[WikiEN-l] Re: pictures of genetalia

Sun Jan 11 01:57:29 UTC 2004

Daniel Mayer a écrit:
> Anthere wrote:
> 
>>A circumsized penis is not the natural state of a penis. It is pov to 
>>label a regular penis by describing him not being a non-natural state of 
>>a penis
> 
> 
> It seems that you are most offended by the label so then label the circumsized 
> one as circumsized and the other one as intact. 

Yes. Which is why I also suggested that only the regular picture be kept 
at the top, with the mention "penis". And that circoncized one be moved 
at the bottom (there is a small paragraph introducing the topic, where 
it would relevant possibly).

Then, I realised there were NO pictures of circoncized penis in the 
circonsision article. So I thought that the pictures were more relevant 
there, and that moving both allowed comparison.

On the penis article, there is a diagram which I think is sufficiently 
informative.

I was considering moving the semi erected picture as well to the 
erection article (as this article has no picture at all either), then 
Brion stopped the writing of the database....and...

>>Wikipedia is not a source of information for America only. And the rest 
>>of the world does not necessarily want to hear about America only.
> 
> 
> Within the bounds of NPOV, the English Wikipedia is first and foremost by and 
> for the English speaking world (with an emphasis on the needs of native 
> speakers - other languages have their own 'pedias, so this is only fair). It 
> has already been noted that a large part of that world has very significant 
> percentages of their male population with circumsized penises. So to not 
> include a photo of circumsized penis while including one of an obviously 
> intact penis is POV. 

I respectfully disagree that the english wikipedia is first and 
beforemost for the english speaking world. Unless you agree to include 
most Europe for example, as most adults now speak a reasonable amount of 
english.

We do not build a project with a special pov depending on languages and 
cultures supposed to be associated to specific country. An article on 
the english wikipedia is supposed to be neutral for american readers, 
but supposed to be neutral for french readers as well. If not (actually, 
it is not), we can't claim our goal is to be neutral.

> But I see you moved both photos to [[circumcision]] while retaining the photo 
> of an erect penis (which is, of course, more difficult to tell if it is 
> circumcised or not). While not ideal, I can live with that since the 
> comparison is more relevant to that article. 

Good.
The picture is not very good unfortunately.
It would be best as Erik says, that we have more pictures of different 
states.

>>American men are far from being the majority of men on planet.
> 
> 
> So they should be ignored then? Since when has Wikipedia been a place where 
> only majority views are expressed? 

You can't claim seriously circunsision is being ignored in that article 
Mav. It is mentionned in the anatomy part, AND there is a special 
paragraph as well AND there is also a link at the bottom. It is 
mentionned quite proeminently and clearly. I would like that minority 
views are always expressed as clearly.

------

This is not just for Mav.

I went to the article about clitoris for a tiny comparison, as a huge 
number of african girls are circonsized as well (some of them being 
french, as this is still practiced in secret among african immigrants). 
It is also practiced in other countries; A minority, just like masculine 
circoncized, but a relevant number anyway.

There are no pictures of circonsision in the article.

And no picture in particular showing a natural clitoris with a label 
saying "un-circoncized clitoris".

What would you feel when seeing the pict of a perfectly classical (for 
us) clitoris, with the label being not "clitoris" but being 
"uncirconcized clitoris" ? Would it feel quite right ?

Would it ?

The topic of female circonsision is only very shortly mentionned in two 
lines at the bottom of the article. And that's it. Not mentionned in the 
anatomy. Not additional link.

Now, I wonder what an african reading these two articles, one 
proeminently talking about a practice he does not really know about, and 
another hardly mentionning what is cultural norm to him, would think.