Talk:Clitoris/Archive10

Currently Mathematically Impossible!

The article reads: "For more than 2,500 years the clitoris and the penis were considered equivalent in all respects except their arrangement[citation needed]. [9] Medical literature first recognized the existence of the clitoris in the 16th century[citation needed]."

Since there has not been 2,500 years after the 16th century (this being written in the year 2007) there is no way for the clitoris to have first been known about at all in the 16th century and also that the clitoris was considered anything... whether be it "equivalen in all respects" to the penis or anything else. The only way to answer this paradox is by rendering the medical literature that first not recognized the existence of the clitoris until the 16th century as a source alternate to the one that considered it equivalent to the penis for more than 2,500 years but it is far too improbable.

Since I don't know which of both statements is true, if any, and am pretty much sure both are not, I just added a "citation needed" to both statements. I hope someone else can verify the facts and clean the article, I am just not the right person to do it in this moment.

Pictures

Any reasonable person without an agenda should see that illustrations are far more appropriate than actual photographs. I've never seen so much hot air. Haizum 15:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Haizum, your comments about the article or images are welcome. WP:AGF reminds everyone to to respect other users. Saying that other users are unreasonable will not help. regards --FloNight 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a reasonable person with no agenda, and I can't see why illustrations would be more appropriate than photographs. Both serve different purposes, and both are appropriate for this article. thx1138 09:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, that vagina pictured is absolutely heinous. Haizum 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean Image:Sarahvulva.jpg? Hey, I'd hit that. 69.252.190.41 23:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

An illustrration lacks the same gritty detail that makes it realist as a photo does. As well as at a fundamental level being unrealistic, ever seen a perfectly black and white pussy? Of course not. Mathmo 16:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think pictures are far more appropriate than illustrations. It is hard to make sense of illustrations many times; photographs provide all the detail and when provided in an article written without a sexual tone, are not in themselves too sexual or explicit. It is in the power of the viewer to turn away from tsuch pictures as well. - Sweaterman

The "agenda" of all wikipedians is supposedly to make human knowledge available to whoever needs it. Whenever someone needs to get knowledge of an object (be it a body part or not) the very best way to get the knowledge is to perceive the object directly. Since Wikipedia cannot (yet) make a clitoris (or whatever other object) to present itself to the seeker of knowledge, the most accurate substitute is the best one. An accurate photograph is obviously a better than an ilustration, which by it's very nature will convey less real information. Considering ANY healthy and normal body part "heinous" is quite unhealthy and reflects poor body image (my honest opinion, which nobody asked, I know ;o) ). Elmer Homero 11 October 2006 (Central)

New picture

The picture was just changed from Saravulva to something inferior IMO. Why was this change made? Anchoress 02:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the new picture is inferior to Sarahvulva.jpg in resolution and contrast. But, Sarahvulvah.jpg showed the clitoral hood pulled back. I thought it might be nice, for this particular wiki entry, to have a picture showing both the clitoris and the clitoral hood. HeWhoE 03:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nijelj, you're reverting the clitoris picture back to sarahvulva.jpg because you claim, "discussion on Talk has recently decided previously to revert such a change." But the above two statements, one of which was posted by me, hardly constitute a discussion, and no decision was settled. The new picture has larger labels that are slightly easier to read than sarahvulva.jpg when the picture is in its reduced size, inline in the article. Once again, I agree that the new picture, in its full resolution, is inferior to the much larger sarahvulva.jpg, HOWEVER, for the purposes of this article, I think the new picture is better suited because it more narrowly focuses on the clitoris and the clitoral hood. I think sarahvulva.jpg is well-suited for the vulva article, but this is the clitoris article. So, why not focus in on the clitoris? HeWhoE 10:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sarahvulva.jpg

This image, which the article uses, has recently been added to the MediaWiki:Bad image list, which prevents the image from being displayed in-line in articles, as a result a recent vandalbot attack. This change will only be temporary, and the image will be back working properly in a day or so. Sorry for the inconvenience. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed de-inlining of pictures containing graphic nudity

{{linkimage|sarahvulva.jpg|Photograph of a human vulva showing the glans clitoris. In many cases the clitoral hood completely covers the glans, as seen in the photo below.}} I suggest that the photographs of human genitalia be de-inlined, so that they will be displayed on the article page as shown in the example here. We would still preserve access to the photographs for readers who wished to view them, but they would not be obtrusively displayed to readers who do not want to view explicit photographs of human genitalia. John254 05:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please direct any further discussion on this proposal(s) to Talk:Vulva#Proposed_de-inlining_of_pictures_containing_graphic_nudity --Clawed 11:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Matt Jaeger"

I was checking recent changes, and saw that the Matt Jaeger article had changed from a "clinical researcher" to a radio DJ. The Jaeger article had this info since October 2002, but it turned out the "clinical researcher" gets no google hits. What links here led to this article, where it had been in the text since October 2001! Likewise no results for "Garabedian" except for obvious wiki mirrors. This seems suspiciously like a college prank that survived nearly 5 years. Can anyone verify anything about either of these people? Gimmetrow 20:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some problem with natural body parts? hey, wake up, it's the 21st century, not the dark ages U_U

Too many images!

First off, this is not about the appropriateness of the images. This is an article about the clitoris, therefore an image and/or illustration of the clitoris is fine.

But Great Jumpin' Jehosophat, five? This page is more cluttered than the attic of a flea market. It's ugly. It's as crowded as a pawnshop.

I'd like to propose we trim the number of images down to this article to two: One diagram, and one photograph. I'd like to further propose that they should be laid out thoughtfully so they are not falling on top of one another, like they do today. What do people think? Nandesuka 13:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree. Too many images, and most of them don't seem to be directly related.

This image seems like the only one that fits well. We should remove all of the rest. File:HumanVulva-NewText-PhiloViv.jpg

To avoid confusing the issue, let's first get consensus that there are too many images and that they should be trimmed, before we start picking favorites -- sound good? Nandesuka 14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if there are too many images, remove the ones that don't add much to the article. fem_isa_2.gif and gray408 are both anatomical drawings illustrating the entire female reproductive system and musculature. They are not really very relevant to an article on the clitoris. The photos do at least show the location of the clitoris and the remaining anatomical one (clitoris_inner_anatomy.gif) does at least show the attachments and the local structures and should be retained. Bobble2 15:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think only one image is needed. I agree the other are anatomical, but not specific. Atom 03:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In what sense can we have 'too many'? Is this just another attempt to remove some clear and illustrative images that also irritate those of an extremely conservative disposition? It's interesting that the image chosen above has had all the colour removed (desaturated) so as not to look too realistic, has been cropped so heavily that the—perhaps inexperienced, possibly male—viewer is left with no context or size reference and, most importantly, does not show a clitoris at all. Every image here adds something to the overall concept. We could maybe choose better ones to replace one or two, if we had more to choose from, but I do not accept that we have too many. --Nigelj 19:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In the sense that you don't need 15 images to display what could be displayed in one or two images. There are only a couple of angles to look at this. A side angle that would cover where the clitoris goes into the body and an exterior view to give an example of where its located. Thats all thats needed, anything else is excessive.--Crossmr 20:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Then there's the size of the exposed part, of the part immediately under the skin, of the extent either side under the labia. Then there's the variation in all of these between individuals... The differences when erect... The relationship with the rest of the anatomy... And no-one's talking about 15 images - there's only 5 now. --Nigelj 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted to get into variation between individuals you could easily approach hundreds of images. Which isn't going to happen in the article. Size can be described, we don't need an image detailing every possible difference and angle of the clitoris. We currently have a stream of images down the right side of the article and it doesn't really add any benefit to the article.--Crossmr 20:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't have any problem with the number of images, but if we're going to get rid of any, I vote for: grey, humanvulva, fem_isa, in that order. I think the Clitoris Inner Anatomy and Saravulva images are the most useful, the humanvulva is the most useless, the and the grey is the most gross. Anchoress 00:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree on grey, it really adds nothing to the article.--Crossmr 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion at Talk:Vulva#"Cluttered" with images? --Nigelj 19:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

keep da images i need moar 2 jerk off 2 Jimbo Wales 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding comment was actually added by 24.23.131.238 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of science, keep both photos and diagrams

Anyone who has ever been interested in learning anything knows that both photos and diagrams are helpful. Just because anxiety exists in SOME people's minds about human sexuality, that isn't a good reason to censor or supress information, visual or otherwise, for everyone else. If sex and human anatomy makes them uncomfortable or they wish to shelter themselves from pictures of the human body, then they are not mature enough to be researching topics like this one.

Additionally, the clitoris is so often overlooked by mainstream medicine that many people are not even aware of its existence, let alone the reality that it has extensive internal parts. The discovery that the clitoris is more than just a little external nob was made only recently, and it is impressive when textbooks and other sources of references mention it at all.

This is an Encyclopeadia! Don't like it don't come!

If you go to the supermarket and are offended by MILK CARTONS then... DON'T GO TO THE SUPERMARKET, but if you dive in its at your own risk! This is an encyclopeadia, and it is for the good of knowledge. It is respectful if you think SOME knowledge should be banned off of YOUR own life, but not of others. If you have a problem with certain kinds of images, then look for other articles where you are not likely to find them and... too bad friend! If you are offended by naked limes, don't go to the lime section at the supermarket, but please don't ban limes off of supermarkets because YOU are offended! People can look at whatever they want and if they don't want to they are not obbliged, but why should they BAN everything they don't like just because THEY don't like it?

Freedom!! Tolerance!! Please!!

The article as it is, with a diversity of visual aids, is great the way it is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.82.167.234 (talk • contribs) 00:26, September 13, 2006.

This has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with only using an appropriate amount of images in a given article.--Crossmr 21:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the range of human variation, I would think that more is appropriate. Trollderella 02:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-human clitorises (clitorides)

As far as I remember, human beings are one of the few animals to have a clitoris. Additional information on what other animals have it, as well as what social and biological evolutionionary factors may have given rise to it, would be informative.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.82.167.234 (talk • contribs) 00:26, September 13, 2006.

My pony has a clitoris 193.63.48.253 13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My PUSSY has a clitoris! :)

Link to article about Dr Helen O'Connell's work

Nandesuka suddenly seems to want to delete an external link with the comment: "Ok, I'll explain the removal. Blogs and personal websites aren't reliable sources. An appropriate cite might be to the journal of urology article by Helen O'Connell, if the point is relevant."

1. I think it's beyond doubt that the size and extent of the human clitoris is extremenly relevant in an article called Clitoris. Especially new-ish research and debate.
2. No-one is citing the article as a 'reliable source'. It is in the 'External links' section and appears to be an interesting, well written, well researched and well referenced piece of work about an important and now well established fact. It is offered as 'further reading', like 'See also' but external, and there is no reason not to link to it. According to the text, the content was in fact published in print some years ago too.
3. Is Nandesuka's point that the clitoris is not that big and that saying it is is such a tiny minority viewpoint that it doesn't deserve a mention? I think that the view that it is, is more than well-enough established that it should be given due prominence, along with some history as to how that view has changed. It is described as such in the body of the article too.
4. We don't have a problem here with articles getting 'cluttered up' with too many external links do we? - there're only a handful of others in this article.
5. It comes to something if we have to cite the sources within external links before we can quote the external links. Having said that, however, someone with a subscription to, or access to the journal should be able to find The American Urological Association Journal of Urology, 1998, Vol.159, 1892/1897, June 1998, check the reference, and put the citation after the link. There seems no doubt [1][2][3] that the work exists as dicussed. --Nigelj 20:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nigelj on this one. Blogs are discouraged in ELs, but well-written articles that provide supplementary information are not unprecedented. IMO if we're going to put effort into trimming the ELs, removing three of the four entries linking to the-clitoris.com would be a better place to start. Anchoress 20:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No objection there. I've just swept through the article and removed some bogus or outdated links, removed the Yrnwode blog link again, and changed the link to the Yahoo article on O'Connell's work to refer to the pubmed entry on her original paper, which has an excellent abstract.

Nigelj's entertaining conspiracy theory that because I am against a chatty blog link it must mean that I think the clitoris is "not that big" is, not to put too fine a point on it, completely nonsensical. Nandesuka 00:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So, Nandesuka, you removed it again anyway[4]? The only two people to comment so far just disagreed with your last two deletions of this link. How does this fit with your concept of 'consensus'? --Nigelj 14:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't allow us to ignore Wikipedia policies. Our first responsibility is to the encyclopedia. My edits substantially improved the sourcing of the article. Nandesuka 13:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, as long as you know everything, we can all go home, then. --Nigelj 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's because of users like Nandesuka that I don't use my Wiki-account (and edit/improve articles) anymore. It's not worth the time, mostly.... ppl like Nandesuka are so committed to their alleged superior POV, that they won't accept other opinions. I can't spot any convincing statement here that would backup the removal of the links. "My edits substantially improved the sourcing of the article." LOL....Not necessarily....My 2 cents. --84.44.199.185 04:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. WP:MISS, WP:QUIT and WP:DE are all relevant, I fear. Attitudes like that are very harmful to the project. --Nigelj 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant discussions

If you look at the talk pages of other wikipedia articles, you will see little mention of too many images; there are irrelevant discussions everywhere to be sure, but it seems that we are supposed to understand genitalia without visual clues. Men and women both need to know the anatomy of the clitoris, and without images and graphics, it's difficult to understand the terms. Look at the page on the eye for example. Too many images? No, too much discussion on the talk page about creationism! Let's keep all our efforts focused on presenting information clearly and completely - because the readers' reactions are beyond our control. If this comment has been improperyly inserted, I apologize. My first effort.Knoxautoguy 15:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

clitoromegaly link

Sorry for revert, it looked like a red link to me, but I see that it works now. Atom 21:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Clean your finger nails!

If I was having a picture of my vulva posted on an international website, I'd probably clean my finger nails before hand and not have dirt under them...

Thanks! But... That's YOU not HER!

Well, I would too. But if someone else did not, it's not any of OUR business, and it is an appropiate image since it depicts the vulva in that international website and that is the purpose of the image(for the record, all websites are international... and just out of curiosity, if it was national you wouldn't?).

Now if you like you can always add your OWN picture and pollish your nails first!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.251.20.141 (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for clearing that up.--Threedots dead 13:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

God bless. --BiT 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yikes... is there a better picture?

Look, the photo was a surprise to see, but I understand the value of having one. Still, not to be too crass, but aren't there more photogenic vaginal areas available? They do exist, you know. --216.9.250.6 05:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't about vaginal areas, it's about the clitoris. Provide a good quality picture that actually shows the clitoris as well as the current one, provide the correct licensing information, and upload it. I'm sure all the other people who (for whatever reason, I truly don't understand) find the photo repugnant will thank you. But please don't replace the photo with one that just shows labia, mons, etc, because that's not what the article is about. Anchoress 06:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. And seriously, what is so gross and horribly offensive about the pictures? I'm really confused. Every article that has pictures of female genitalia also has a bunch of people complaining about how unaesthetic they are. It drives me crazy! What is the matter with people?!CerealBabyMilk 21:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

These people are silly Americans. 193.63.48.253 13:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We tried to find clitoris pictures of silly people at "the University of London Computer Centre", but could not find any. Atom 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just so hideous. Sorry to whoever owns it, but it's vile. Even the ladies hands are sickly. 82.163.180.84 23:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The genitalia proper aren't bad at all; it's just that she's unshaven, and a little chafed near the cornhole. And her fingernails are dirty.

Can't say I'm all that fussed about the fingernails myself, but this is an anatomy article, not pornography, and in my opinion a picture of a shaved vulva would be the inappropriate option. --Kelly holden 11:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Many are shaved, it has nothing to do with porn. 129.44.172.8 06:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Women are supposed to have pubic hair unless they're prepubescent. CerealBabyMilk 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And all men are supposed to have facial hair, and all people of both sexes are supposed to have horrible body odor. Right? See, there's this thing called choice, and this other thing called taste. Rpresser 06:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the picture of the vagina where the woman’s hands are present. I have no problem whatsoever with a picture of a vagina itself in fact I praise its educational purposes, but this picture depicts a woman whose hands are extremely dirty. Young girls I fear would be impressionable and assume that it is alright to treat the organ in this way.

Yes Jesus Christ! All young maidens around the world shall stop cleaning their fingernails because of this picture, and start sticking them into their vaginae! What ever can we do?! =P Lol! Some people.. I think it's better that she's unshaved (well not clean shaved), shows it more naturally. --BiT 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the photo is HOT! I love masturbating to it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.177.29 (talk • contribs)

I see nothing wrong with the picture, her parts are easy to see and they are well labeled. As for her fingernails, maybe she does a lot of gardening, but it shouldn't matter anyways, its purpose in this article is to show the clitoris and it does that very well. The picture that I think might be unnecessary is the picture right below that one, it doesn't show the clitoris so I don't understand why that picture is in this article, maybe its purpose is to show how well the vulva is at hiding the clitoris. Dionyseus 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing archives

Maybe I have this wrong, but almost the entire record of the 2005 discussion page is missing from the archives. Page 8 stops in January 2005, and the current page starts in February 2006. Anyone have a clue?--Shtove 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Updating the internal anatomy pic

I know some people thought it was ugly before, but I was too lazy to make a better version... but if it's going to be the top image, I guess I better :) This is a drawn version made to look more like a classic anatomy drawing. I think it looks better myself, but the old one is still on the commons if people prefer it. I'm releasing this one to the public domain, though, don't know why I didn't before. Amphis 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Intersex controversy paragraph

While I personally agree with the contents of the paragraph about intersexed individuals, I'm not really sure that its entirety is appropriate as part of this article, for a couple of reasons. One is that it's not actually about the clitoris, it's partly about botched circumcisions: this makes it seem like it would be more appropriate for pages on the penis, circumcision, and/or intersex individuals. Another is that the "list of reasons for controversy" read a little too much like opinion (particularly in their statements on the validity of circumcision) and probably need better citation than they currently have. Right now it seems like the work of a radical trans activist - which, again, I basically agree with, but my agreement with an opinion doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in a given Wikipedia article. 4.131.35.158 07:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering where the source for that was. Well, I think I have a textbook that supports some of the content that we can use if we decide to keep the paragraph. Darkfrog24 23:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I think it is great to have a photograph, however I do find it interesting that this is the Clitoris page and in the picture shown you cannot see the clitoris, however the vagina is largely marked. I will be looking for another photo to improve upon the one we have here now. In the meantime, pls let me know your considerations aside from any prejudices you may have about the appearance of pubic hair. I am not likely to change my mind about that one. Thank you. Cometh 01:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Cometh

Gray's Anatomy Pics

I do not find these useful, very outdated and incomplete information, especially the one with the root of the clitoris cut off. I agree we don't need to over do the amount of graphics we have, but useful ones would be better. I am looking. Cometh 01:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Cometh

Horribly POV paragraph

Under the section "Recognition of Existence", we find this:

"Colombo's claim was disputed by his successor at Padua, Gabriele Falloppio (who discovered the fallopian tube), who claimed that he was the first to discover the clitoris."

This whole section, to me, seems to be written from the standpoint of upper-class male scientists: after all, hadn't women already known about the clitoris for tens of thousands of years? Or did they just never look down there? I bet even a large number of men knew about the existence of the clitoris before Fallopio.

Saying Gabrielle Falloppio "was the first to discover the clitoris" is just as biased as, and slightly more silly than, saying that Columbus was "the first to discover America".

Now, the section does couch itself acceptably early on when it says "Medical literature first recognized the existence of the clitoris in the 16th century"; but even then, that seems to suggest that the existence of the clitoris was subject to recognition by medical literature. I'd re-write that particular sentence as "Medical literature did not write about the existence of the clitoris until the 16th century", just to make it clear that it was medical literature's fault, and not the fault of the clitoris.

I'm sorry if this sounds really silly, but any postmodernist would have a field day examining the biases in this section.

I don't want to jump in and re-write this section myself, as after all it's covered by a project team and they really should make the rules; but, I just wanted to point out an instance of unconscious bias that priveleged intellectual male authors may never notice. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)