd men don't even know the difference, and don't know -whether- they are circumcised! This should not be surprising as many parents expect "the media" to do the job of sex education. Of course the article should not solve the problem by showing no penis at all. It should probably show a whole multitude of penises to illustrate common differences in length (erect/flaccid), thickness, keratinization/ moisture, foreskin length, foreskin retractability, circumcision status etc.

To be culturally and socially neutral requires that one be sensitive and non-judgemental to all perspectives, otherwise NPOV is just another way to create propaganda that subtly controls by using sophisticated references that are hidden while appearing to be "objective" (whatever that means).

Well, I'm afraid that *omitting* the photo might cause this precise problem, only that it would push things into the opposite direction. I would prefer a solution where the image is put into context. Factual completeness is better than political correctness. Regards, Erik

Reply

Anthere

12:31 a.m.

Alex T. a écrit:

Many people agree with you Anthere, even in the United States. This is an issue that has become galvanized because of the supposed "antisemite" connotations of circumcision (though moslems also practice this form of male genital mutilation as a religious right of the parents). J. Steven Svoboda, a Harvard Law School graduate started this UN recognized NGO: http://www.arclaw.org/ There are also some other sites to look at: http://www.mgmbill.org/ http://www.noharmm.org/home.htm This is a serious problem. If you chose to discuss it on this list it would not be a rant, Anthere, as I think most list members respect and value your opinions. It is certainly related to the issue of NPOV and is not off topic because of the discussion about what would be an accurate, unbiased depiction of the human anatomy.

I thank you for this comment Alex. But, it is *not* whether circumsition is *good* or is *bad* the idea that I am desperatly trying to get through. And in seems my comparisons are just not being understood. I am currently hesitating just removing the pictures of the article, at the risk of an edit war. or explaining a little bit more crudely what I think here, at the risk of seing my comments be seen offending by american editors. I guess I go remove the pictures then. If someone disagrees, I'll try to explain again why I think the labels under the pictures ARE POV, and why the second picture does not best belong to this article. The first does not bring much more than the diagramm and the third provides.

Reply

Vicki Rosenzweig

10 Jan 10 Jan

2:56 p.m.

At 02:42 AM 1/10/04 -0800, Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:

The pages on genetalia should not contain images of genetaila. There are basic taboo issues which we should make some attempt to respect.

Taboos vary widely from one group to another. An encyclopedic article on anatomy needs illustrations, and human anatomy is a subject that an encyclopedia should, and this encyclopedia does, cover. Anyone likely to be offended by an image of a penis, clitoris, or vagina is likely to be offended by the rest of the article, and has the option of not reading it.

Reply

7435

days inactive

7436

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

21 comments

11 participants

tags (0)

participants (11)

A
Alex T.
Anthere
Arvind Narayanan
cprompt
erik_moeller＠gmx.de
Nikos-Optim
Peter Jaros
Sascha Noyes
tarquin
Vicki Rosenzweig