Talk:Ejaculation/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Nominated for deletion

Note that Atom nominated the photo and video for deletion. The debates were closed due to being in the wrong forum but can be found here and here. Anyone can re-nominate in the proper forum of course but I strong suspect it'd be a futile exercise. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily - consensus can always change.DMSBel (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware that these were on the commons site. I should have looked more closely. Several of the editors here seemed to feel that the images were objectionable. I hoped for a fair forum from many editors to express their views on the images. Obviously, I am of the opinion that the images are appropriate within a limited context. Atom (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about the 4 photos - then the context that they orginally came from is the limited context within which they are appropriate - ie. "Krooga's" porn channel.DMSBel (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting of notes in table

{{editprotected}} I propose a change to the formatting of the table in Ejaculation#During puberty. The change involves: (1) removing the table numbering ("Table 1"), which I believe is non-standard and unnecessary; (2) removing unnecessary upper-case from the table title—we don't capitalize every word in section headings, and so probably shouldn't in table titles; (3) replacing the manually-formatted notes with {{ref}} and {{end}}; and (4) identifying the notes with letters rather than numbers to avoid confusion between notes and citations.

The appropriate code to implement all changes is:

{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
|+ Semen development during puberty
! Time after first <br>ejaculation (months) 
! Average volume <br>(milliliter)
! Liquefaction
! Average sperm concentration <br>(million sperm/milliliter)
|-
| 0
| 0.5
| No{{ref|no-liquify|a}}
| 0
|-
| 6
| 1.0
| No{{ref|no-liquify|a}}
| 20
|-
| 12
| 2.5
| No/Yes{{ref|some-liquify|b}}
| 50
|-
| 18
| 3.0
| Yes{{ref|all-liquify|c}}
| 70
|-
| 24
| 3.5
| Yes{{ref|all-liquify|c}}
| 300
|}

{{note|no-liquify|a}}Ejaculate is jellylike and fails to liquify.<br />
{{note|some-liquify|b}}Most samples liquify. Some remain jellylike.<br />
{{note|all-liquify|c}}Ejaculate liquifies within an hour.

I don't expect this to be controversial, but I am proposing it here per Wikipedia:Protection policy#Full protection, which states:

Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum).

and because my involvement in the RfC and VP discussions could qualify me as an 'involved' editor to some extent, even though this edit is unrelated to the issue that resulted in protection of the page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you had to go to that trouble, but by all means make some edits to other parts of the article if you can.DMSBel (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Very minor amendment needed to the opening sentence

I think it would be appropriate to add the words carrying sperm to the opening sentence. Seminal fluid is that in which spermatazoa are carried.

It would then read as follows Ejaculation is the ejecting of semen (carrying sperm), from the male reproductory tract,....

Ok with everyone?DMSBel (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the fence as a reader could click on semen to find out the details. But if a change is going to be made, it should read (usually carrying sperm). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. You can be sterile and ejaculate nonetheless. It seems redundant to me, but "usually carrying sperm" can also be fine. --Cyclopia^talk 15:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes if you mean by sterile complete lack of sperm in the semen then yes you are correct, one can ejaculate seminal fluid which contains no sperm. Male infertility however can be for an number of reasons other than total lack of sperm. For instance low sperm-count. I think usually is right though. DMSBel (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The photos

Just wondering what others think - do the photos add significantly to the understanding of the topic of the article?

IMO they seem to be redundant while the video is in. DMSBel (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If the video is in the photos are probably somewat redundant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the photos are valuable, so people aren't forced to play the video to get the information. There are those who might not even have the technical capability to play embedded videos. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:54, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Equazcion. That said, the issue has been discussed above and discussion has been closed few hours ago. Can we close this one too per WP:HEAR? --Cyclopia^talk 00:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was archived, but by no means "closed". There is still no clear consensus either way. If consensus cannot be achieved then dispute resolution may be sought. The film is not available to some readers and, for them, the photos illustrate the topic.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't see how either video or the photos contribute anything to the article--besides the uneasy feeling that someone somewhere is getting off on others watching him get off. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

From a purely technical standpoint, there is nothing wrong with using such photos to illustrate a topic. I am still a bit on the fence about the video, though. (See my comment below in the Rfc.) Such a film appears to be quite an innovation in Wikipedia sexual-related articles, and I'm not certain that such a trend should continue. If with this debate we set a precedent allowing such a film, then where will it lead? There are several other much more sexually-oriented articles in this encyclopedia. How famous/INfamous do we want to make this information resource?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As in other articles, more images can shed a different light in the topic. In this case I feel the video brings a great deal of value to understanding the topic. The photo's are good supplementary material, but do not offer as much as the video. Atom (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know what different kind of light one could want here--unless it's a non-encyclopedic light. The text describes well enough what goes on, and there is a lot more to that text, actually, than the video shows. Understanding the topic? Come one. No, you're looking at a guy who enjoys watching people watch him come, that's what you're looking at. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the subject in the video's motivation for filming it should enter into the equation. Would it make you feel better if an identical film were provided with a different "actor" who didn't "like it"? Or would you still be unhappy with the video's inclusion? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:45, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    • What if I said yes? And is that the only one of my arguments you noticed? How about this: I believe that a video and a sequence of four photos is visual overkill which overwhelms the article. I also don't really believe in some sort of New Critical approach to art and to images: these images don't come value-fee, devoid of background, intention, historicity, and desire, and if we have information that pertains to a fuller interpretation and appreciation of an image or a work of art, we would deprive ourselves by not taking it into account. That certainly applies here, it seems to me, and your effort to make it appear as if this video, in the context of a Wikipedia article, is completely value-free is not very successful. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
      • It is completely successful. Show me a guideline or policy that says we can't accept material from sites most of us would consider "seedy". Policy requires us to check if it's not illegal and licensed properly, article guidelines asks us to discuss if it's useful. That's it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
      • In all of that comment I don't even see an attempt at some practical reason to consider the itention of the subject when considering its inclusion. Frankly you sound like you're saying we just shouldn't "give him the satisfaction". If there's really any more to it (and you should ask yourself if there really is), I'm listening. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:13, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
        • That's cause you didn't read very carefully. In my last comment I wasn't talking about any kind of intention. Equazcion--I should ask myself if there is? You know me better than I do? Also, I should hope I sound like I'm saying that we shouldn't give him the satisfaction, because I thought that's what I was saying pretty explicitly. But I have little more to say to you gentlemen, and you have little to say to me. Neil, you are undoubtedly right that there is no explicit or implicit guideline forbidding seedy material. Well, you don't need rules for everything, and just cause something is not forbidden doesn't mean it ought to be allowed. If there appears a consensus on this talk page that the video is seedy, then it's gone. That's a part of article guidelines (which, by the way, will never dictate inclusion--it is up to editors to make that decision). I'm just registering my vote here. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry, you're wrong. "Seedy" is a point-of-view value judgement and local consensus can't trump policy. If it could, the images on Muhammad would be gone because they're "blasphemous". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
          • My original reply to you might be misunderstood. I was referring to sites being seedy, not the material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Consensus isn't about voting. Rationale is a big part of it. Not wanting to give satisfaction to the subject in an image wouldn't fly as a reason to remove it. I'm focusing on that aspect of your argument since the others have been addressed so extensively already, but to repeat, the value of the video and photos is the same as for the vagina article, the penis article, or the Mona Lisa article -- a visual representation for those who want to see what the article topic looks like. A picture is worth a thousand words after all, and a video that much more so. The text being good "enough" (according to your assessment) is no reason to exclude an image in those instances, and therefore isn't here either. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:45, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)

NeilN, You said you were refering to sites being seedy, not the material. What is it that makes some websites seedy? Also NeilN can you show were policy says we must include content, even if deemed to be unsuitable by several editors? Policy really cannot arbitrate here it seems to me. DMSBel (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It can, and it must. On the side of who wants the images: WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:IUP . On the side of who wants to delete them: Nothing. --Cyclopia^talk 15:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot ignore policy just because it stands in the way of making changes you want. And everyone has their own definition of "seedy". I was trying to make the point that where the material comes from is irrelevant in this case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So basically for you Cyclopia it is that ULIKETHEM + there is no policy against DMSBel (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A consensus of editors has clearly stated that the content is well suited for the article. You are one of the several editors who has declared it unsuitable. Several editors is not really a consensus for removing valuable content. There would be no reason to put the video in this article except for the fact that is directly applicable to the article, and substantially improves the article. Atom (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "consensus of editors". We are talking about the photos btw. DMSBel (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rationale needs to be more than "they illustrate" or "they are supplemental", as we already have two illustrations. I am asking in what way do the "the photos" add significantly to the understanding of the topic of the article"?DMSBel (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I answered your question already above. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:26, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)

You are basically saying someone might not be able to play the video. So the photos replicate more or less what is in the video?DMSBel (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The photos replicate what is in the video, yes. The value in that is to provide a fallback for those with technical problems viewing videos, as well as to provide information without people having to play the video. It's not uncommon in articles to have both animated and still visuals. The stills provide info at a glance while the video is there in case people want to see the entire realistic sequence. I'll also note that the video doesn't play automatically on loading of the page; people who want to play it can click play, others don't have to. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:54, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly easy to get a plug-in or whatever is needed to enable video to be played, can't see many people having a problem here. I am using Windows XP which is 8 years old and I didn't have to set up anything or download anything to get the video to play. DMSBel (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• So--on the side of the includers, we see that since this stuff is not forbidden by policy it should be included, that's what it boils down to. [Let me make this clear: I think that's a crap argument.] Equazcion, if you think that these videos and images are so necessary, then, for this article to be encyclopedic, you owe it to the people, perhaps, to supplement other articles as well. Fingering (sexual act), for instance, has no illustration for "anal fingering"--perhaps you can find a way to provide that material. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Possible personal attacks aside, there would be nothing wrong with an image of the act there. --Cyclopia^talk 16:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So moral judgements are ok then for determining content - "there would be nothing wrong"DMSBel (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a technical judgement. --Cyclopia^talk 18:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Drmies, reading what's been written above, it doesn't appear to me that their argument boils down to "since this stuff is not forbidden by policy it should be included." The real issue in contention is whether or not the images help a user understand the subject better. The anti-censorship policy states that Wikipedia contains content that some readers "consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so," and that articles "may include images which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content." Hence, the debate here should focus on whether or not the images help the reader better understand the topic at hand.--AzureCitizen (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And I have tried to do that, though as a student of literature I present different kinds of arguments, on occasion. One argument--the mere fact of a guy spooging just by thinking is so unusual (as far as I know anyway, but I'll ask around) that it really takes away from any educational use. E.g., if he has help, digitally or otherwise, does his stomach still make these strange motions? And, seriously, what precisely do we learn from this image?

BTW, I disagree with your assessment--I think I summarized the other party's argument pretty well. They have not mentioned a single biological factoid that one can glean from the video and the images that one cannot get from the text. They seem to think that this is a one-way street: those who want to delete should argue for deletion and the default is keep. That may work in AfD discussions, but not in these kinds of cases. Yes, Cyclopia, there might be something wrong, and your grammar, "there would be nothing wrong," as if your stating some law of the universe, obfuscates that it is some people who think there would be nothing wrong with that kind of image. I'm really tired of this idea that removing some image would be censorship, that some sort of default is to include everything no matter the source. An image, video, or even text has to have encyclopedic value, it has to help the article in some scientific, objective, pedagogical way. No one has yet argued any benefit for these images, and I am not surprised at that. But, Azure, I appreciate your calm and deliberate response. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of people have pointed out potential benefits above. Either you haven't read through the comments or recently archived material or are choosing to ignore their arguments. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the cumshot video masquerading as educational information on this page: Seems this was a big topic back in February; sorry I'm late for the show. I suppose I should be happy; the last time I visited this page, the “educational” video was of some guy masturbating to completion. Now we have a minor upgrade, in that the video superficially appears to be more clinical. Unfortunately, that is just not good enough. I’m surprised how easily some of the editors of this page have let themselves be taken in by the laughable assertion that this video somehow offers educational value. Fundamentally, it does not - unless, that is, the reader is a cretin who cannot picture something from reading the words and really *needs* a video to get the idea. I would submit that one cannot design an encyclopedia article around such users. No, the video's inclusion on the page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia – that is, if Wikipedia is ever to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. I suppose the editors who have made the point that this video significantly adds to the article would find me a shade more willing to accept their argument if any – ANY - of the following pages had an embedded video of a human performing the act:

Feces page (no), excretion page (no), defecation page (no), Saliva page (no) , expectoration page (no), Urination page (no); urine fetishism page (no), Mucus page (no), Automucophagy page (no), anal sex page (no), anal fisting page (no), bestiality page (no), crush video page (no), Homicide page (no), terrorism page (no), al qaeda in iraq page (no), decapitation page (no), Nick Berg page (no).

Now, can someone please explain to me again why the ONLY page among these that shows a video of a human being performing the act is the ‘Ejaculation’ page, and explain to me why, in light of the aforementioned fact that it virtually *stands alone*, said video is not, in fact, gratuitous. It’s a ‘money shot’, pure and simple, appealing largely to vulgar interest, but providing little educational benefit. While Wikipedia should never be censored, it should have at least a modicum of refined sensitivity, lest it be confused with sleazy, XXX websites, or so much of the declassé, low-brow rubbish residing on the Internet. Ask yourself this: would it be seen in other famous encyclopedic publications? If not, think twice and then again before inclusion. Otherwise, you risk helping to drag this once noble experiment that is Wikipedia down into the laughingstock that it is now in real danger of becoming (not just referring to this page). It has always been an uphill battle for us to achieve respect for Wikipedia among the educated. For awhile, I thought we were turning the tide, but this page makes me wonder. I think that the burden of proof that the video adds to the article rests squarely with those who think it does (add). To date, I have found the arguments for inclusion less than persuasive, to say the least.Rodney420 (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, can someone please explain to me again why the ONLY page among these that shows a video of a human being performing the act is the ‘Ejaculation’ page, and explain to me why, in light of the aforementioned fact that it virtually *stands alone*, said video is not, in fact, gratuitous. - Thanks for pointing out the fact that these pages lack useful videos (There are some of the pages you cite where copyright problems or other legal challenges may make inclusion problematic, but at least a half of them would benefit from a video -defecation, urination, decapitation for example). I hope someone will provide these. As for becoming a laughingstock, yes, we risk this: by censoring content on the basis of puritanism, we risk being laughed at, for sure. --Cyclopia^talk 19:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Meta-pinion? Time for an evaluation of our motivations?

Normally I would suggest that a discussion of the ideals expressed as encyclopedic to not be within any particular page. But these conversations specific to the graphic examples are very interesting to me. Sorry to sound overly cumbaya on you all, but in many cases I really do believe that each side of this issue hold the motivations of the other side as suspect. There really is an impasse here that is simply not going to ever be resolved. I don't know how wikipedia is designed to get past such a thing. And no, "Discussion" veiled ire isn't going to do it.Tgm1024 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ok well those videos/photos made me barf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.73.233 (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of four plate image

The four plate image I put in the article just before it was protected seemed to generate controversy. I feel that it is appropriate and adds useful information to the few images in the article. However, some people disagree. There has been consensus for the video in the past, but not necessarily the four plate image. I have read all of the recent comments on this, and I feel it is best to pull the image until I am sure there is consensus. Wikpedia is not a democracy. However -- I am polling to see if we have consensus for inclusion or not. Please feel free to express yourself as much as you like. Atom (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep in the article, it adds supplementary information, is useful if a wikipedia reader cannot run the video. For me the source of the image is of little importance, the capability of the image to add information to the article is. Atom (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per Atom. It is a clear image of the article subject, therefore it is of obvious and immediate informative value, and it nicely complements the video. That said, polling is definitely not the way to go in cases like this. Also, local consensus does not trump general consensus established in policies and guidelines (i.e. editors cannot decide to disregard WP:NPOV within a single article, even if they all agree), and in this case WP:IUP and WP:NOTCENSORED allow the image to stay by any standard. Similar cases happen, for example in Muhammad images are kept per WP:NOTCENSORED despite continuous requests to remove them; in The Mousetrap the play ending is revealed per WP:SPOILER despite continuous requests to remove it. There is no poll to be done: the images can stay, and therefore should stay unless a policy-based reason for their removal comes up. --Cyclopia^talk 20:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per general practice. Videos are good for those who want to take it a step further and see the whole sequence, while photos are good for at-a-glance information. Many articles containing videos or animation contain stills as well. There is also the accessibility aspect. Maintaining accessibility means making information available even to those whose access is limited to outdated equipment and/or software. Just because you (a particular user) have no trouble playing embedded videos doesn't mean everyone won't. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:33, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Comment WP:NOTCENSORED and the photo is a good representation but we don't go overboard (note that I have not yet formed an opinion if adding the pic and video is going overboard). For example, we place images of Muhammad below the fold so to speak as a slight compromise. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment In my view, I am evaluating whether is should be kept, or not based on the qualitative value to the article. I am asking opinions on that, not on whether it should be censored or not. This would be in the context of the article, which includes the other text and image content. Of course it should not be censored -- but does it add valuable information to the article? Atom (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. First an on-topic comment about the stills: I am of the general opinion that they can be kept, however there is another factor that I am not sure has been discussed. "Innovation". I have looked through most of the links on templates such as {{sex}}, {{sexpositions}} and {{sexual urban legends}}, and I have found in nearly all cases that they use simple sketches and drawings, some ancient reliefs and art (paintings and sculptures) to depict whatever sexual topic about which they inform readers. There are very few photos in any of the article links and, on an off-topic (in this section) note, I came across no films/videos at all. While I didn't visit all of the links, I sampled more than enough to conclude that the result of this debate about the stills (and the film) might begin a new trend in Wikipedia sexual-related articles. Imagine a graphic film used in missionary position, doggy style and even 69? So we may want to ask ourselves where might this discussion take us in the long run? Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Imagine a graphic film used in missionary position, doggy style and even 69?. Yes, I can imagine that. What would be the actual problem with that, provided it is brief and illustrative? --Cyclopia^talk 00:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't know, Cyclopia. I am merely pointing out the extended scope to which this discussion might lead, and I ask the question, "Is it really up to us?" Is it up to just a handful of editors to set this precedent? Judging by the lively discussion this subject has sparked and enjoyed, the final decision (about inclusion of the film) might have to be made by Jimbo and/or Snow themselves? Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is an interesting point that I've brought up before during discussions related to this general debate. The general rule seems to be that for sexually explicit imagery involving more than one participant, where explicit genital contact is involved, photographs are not allowed and are replaced with drawings or cartoons. The reasons this unspoken rule has developed are debatable, but generally, it only applies in those situations. The closest applicable comparison I can find to this article is vaginal lubrication, where photographs are used. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:08, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed that, Equazcion, so sorry. Seems you've raised a valid and important issue that might bring the implicit "rule" to a head? (no pun intended) Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Also, I think Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ can be a useful read of a very similar case to this one. --Cyclopia^talk 00:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, that is one I personally find about as disgusting as any image can get (would that be called "autophobia"?). However, I do still find it of value to the topic of self-oral. This whole idea may eventually lead to warning-type hatnotes and the inclusion of such graphic displays far enough down in the article so that it does not appear the moment the page loads. This might even lead to parental-warning ratings such as the film industry uses? Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful -- WP:No disclaimers. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:20, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as that guideline points out, there are existing disclaimers found at the bottom of all pages in the monobook skin, such as this one, for example. Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment:Interesting is the discussion found here for this image File:Sex_intercourse.jpg. And in the Masturbation article, this image is okay. This is interesting. A discussion to delete an image -- Yet it stays because most of their arguments are "I Don't like it"[1]. Another interesting thought is that there are alternative images for this page at [2][3] I don't see any I like better than the four plate images. And yet another long discussion about whether to censor or not at Talk:Autofellatio/Archive_8#Allowing_readers_to_make_the_article_work-safe. Lastly, there are a couple of images on the erection and penis articles, and hardly any objections at all. This makes me wonder that there is so much objection on this Ejaculation article. The differences between the two seem to primarily be the emission of semen. Atom (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Atom: a. just because very explicit pictures are found in other articles doesn't mean they have to be in here. b. you have yet, in your extensive contributions, to explain what precisely these images add to the text--and NeilN, despite your clamor and pointing, you also have yet to produce a positive reason for inclusion (surely, if these arguments and your feelings are so strong, you wouldn't mind summarizing for the cause). c. all this crying about censorship is boloney: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article" is what WP:NOTCENSORED says--well, how is it appropriate? The video--just because it is a guy ejaculating? If the guy would be spooging onto the back of a pornstar, would that be just as appropriate? It is certainly more "natural" than some dude coming with no hands--let's face it, that's special, in fact so special as to be extraordinary. (I asked around yesterday--we don't know of anyone who can do this.) And "extraordinary" means of limited encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, precisely, because it is a guy ejaculating. If the article were about something other than a guy ejaculating, then it might be inappropriate to show a guy ejaculating, but under the circumstances it seems like a good reason to keep them in. What precisely the images add is a visual depiction of the article topic, just like the Mona Lisa article or the vagina article would have. What you have yet to explain is how this article is so different from those topics as to warrant no visuals depicting the subject. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:51, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - to Drmies: I know you asked Atom, but if I may answer the questions myself:

• a)True, but they're there for this policy. We're simply pointing at what is regular, accepted practice.
• b)They are explicit images of the article subject. Therefore is of encyclopedic value. There is no other justification needed to include images -check policy.
• c)They are appropriate in being images/video of the article subject. An ejaculation video involving another person would be just as appropriate, provided that there is permission from both subjects. Yes, the fact the guy ejaculates with no hands is a bit weird. But it depicts very clearly the article subject. That's the only point. If you have better, free images, feel free to include them. --Cyclopia^talk 17:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Cyclopia, what you say is "it exists so it's encyclopedic." Sorry, but that's BS. Policy does not say "include anything connected to the topic"--and it certainly does not say "include explicit images even if they are so strange that it took a cum artist to make it." I have yet to hear any significant detail that images and video add. And no one has addressed the strange stomach movements the guy makes, for instance. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• The image depicts the article topic, and is therefore relevant. The fact that he makes stomach movement that you don't understand is not a reason to exclude it; and besides which, such stomach movements are actually fairly characteristic of ejaculation, and not strange at all. The abdominal muscles often react to orgasm in males. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:29, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Makes no significant contribution towards understanding of the article topic. I have said previously that most readers simply do not expect to see or need to have this depicted. The medical and educational information that the writing provides is amply illustrated by the first two images. So basically I am against inclusion because the photos (and the video) provide no medical, scientific, or educational value beyond what the article already contains.DMSBel (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no specific inclusion rationale needed to include an image that depicts the article topic. All articles, describing topics where legally-displayable images are available, do include images. The burden of proof is therefore on those advocating exclusion. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:18, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes there is. There needs to be relevance. Duh? Drmies (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
      • The image depicts the article topic. It is therefore relevant. As with Mona Lisa, this is all the rationale required. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:26, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
        • Equazcion, you keep raising such "might-be" good issues, such as the question of legality. How do we know that these images are considered "legally displayable" for this purpose?  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Censor_offensive_images and Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Legal_issues. If there were legal problems with such images, the Foundation would have acted long ago. --Cyclopia^talk 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Maybe, maybe not. Especially as regards the precedent-setting video.  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
              • If someone in good faith thinks there are legal issues then they need to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Us peons don't decide these things :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
                • I checked all the policies and guidelines available to us that concern the legal aspect. The main concerns are for copyright-infringement issues and for defamation-of-the-image's-subject issues. So it appears that there are no issues of illegality inasmuch as the still photos and the film are concerned.  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  20:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: I've read comments here against inclusion to the effect that no one has offered a reason stating precisely why these images add to the context and understanding of the article. I would offer this for consideration: if you are an adult male, and you are editing this article, you may be assuming that there is simply nothing to learn here by seeing graphic images of ejaculation. Presumably, if you're like 99% of most men, in all liklihood you are familiar with the process and have experienced it firsthand. Approximately half the population, however, is female. Among women, some have seen a man ejaculate, but there are many who have not, including women who have had sexual intercourse but still haven't seen the process of ejaculation itself. Reading something can be informative, but a picture is worth a thousand words and much more illustrative. In every other Wikipedia article, an educational picture and/or video which depicted something that potentially half the population had never seen before would be valued for inclusion with the text. What's the problem here?--AzureCitizen (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image seems to depict the subject. I don't see anything "excessive" about it. Why are we arguing about this, again? – Luna Santin (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The photo is redundant to the video. Both the photo and video on the article is clutter. The video is more informative [[4]] and the argument that the photo is there for people with slower connections or can’t play the video isn’t based on policy. Wikipedia is not required to make their articles accommodating for people with slower connections or who lack the proper video codecs for their media players. NightFlyer (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually it is. See Wikipedia:Accessibility. For example, images are required to have a text alternative for those who can't even view those. By extension of that logic it seems rather reasonable to provide still images for those who can't view videos. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:21, 18 Mar 2010 (UTC)

• Your edit has been reverted because the consensus appears to be leaning toward Keep. Also, in this case, no such change should be made until this RfC has been closed. When the RfC closes, and if the final decision is to "Keep", then perhaps there can be found a better position for the image maybe a bit further down in the article? But for now, please do not delete the image.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep it Months ago I thought that maybe the video was enough, then I thought that static images provided added value because you can see the, ah, "action" in more detail and with four stages at the same time, the Accessiblity guideline has convinced me that the four plate image is good for inclusion along the video.

Then again, let's remember that for an average male there is no need for images, but this article can be visited, for example, by females who have never seen an ejaculation before. Let's not even get started with:

• men who have problems ejaculating and want to see the "normal" action.
• the girlfriends of those men, who might want to compare.
• men who can ejaculate but cannot have an erection
• male children who are entering puberty and want to see what is that thing about "white pee" coming out of your "wee-wee" (yeah, using those images for sexual education is legal in the US).
• female children being curious about what they are supposed to do with guys when they grow up
• women who never had sexual relationships with men (because they are heterosexual virgins or because they are lesbians)
• etc.

Again, from the viewpoint of a male who has no problems to ejaculate (or who now has andropause or impotence, but had no problems to ejaculate when he was younger), the images of the article are wholly unnecessary. And most editors of wikipedia seem to belong to that population. But those are not the only readers of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that the points you make concern the uses of the video to various groups. This is not being debated -- the issue at stake is whether they have encyclopaedic value. The uses for people evaluating their boyfriends does not concern us. Sinbadbuddha (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The discussion of the photo and video on this article is full of editor’s extensions of logic that have been cancelled because it was not specifically wiki policy. I’ve read the accessibility policy and it says nothing about keeping or adding media because of slow internet connections or being unable to view a video because of a media player problem like Cyclopia^talk said in the discussion above. The section about images pertains to text and captions for the blind and the only thing in that policy the even comes close to the argument of not being able to play the video is the part about CSS and Javascript Support for readers that have browsers and devices that have limited of no support for these. The final word on that is “however, consideration for users without CSS or JavaScript should extend mainly to making sure that their READING EXPERIENCE is possible”. I think that the four plate photo is not needed because of redundancy and the video is more informative since ejaculation is a physical action that creates visible motion. To ram the adherence to strict wiki policy down the throats of the ones that want the four plate photo removed from the article, and then allow what Equazcion ^(talk) calls extension of logic to be applied to the wiki accessibility policy to keep the photo in the article is hypocracy. NightFlyer (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • On Wikipedia, when you make arguments that hang on the specific wording found in policies, rather than on their spirit, it's generally called wiki-lawyering here. Our policies aren't laws (WP:NOTSTATUTE). Try to see the bigger picture (no pun intended). The principle behind maintaining accessibility with regard to javascript etc applies just as well to media other than text: If someone can't read something because of lack of javascript support, that's bad, and we try to accommodate that limitation somehow; so if someone can't see a visual depiction of something due to lack of video support, it makes sense that we'd try to accommodate that just as well. Just because there's no policy explicitly stating that isn't a good argument against. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:56, 18 Mar 2010 (UTC)
  • Geeez, I have to point this out: the images inserted right next to the text are part of the reading experience. For comparison, imagine that you are reading a book that has pictures to illustrate the subject. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Just a note here, the point of contention brought up is often that things on this page are found offensive to a such a degree that this page is constantly under request to remove the video/image. Since the wiki rules note that this is valid provided other resources can be used to explain the subject (note, doesn't have to be explained just as well) it seems as though the argument becomes a quasi power trip by those shouting for no censorship. Particularly when, since the rules say a pic or video that is offensive should be reconsidered to a similar object that can portray the information, and yet the argument as to the value of the information is that there is not specific set of criteria making the information more valid. So on the one hand, the keep it people want something defining for proof of overly offensive and the delete it people want proof of inclusion rationale... people are using nonsense rhetorical circles to battle one another. It's ridiculous to say that both video and photo are needed to understand the concept. That the concept needs anything more than a hand drawn image is, honestly, laughable as far as imparting the information. It's not about imparting information; it's a group of people fighting against those they see as prude and those "prude" people fighting against people who they see as morally indecent people. Could we just let all of that go? There's no reason a drawn image can't suffice and reasonably satisfy most parties to prevent the near constant barrage of e-peen battles on this talk page. --PseudoSX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.223.105 (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to say that both video and photo are needed to understand the concept.: Funny, I find ridiculous exactly the opposite. A hand drawing is the worst possible solution -ugly, and akin to WP:OR in some respect (it would be a personal interpretation). And why a drawing should be less offensive than a real-life pic? Nonsense. --Cyclopia^talk 09:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The opinion offered by you was "the concept needs anything more than a hand drawn image is, honestly, laughable as far as imparting the information", and yet other people (not just Cyclopia) say just the opposite, that the video is more enlightening for them. Is it possible that different people perceive it differently? What about someone with a different experience base than yours, perhaps more unfamiliar with the topic, and so, not going on the same assumptions that you have. Can you predict whether the video or the still image is more useful for that person, or for a range of people? The discussion is more than just rhetoric. We have pretty much worked out the no censorship issue. That is not the point now. The discussion has last been about whether both images are necessary or useful to the quality of the article. The consensus seems to be that both add different things for different people. Even people who seem to be bothered by the explicit nature of the image seem to agree that one or both displays the topic well. Atom (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears no further input is going to be added to this discussion. As an uninvolved editor I'll put a button on it so it can be archived for future reference (and I don't doubt the issue will be breached again). 6 editors (inc. Luna Santin) are in favor of the image's inclusion in the article while 2 editors oppose it. Although not the largest sampling of editor input, it appears the brunt of reasonable arguments for or against have been put forth by both sides with a clear majority of editors in favor of image inclusion (I hesitate to call it a consensus with such limited input). As the article already reflects this conclusion, there is no need to make any change to it.

Dissent is based in the belief that the detail of text obviates the image's inclusion or that the image is simply unnecessary with a video clip already illustrating the exact same process. The former holds little water as any properly written article should thoroughly detail its subject without illustration - the purpose of the added images is to enhance and present the material in a different way. However, the latter argument certainly presents a potentially valid justification for exclusion. While a rebuttal exists in the fact that some users may lack the means to properly view the video, I haven't been able to dig up any guidelines or precedent with regard to multiple formats visually illustrating the same thing. The use of embedded video throughout the project is still largely in its infancy and many such stylistic guidelines have yet to be established. As such, if this matter is revisited in the future, I would recommend requesting input from a wider audience in an effort to do just that.
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Video

I think that the video should indicate that the man ejaculating has a below average penis. That is not a 6 penis. It might be within a range that is considered average 5-7 but the penis depicted would generally be considered small. If we are showing an ejaculation video for "completeness" I think that it is only fair that the ejaculator's penis be appropriately described. Also, there is no hair/below average hair. That point should also be made as if someone actually needs an ejaculation video to "understand" what's going on then they probably don't understand how much hair should be around the genitalia either.99.33.92.11 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion point is a ridiculous proposition and is a bad joke in poor taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.114.101 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the poster is in poor taste. The "humor" that you detect does have a tinged of sarcasm but I believe the point being made is that if you really need a video to show the act of ejaculation then you don't know what a penis looks like. The deeper concern is that only children would need a video like this to understand. All males greater than the age of puberty understand ejaculation, for obvious reasons, and women who have experienced sex, which upon adulthood is essentially 100%, also understand ejaculation. So then the audience for this video can only be for children (inadvertently or not). I am for completeness and virtually no censorship, but I think that if you stop to think about it either the person who included it is in "poor taste" or that they genuinely do not realize that it adds nothing to the article and can be potentially damaging to children who use Wikipedia.99.187.238.14 (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Very well made point (from 99.187.238.14). It's safe to say that the the only group in society who would not quite understand an ejaculation are pre-pubescent children, and as it's something all males past puberty discover quite naturally, there is no "need" for them to see an ejaculation. The concomitant understanding has to do with sexual intercourse and procreation - which can best be explained using spoken and written word and diagrammatic illustrations. The four-plate pictures and video actually are of masturbatory ejaculation only. No doubt (this being wikipedia) the article for masturbation is amply "illustrated" and therefore both the video and four plate image are and will always be entirely superfluous here.DMSBel (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Should therefore we delete all images from water, since after all every human being has experience of it? The video illustrates the subject. The video stays. Let's not waste time again. --Cyclopia^talk 22:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The article will always be a subject of dispute/controversy/jokes while the video and four plate are in it. DMSBel (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you think that your "water" example makes a great point. Just get done Philosophy 101...lol...at a community college? That is the issue. If despite the reasoning up above you still think that your water example is a sufficient rebuttal then there really isn't any point in discussing it with you. You completely ignored the parts that make it not equivalent to your water example in order for you to feel that you make your point sufficiently. The truth of the matter is that Wikipedia is used by the young as a research tool. Us adults use it to as a great treasure trove of GENERAL knowledge and a starting point for more advanced study on a topic. When you display images like that the effects on the young need to be taken into account. Do you have children? In addition, I think that you guys, who in general do a great job, forget that you aren't REAL editors. No offense, Wikipedia is a wonderful effort, but you will not find, say, a Britannica Encyclopedia app displaying full ejaculation. More specialized knowledge sources can show it which would include the different types of ejaculation, improper ejaculation, etc. Anyway, there really isn't any point to go on. The vagina article, the first thing you can't help seeing, is a real, full color photograph of the orifice of life or urine...take your pick. So this "mentality" is present all throughout the wiki editor team. The only reason why I responded back was because of your ridiculous water example. I needed to tell you and the world how utterly primitive it was and use it as further evidence of your poor judgement.99.187.238.14 (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I withdrew from the editing of this page some months ago, apart from the unpleasantness, one reason was because cyclopia was repeatedly using examples like that above, which seem to satisfy him that the video has a place, but don't begin to convince other editors who disagree, because the use of images of water does not open up any of the issues that a video of ejaculation opens up and which need to be taken in consideration before a decision on the appropriateness of the video/four-plate is made. I would encourage him to at least try to consider the reasons offered by those who think the video is unnecessary. Apart from those issues, and apart from the fact that for an article to be encyclopedic does not necessarily require illustration, the video is a very untypical example, and gives a false impression that ejaculation occurs in some unstimulated manner (it therefore conflicts with the text of the article where it states clearly that When a man has achieved a sufficient level of stimulation, ejaculation begins.), it is therefore not illustrative.82.18.164.15 (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

because the use of images of water does not open up any of the issues that a video of ejaculation opens up : The only reason an image of ejaculation opens up issues is the prurient mentality of a few vocal readers who can't accept that ejaculation is just like water: a common fact of nature. That's why I used it as an example. I considered the reasons offered by those who think the video is unnecessary. I also rejected them. If you don't like to see images of ejaculations, vaginas etc., don't read the articles on them, and you're fine. --Cyclopia^talk 14:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Prurient mentality of a few vocal readers"?? What? Prurient means: having or encouraging too great a interest in sexual matters (in my OED). Indeed. Also you avoided dealing with the chief objection I put to the video - it is in conflict with the text because it shows ejaculation disjoined from stimulation. The video is of someone ejaculating after masturbating, both it and the four plate unbalance the article as it clearly is not about ejaculation as it occurs after masturbating, but simply an article on ejaculation which mentions either sexual or manual stimulation as normally preceding ejaculation. Neither the video or the photos are really needed here. DMSBel (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake (English is not my native language) -I mean puritan. That said, I agree with your objection, meaning that a better video would be one of ejaculation after clear stimulation. But the video needs to show primarily the ejaculation event itself, not necessarily (even if preferibly) the circumstances which lead to it, so, until a better video comes out, that is no reason to remove this one (would you volunteer a better one?) --Cyclopia^talk 21:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was editing my last post when you replied please re-read it to make to see my point about it unbalancing the article. And NO I most definately won't volunteering a masturbation video, for this page or any other. Damn cheek DMSBel (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need a better video, it doesn't need a video at all.DMSBel (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there is enough of a consensus currently to remove them. DMSBel (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? There's no consensus to remove the video, nor is there to remove the photos. --84.177.38.31 (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, in fact. Just DMSBel who still has troubles with our content policies. --Cyclopia^talk 22:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, thats fine. This is however not to do with policy. As you know Cyclopia, wikipedia policy does not state what has to be be permitted, only what may be permitted. You have not answered any of the main reasons given (but have instead in bad faith said that those who object are doing so because they are "puritans" ). Obviously not every article needs to be illustrated, but where that helps an article and there is material which corresponds to the text of the article, that may if it has illustrative value and there is consensus be included. Currently, the video / four plate unbalance the illustration of the article towards masturbatory ejaculation. The article is not specifically about ejaculation as it occurs following masturbation, yet anyone looking at the page would think that it was. Also why is it so important to you to illustrate this article with the video / photos. It was illustrated before the video and four-plate were in, it would still be illustrated if they were removed. As we have discussed there is illustrative value when readers would be unfamiliar with something - say for instance liquid nitrogen - but an illustration both of water (in a jar), and of a masturbatory ejaculation have practically nil illustrative value. The article on water you will notice does not insult readers intelligence with such an obvious illustration. User:DMSBel 82.18.164.15 (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that the ejaculation would look different if it hadn't followed masturbation? If someone had performed fellatio or if there had been intercourse? I don't think so. The article deals with ejaculation and that's what both the video and the image show, so it's kind of weird to read that showing the video will somehow give you a "wrong idea" about ejaculation (why? because an ejaculation should be caused by intercourse?). You say there's illustrative value when there are readers that are unfamiliar with something - what makes you think every adult is familiar with how an ejaculation looks like? Those who aren't may in fact find the image and the video informative. Would you say the same thing (that the image has no illustrative value) about the image at Rotation? For all I know most people are familiar with what rotation looks like. Unlike the rotation image, the video and image about ejaculation aren't on the top of the page, so people won't have to look at them if they acidentally open the article, but if they're interested in finding out what an ejaculation is they should be allowed to see a neutral depiction of it.--84.177.38.31 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We have been through all this - look back through the discussion. The only group who would not know what an ejaculation looks like are pre-pubescent children. Otherwise tell us who are this hypothetical group of adults who don't know what an ejaculation looks like?82.18.164.15 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but just because you think only pre-pubescent children don't know what it looks like that doesn't make it true. There are women who don't have sex until they're in their twenties or thirties, and some never have sex at all, be it because they're not interested in it or because they can't find a partner. This group isn't "hypothetical", nor are they pre-pubescent. And even if you're sexually active, as a woman you don't necessarily see the ejaculation as it may happen "inside". --84.177.38.31 (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed there are some women who have never seen an ejaculation - there are loads of things that have never been seen by some people - mostly due to the fact that they are commonly considered private, and / or intimate. Most people accept that. The ones who don't usually become nuisances. Before someone trots out "Wikipedia is not censored", consider this: censorship is to do with hiding things that should be made known (not just because prurient interests would like them to be shown). The opposite of that is making public what are essentially matters of personal, private or intimate nature, and for this reason the argument: "this is as natural as something else (which we have a picture of) therefore we should show this", is a fallacy, because it attempts place a matter that normally takes place in a private or intimate setting as being equal for scrutiny as something as ordinary as water. This seems to be happening in quite a few wikipedia articles. This is not the place for it but there needs to be a meta-discussion on this.82.18.164.15 (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what has the private setting of something to do with its encyclopedic coverage. --Cyclopia^talk 15:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not an encyclopedia's job to provide depictions/videos of private bodily functions IMO.82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is, instead. Are bodily functions encyclopedic, notable topics deserving an article? Yes. Do illustrations in articles help understanding/illustrationm of the subject? Yes. Are we censored for any reason? No. Therefore it is our job. --Cyclopia^talk 22:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Discretion is not the same as censorship, so there is no point as I said earlier to trot out WP:Not Censored. I am taking the video out.82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. You see there's no consensus for removing the video but just decide to go ahead and remove it anyway? Because you don't like it? That's not how Wikipedia works - get consensus for the removal and then remove it. Or, if consensus is against your preferred version (looks like that right now), deal with it.--84.177.88.114 (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry forgot wikipedia was based on consensus, and reasons for including content don't need to be given, while reasons for removing can be ignored. DMSBel (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Reasons have been given, you just chose to ignore them because you want to get rid of the video. It shows the article's subject and since you agreed that there are people who - being of age - don't know what an ejaculation looks like the video adds to those people's understanding of the subject. Your reason for removing have been that a) everyone “old enough” to know what an ejaculation looks like already does and therefore the video adds nothing to the article (not true) and b) that intimate details shouldn't be shown - that's your opinion, other editors disagree. I don't think there's anything wrong in showing these “private” things as long as it's in a neutral, educational way.

You have to scroll down to see the video, so if you accidentally visit the article (e.g. via “random article” or a misnamed link) you don't have to see the video. Once you decide to read the article and scroll down, the video doesn't start playing until you click on it, so you're not forced to see it. (Pre-pubescent) Children shouldn't surf the internet unmonitored anyway, there's lots of disturbing content (just three random wiki-examples, there's tons of them on- and off-wiki) they'd be to young for even if there were no photos in those articles. So what's the problem? (Other than you don't like it and think that it's somehow wrong to show it because it's private.) --84.177.88.114 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows that decisions on media(video/photos etc) are necessarily made on grounds other than whether they are illustrative. Appropriateness does come into it. Whether it is necessary to illustrate does come into it (we don't need to illustrate things just because there are a few people who may not have seen it, or who would like to see it). The article would lose no educational value if the video / photos are removed. DMSBel (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am evidently not one of these "everyones". Again, what about the illustrations in leaf, human nose, human hand? --Cyclopia^talk 18:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Note on policy abuse (for admins): The prohibtion against censorship can be abused and is being abused here and in other articles, to defend content and basically prevent consensus forming against it's removal. There should not be mention of censorship in the discussion (among editors), because censorship is a unilateral removal of content, usually made by some outside agency. If there is a consensus among editors to remove something from an article that is not censorship and that is why IMO it is complete policy abuse to keep citing the WP:NOT Censored, everytime an editor suggests some content is not necessary. It is not a reason for inclusion. DMSBel (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy abuse, like, blanking pages you disagree with, DMSBel? [5] You've defined censorship as "unilateral removal of content". Apparently, censorship is very relevant here.--AzureCitizen (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Been discussing it here a for long, long time. Video and photos are just being kept for the sake of being controversial. DMSBel (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. (from WP:NOT CENSORED). Actually I suspect a lot of page-blanking, deletion of content occurs precisely because policy is being abused (to prevent a consensus for removal from forming) and editors who initially started out by discussing removal get so fed-up at the abuse see no-other way. It's not right but perhaps it is at times understandable. DMSBel (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And it has been repeated to you a thousand times that it is appropriate because it is an illustration of the article subject. You seem like a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Cyclopia^talk 18:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you ever read my replies, you are the one not listening. I do hear you but your replies don't answer any of the objections I and others have put forward. You have no proper reasoning - comparisons with water are logically fallacious. The article is already illustrated (without video / photos).DMSBel (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I read your replies unfortunately. Your objections are nonsensical -again, why aren't you pushing to remove the images from human nose? Aren't those superflous as well? The point is that there is no policy whatsoever that says that images can be added if and only if they are absolutely necessary. As it has been repeated to you a billion times, images can be added whenever they illustrate the article subject or an aspect of it. The images/video we have here do exactly that. But -your edit history shows you are not in good faith anyway, so please stop this charade: You just dislike sexually explicit content on the encyclopedia. Sorry, it won't go away. We do not act as nannies to our readers, we value them more than that. --Cyclopia^talk 22:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

* Obviously not every article needs to be illustrated: I beg to disagree.

• As we have discussed there is illustrative value when readers would be unfamiliar with something: No, there is always an illustrative value when the illustration depicts the article subject or a relevant aspect of it. A video of an ejaculation shows the article subject. The four plate photo shows the article subject. A photo of a glass of water would be a perfect image of water. Look at the images in sky, leaf, human nose, human hand. They mostly depict obviously well known things. Are they useless for this reason? Not at all. They depict the article subject, therefore they have a strict informative value for the purposes of the article. --Cyclopia^talk 22:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please consult the many archives related to this discussion, wherein all the objections given here are dealt with. With regard to the rather novel objections raised by the OP in this section, it appears that User:99.33.92.11 is suffering under a misapprehension of what constitutes average with regard to the erect length of adult human penises. While results do vary slightly across studies, the consensus is that 95% of adult males fall within the (10.7 cm-19.1 cm) or (4.23 in-7.53 in) range The penis shown in the video at hand, therefore, is absolutely average, if by "a 6 penis" you meant "a 6 INCH penis" and not "a penis I would rate a 6 out of 10" or something perhaps entirely different.

With regard to your worries about the subject's pubic hair, again he appears entirely normal. As we know, on some individuals, pubic hair is thick and/or coarse, while on others it is sparse and/or fine, and can vary from tightly curled to entirely straight. As evidenced by the other parts of his body visible in the video, this chap seems to have a small, though completely normal, amount of fine, fair body hair entirely consistent with his pubic hair.

I hope this allays your worries regarding the subject of the video. As for the need for the video, I direct your attention to the article square, which features no fewer than six detailed images, including one animation, of the familiar quadrilateral known to everybody over the age of 3. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I find the argument that the video is appropriate because it is about the topic not very compelling. Using that premise, any photo or video about this or any other topic is appropriate if it is about the subject. Under the topic of decapitation, I see no video of a beheading taking place. If I had one, would you feel it is appropriate to upload?

If so, well, I give up already. If not, then there is some basis for determining that the material is inappropriate. I am not familiar with all the rules and protocols of Wiki, but I don't believe it to be the case that all material is appropriate and therefore allowable. Certainly in the case where the subject material is going to be controversial/objectionable by some criteria (unlike a photo or video of water - silly argument and quite disengenuous to use).

I believe many have stated reasonable, rational arguments as to why this particular video is not appropriate on Wiki. I find your counterargument that "The video illustrates the subject. The video stays. Let's not waste time again." to be off point and ineffective in answering their arguments, and further contend that you are the party guilty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in regard to addressing the concerns expressed. Ucwhatudid (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One additional note. The point I am trying to make is that Wiki exists in a middle ground between all things are allowable (which would be anarchy) and nothing is allowable (total censorship). So unless it is the case that all things are allowable, it doesn't help to use arguments that appear to be based on that premise against the objections being raised . No discourse takes place. Ucwhatudid (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• If I had one, would you feel it is appropriate to upload? : Yes, of course, and you would be welcome to do that.
• I am not familiar with all the rules and protocols of Wiki, but I don't believe it to be the case that all material is appropriate and therefore allowable. : It is, instead, as long as it provides information on the article subject. There are much "worse" cases than this article: have a look here for example (definitely NSFW).
• you are the party guilty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in regard to addressing the concerns expressed. : It looks like this because it seems I am the only one dumb enough to still answer the endless repetition of non-arguments by DMSBel. But the issue has been discussed to death with a multitude of editors in the past (check the archives), and the outcome is always the same (the videos stay), in conformity with our WP:NOTCENSORED policy. People are free to build a RfC to modify the policy, if they feel so. Good luck with that.
• (unlike a photo or video of water - silly argument and quite disengenuous to use) : No, not silly and not disingenous. Water is an encyclopedic topic. Ejaculation is an encyclopedic topic. As an encyclopedia, that's all we have to care about.
• So unless it is the case that all things are allowable : It is the case, if with "things" you mean "illustrations of the article subject". --Cyclopia^talk 09:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This is where my lack of familiarity with Wiki rules works against me, but in checking similar topics on Wiki there appears to be different standards held. I used a beheading video as an example of something improper, you welcome it. Instead, lets take an example related to ejaculation, that of sexual intercourse. Currently on the Discussion page of that topic, the question was raised as to why not include a video of sexual intercourse (the wording of the questions appears to be facetious, but asks the question nonetheless). Interestingly enough, the response to the issue is that it would be considered pornographic. Essentially the point being made on that topic as to why a video would be inappropriate is in defense of the fact that there is no video, while similar arguments used on this topic for removing a video are shot down. There is an apparent inconsistency in reasoning used on two similar topics, yielding opposite results.

The conclusion one would reach upon reading the other talk is that there is some sort of limiting process at play on Wiki as to what is or is not appropriate. Your response to my first question indicates your certain belief that no such limiting process is in place. Both points of view cannot be simultaneously true. I would posit that your position is one of what you feel/believe/think Wiki should be rather that what it is. You are entitled to feel/believe/think that. I, on the other hand, feel/believe/think Wiki has limits as to what it includes. And frankly, it isn't very difficult to find examples on Wiki where material is NOT included. As comprehensive as Wiki is, there are various methods and processes at play that do limit it.

So, again, I contend that obstinately stating that the video should stay because all depictions of a subject are allowable is not a defensible argument and is being stated to quash discussion and prevent consensus contrary to your position.

And sorry, but the water example is a disengenuous one to use. At issue here is the discussion of a topic that is obviously controversial in nature. The simple topic of water is not in the least controversial (and please do not try to deflect to some related topic such as conservation or fights over water rights - the example you raised was "water"). If you want to continue to assert to the contrary, that is more of an indicator of a desire to engage in word play than in discourse. Ucwhatudid (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• but in checking similar topics on Wiki there appears to be different standards held. : You didn't check well enough. About sexuality topics, I refer you to the following examples, among many others (NSFW):

• Cock and ball torture (sexual_practice)
• Pearl necklace (sexuality)
• Autofellatio

Of course use of "disturbing" media on WP is not limited to sexuality topics. Please check also:

• Gangrene
• Necrotizing_fasciitis

And controversial media need not to be "disturbing" in the meaning of being graphic. Check:

• Muhammad (we include images of Muhammad even if lots of Muslims deem this offensive)
• Rorschach test (we include images of the test plates even if there is concern that public awareness of these images makes the test less useful)

Why so? Because we have a policy that states that Wikipedia is not censored. Please familiarize with it and its application before coming back.

• I used a beheading video as an example of something improper, you welcome it : Yes, so much that, to be honest, I had a quick look to see if there is anything known about the copyright status of such videos, in the hope of finding that they can be uploaded here.
• Currently on the Discussion page of that topic, the question was raised as to why not include a video of sexual intercourse (the wording of the questions appears to be facetious, but asks the question nonetheless). Interestingly enough, the response to the issue is that it would be considered pornographic. : I was not aware of the discussion and thank you for pointing it. The response doesn't strike me as particularly convincing, it seems there is no actual video involved (just a request) and the opinion of just one editor (Yep, it can seem I am just one editor here as well: but please go and check the archives of this talk page).
• is that there is some sort of limiting process at play on Wiki as to what is or is not appropriate. : Well, such a process is called consensus. It turns out consensus defined a policy stating that we are not censored. So that process worked out an answer -one that you dislike, unfortunately.
• I would posit that your position is one of what you feel/believe/think Wiki should be rather that what it is. : I edit on Wikipedia since 2005. You seem to be a jolly new account. Sorry, but odds are that it is you the one who is misguided on what Wikipedia is.
• And frankly, it isn't very difficult to find examples on Wiki where material is NOT included. : Sure, we don't include things creating them by magic. Someone has to create/find material compliant with our copyright restrictions, for example. Wikipedia is a work in progress, so it's not unusual you find things not included yet.
• I contend that obstinately stating that the video should stay because all depictions of a subject are allowable is not a defensible argument : Wikipedia policies disagree. As I told you before, you are free to ask for a RfC on the policy, if you wish so.
• At issue here is the discussion of a topic that is obviously controversial in nature. : I am perfectly aware that it is controversial: my point (and not only "my", but that of our policies) is that it being "controversial" is utterly, completely irrelevant when dealing with encyclopedic decisions. I can assure you Muhammad images are far more controversial than this little video (we are basically pissing off one of the major world religions by keeping these images), yet we keep them, because our mission is to provide relevant information (including visual/video) on encyclopedic topics, not withholding it. --Cyclopia^talk 15:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Prior to my last response, I did check the link you provided and then rummaged around a bit on my own. I understand your point concerning the additional examples you give. However, examples in support of your position do not negate my point that there are examples of the opposite, which support my contention that some limits and constraints are exercised on Wiki. More on this in a moment. Your position is an absolute - all photos/videos in support of or descriptive of a topic are allowable. My position is simply, not always. (And lets try to agree on something here - I believe neither of us are contending about material that is in violation of copyright, unattributed, etc. Let us agree that we are discussing material that from a legalistic standpoint, does not infringe, is properly attributed, etc. That is entirely a separate matter. Yes?)

You point out, correctly, that Wiki is not "censored". I read the policy and understand. It is not carte blanche. For example, on the same page as the discussion of censorship, you can find the following: From the Wiki Page "What Wikipedia is Not: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. (Italics are my emphasis)" Now, I quote this not to say that I am automatically in the right. However, it does seem to support the notion that the automatic right of inclusion of material does NOT exist. Which is why I disagree so strongly with your assertion that is it somehow does exist.

What you are wanting to lump under the heading of censorship I believe more rightly belongs in the discussion of editing and consensus building. I've read through the archives on this topic. What I see are repeated attacks against those who raise arguments against the inclusion of the videos, and a concerted effort to prevent consensus by tossing up as absolute the automatic right of inclusion of the material, when there is no such right.

There are many other examples I could cite here concerning what I'll characterize here as editorial restraint, besides the beheading and sexual intercourse examples already given. I won't list them here as you did exactly what I was concerned that you would try - by bringing up the beheading video example, you immediately set off to find one to upload. Apparently my citing an example in opposition to your point was a thrown gauntlet. I will not give you a working list to use to stir matters on other topics.

I hope those who have previously had issue with the inclusion of the video will return to make their voices heard. Please note as well that I'm not crying out for Wiki to be burned, for this topic to be stricken and for a return to the days of the Puritans (couldn't resist). I simply believe that there is room for a little gray in your particular black and white Wiki world. Ucwhatudid (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• It is true that there is no free pass for the inclusion of whatever passes through our minds. But the inclusion criteria you quoted is very clear: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars : Now, find a policy against the inclusion of this video, and we could talk. Unless you find a policy-based reason for exclusion, there is nothing to talk about. I was very clear in my answers to you above: "everything" is allowed if for "everything" you mean "illustrations of the article subject". I am obviously talking of policy-compliant material. So, what policy do you quote me to remove the video?
• What you are wanting to lump under the heading of censorship I believe more rightly belongs in the discussion of editing and consensus building. : Consensus building on the matter has already been done, and it is very clear.
• I won't list them here as you did exactly what I was concerned that you would try - by bringing up the beheading video example, you immediately set off to find one to upload. : Well, yes, but not because I want to prove a point, mostly because you pointed a honest lack of what would be a useful informational media in the article. It is sad that instead of collaborating in finding and fixing such omissions, you withhold this information. You are working against the encyclopedia, even if by non-action.
• What I see are repeated attacks against those who raise arguments against the inclusion of the videos : You see, it's not "attacks". It's that this kind of things gets more and more tiresome, and there is a years-old policy on these things that is exceedingly clear. We on Wikipedia have to fight every day against people like you, DMSBel and others that, on countless articles, try countless time to remove information only because it is "controversial", "offensive" or whatever else non-encyclopedic reason. I repeat for the third time: If you disagree with our policy, you can go to WP:RFC and set up a request for comment for other editors to weigh on the matter.
• Also, I have no interest in continuing this discussion unless you (a)bring a clear, unequivocal policy-based reason to discuss the videos that hasn't been discussed in the archives before (b)put up a proper RFC on the subject. I've been exceedingly polite in answering the same tiresome tipotoeing around our policies again and again, but let's use our time better. --Cyclopia^talk 18:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec - twice)Ucwhatudid, the policy you're citing doesn't help with this problem. While Wikipedia does have inclusion criteria, they're not about the illustrations we use but about which subjects should have their own article. The subject's notability is already established I think, so the question here is does an image/video help people understand the subject of this article? I think it does, so does Cyclopia and others do so, too. I do understand that some people might be offended if they accidentally open this article and were welcomed by a video (like they would if they visited the Russian wiki), but that's not the case here. Both the photos and the video are further down the article, so you won't see them unless you scroll down. To see the video, you have to start it (in some other language versions it's on autoplay). From where I'm standing it looks like there are already many shades of grey here. One more thing: Cyclopedia isn't the only one in support of the video, he's just the only one willing to repeat this discussion again and again. --84.177.31.9 (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Video discussion: time to close

Does anybody object to my closing this discussion now? I believe I've dealt with the objections raised by User:77.102.254.186 (see discussion at User talk:77.102.254.186), and we're only going around in circles, so if no one else has a valid reason why this discussion shouldn't be closed now I'm going to archive it. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do. Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 22:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't. Thanks. Ucwhatudid (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum in the Talk Page archives. --AzureCitizen (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I did now. Stupid me in continuing to answer these people. --Cyclopia^talk 18:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This video is being made available in the United States. Where is the notification that the boy in the video is 18 or older? It is required by 18 U.S.C. 2257. 66.223.147.56 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look in the file page you'll see that there is the required legal notice. --Cyclopia^talk 15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No videos for female ejaculation?

Why are there no videos of female ejaculation? Female squirting? Why the bias? This is just as entertaining/educational (whichever way you want to see it,) as male ejaculation, which leads me to another question.

Should ejaculation be divided into male ejaculation and female ejaculation? 90.196.3.180 (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Female ejaculation already exists. The lack of video is simply due, I think, because nobody uploaded a copyright-compliant video to Wikipedia or to Commons. --Cyclopia^talk 01:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 124.169.120.110, 5 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

This page contains unnecessary graphic description of male ejaculation. This site is frequently used by kids that can see this graphic material. Please remove the video and photographs. 124.169.120.110 (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:NOTCENSORED. I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is not satisfied with continual resort to the NOTCENSORED line without qualification or nuance. To quote: Wikimedia has been less willing than others to accede to extra-institutional pressure to change its content. (This, to us, is the true meaning of the oft-quoted “Wikimedia does not censor”) On that point, the objection here is "intra-"institutional. The people who cite "consensus" to argue for inclusion (as I've seen in edit summaries) should be more circumspect in my opinion because it is far from just one or two fringe characters that believe while this imagery may advance "knowledge" an inch it compromises Wikimedia's mission to be a broadly accessible and respected resource by a mile.--Bdell555 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's nice, but there was already a discussion that found the specific items here have actual educational merit as affirmative support for their inclusion, completely apart from NOTCENSORED reaction/response to request for deletion. "It's icky" is 1) not viable on its face, but 2) only even viable in light of WM, etc. if it had the addition "...and it doesn't contribute to the article" and 3) could overcome previous discussions that found it did. DMacks (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of what the status quo view is, a product of previous discussion. My point is that person(s) under contract to the WMF has said, "should... the current status quo be retained surrounding controversial content ? Our answer is no" Read the full page I linked to and you'll see that there is a lot more nuance to the argument than just "it's icky." There is a general call for a re- or more thinking. I might add that "delete" versus "do not delete" is something of a false binary; Part 2 of the Wikimedia study does not generally recommend that an "image be permanently denied" in these circumstances but rather "collapsible or other form of shuttered gallery," for example:

<div class="thumbinner" style="width:px">

{{{content}}}

a nekkid lady

--Bdell555 (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes this makes sense and has some support in the discussion. I am glad to see WikiMedia Foundation starting to take seriously these issues. I think user Bdell555 has interpreted the position of WMF very well here. The distinction between extra-institutional and intra-institutional is important. It is not mentioned much and yet it makes a world of difference in this debate. Even if there was no policy on censorship, would not discussion still take place on specific content amongst editors, and consensus still be sought? What I am saying is that it might make for more honest discussions, to not just immediately wheel out WP:NOTCENSORED, but to ask why should the image, video etc. be deleted. Wikipedia is able to self-censor when appropriate, but generally with editorial consensus arrived at through discussion. It helps to see the real reasons for including content, or disagreeing with deletion, as well as as reasons for deletion (eg. obscenity, unreliable source). It seems to me the issue of censorship is a live one for textual (ie. written factual) content moreso than for visual content. Do not professional and scholarly standards of quality for all content need to be maintained? Is there any reasonable argument why removal of uncouth and superflous visual content would equate to censorship? I can think of none, without trivialising what actual censorship is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo frames

Why is there only one frame on the final photo instead of the original four? --13² 04:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion:

While I can find references to prostate conditions, I can't find any description of semen production in this page. I feel this page would benefit from either a short paragraph about semen production, or a link to the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.130.186 (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Four Frame Photo

Four Frame Photo clearly identified earlier (see archived discussion) to be from an online pornographic video, and therefore unsuitable for an educational article likely to be of interest to a wide audience.DMSBel (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is something you should read. --Cyclopia^talk 14:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia I appreciate your concern about censorship, and mostly agree with you, however that issue is not a live one in this instance. Generally it is more pertinent to suppression of textual content. The issue here is one of tone. The tone of an encyclopedic article which straddles or overlaps the sexuality and medicine categories should be clinical, photos which originated on a pay-to-view voyeuristic/exhibitionist porn channel (see archived discussion) are not clinical in nature, neither is a uncouth home-made video. I am going to delete the photos again (not to provoke, but because they clearly do not help to give the article a clinical tone).DMSBel (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't expect me to get into a pointless discussion again. The issue was discussed to death in the preceding months and consensus was for images to stay. You're being disruptive. Please stop. --Cyclopia^talk 01:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Maintaining a clinical tone is what matters here. I concur with Bdell555's comment that "while this imagery may advance "knowledge" an inch it compromises Wikimedia's mission to be a broadly accessible and respected resource by a mile." What do you think Cyclopia? DMSBel (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That you should stop circumventing WP:NOTCENSORED, you and your IP socks. --Cyclopia^talk 12:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think there is any point then continuing to discuss with you Cyclopia. I don't think you are going to engage in any serious discussion on this and I don't think you are interested in improving this article or looking at ways it could be improved, or discussing problems with it. I don't know what you are really doing here at all. You seem to just want to defend the status quo at all costs. I am not going to stand for slanderous allegations either - My username is DMSBel that is my one and only account. If you do not retract your slanderous allegation about sock-puppetry I will be reporting you. DMSBel (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Give it up, DMS. We don't have to rehash thoroughly-discussed decisions each month just because you want to. I'm sorry, but you should have been here for the preceding discussion. Maybe in a few more months the decision can reevaluated. ^L_Wizard @ 17:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I had not commented on this page for months, I don't come by once a month to delete either. The source of the material is unreliable, how it got by I do not know. Except I know I did not defend it or support it. However I will continue to remind people that it is from a online pay-to-view porn channel and was not made for either medical, or encyclopedic use (placing the caption "educational video" on it does not make it so), but rather the intention is sexual arousal of the viewer. There is no such material to my knowledge in existence from a reliable source, because no online or printed encyclopedia, or other research tool, deems it necessary or in good taste to illustrate beyond diagramatic medical illustrations and animations. DMSBel (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologized on my talk page for the sock accusation, which I gladly retract. As for the rest, yes, there is no point in discussing with me: I told you clearly from the start that there is no point to engage in discussion about this issue unless novel and strong policy-based arguments come out: in which case you can open a RfC. Until that moment, I consider removal of the image as disruptive editing close to vandalism. Oh, and you are free to rant about the demise of WP on your blog. Bye. --Cyclopia^talk 00:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, we don't need what you consider to be "novel" arguments. Unreliable source, and that the images are from a video made with the sole intention of sexual arousal are sufficient policy based arguments here for removal. The censorhip policy cannot be interpreted in exclusion to other policy, it does not trump other policy and guidelines, and should not be used as a kind of trump card. See WP:GAME. If you still disagree with me I suggest you take the issue to Mediation. DMSBel (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an old argument. One you proposed previously, and caught no support for. The source of the original photo, or rather the "alleged" source of the photo, and the "intent" of the photo or people taking it is not relevant. Atom (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok then time for Arbitration on this. Had thought of going to mediation first, but as there is no compromise available in this instance seems pointless, and I would prefer a decision on this.DMSBel (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So -- When you are a lone editor and can not win support for your view, you should go to mediation or arbitration? Please see [[6]] for the last discussion. Several others precede that one. We get that you don't like the image. We respect that your opinion is that the image is pornographic. We understand that you would be happier if the image was not in the article. The pertinent argument though is whether the image illustrates the topic well or not, or if another image would illustrate the topic better than this image. I am not sure that the argument "I don't like it and no one else will agree with me." will fly well with arbitration. Does the image illustrate the topic well or not? Other editors think it does. Is it a copyvio or in violation of any of WIkipedia's policies? Other editors do not think so. Atom (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There is support for my view. Shall I include you in the request for arbitration? DMSBel (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am happy for them to ask my opinion. Atom (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok I am adding Atom, and Cyclopia as involved parties DMSBel (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that this image was ALREADY discussed previously in RfC with a result that the image should be kept. Talk:Ejaculation/Archive_16#Discussion_of_four_plate_image Atom (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Atom you stated in the arbitration request that you have a "background in sexology" - could you say what this background is? Not sure if you just mean you have edited other articles on the topic on wikipedia, or if you are refering to some qualifications outside of wikipedia? Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "background"? DMSBel (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anthropocentrism

Isn't this article anthropocentric? Human beings are hardly the only species to experience ejaculation. Gatoclass (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's quite true. Feel free to add content on non-human ejaculation, of course. --Cyclopia^talk 22:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Anything to be said about ejaculation in other species would in my view be more relevant to the article on Animal Husbandry. Perhaps there should be a sentence in the intro here, stating that this article deals with ejaculation as an aspect of human physiology.DMSBel (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The topic of Animal Husbandry is about breeding of animals, among other things. So, things related to the breeding of animals should be there. Things related to ejaculation should be in this article. Atom (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A plea for sanity

The conversation about the ejaculation video and pictures has been framed in terms of censorship/freedom of speech. Instead of going into the legal intricacies of what is or what isn't allowed on wikipedia's webpage, how about we think generously and altruistically about the children of this world. Normally, to see ejaculations one has to sign in to a password-protected porn site. Wikipedia's page is nothing of the sort, so let us remember back to a time when we were not all desensitized by the glut of online porn, when the innocence of our children was something to uphold and protect (and when people knew that letting a child see a graphic sexual act was a breech of his innocence) - in short, when ejaculation was something a boy saw first when his own body performed it.

Wikipedia could dance around and around on the censorship issue, and perhaps win on those grounds and continue to broadcast these images, but wikipedia has a social responsibility. Of course a common response will be, "Why is it harmful for a child to see a real ejaculation? This happens! It's biological!" People have been so desensitized by the saturation of sexual images in our society that the answer to this is no longer in reach. It's because these images titillate, they arouse (at least in those that haven't been been over-exposed to porn) and have the potentional to induce a child into the seamy world of online sexual addiction, that a child should be protected from them. That's why. Does anyone have a heart for this issue? Can anyone be sensate and feeling enough to want to spare children from the under-world of online sexual perversion? Does anyone still appreciate the difference between sexual health and sexual perversion?

We could trumpet our "right" to express, educate, disseminate freely and without hindrance, but could we shift the debate to the responsibility we have to our children. PLEASE - let's think about others and remember the children. And don't say it's the children's fault for finding the page. Nathanpgw (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the current situation with regard to this page.

After the last RFC on the four plate the editor who closed it stated that he would hestitate to say there was any consensus for keeping the image (please see archive). So the the pictures are simply there because that is the status quo. Well that was three or four months ago. A couple of editors who keep reverting deletions are quite simply either agenda driven, or unable to listen to reason, or both, Cyclopia for instance is a hard-core Inclusionist. Well folks Wikipedia self-censors itself all the time. The no-censorship policy is to do with extra-institutional censorship (ie from outside wikipedia), not editorial discretion. In the ARBCOM I filed (which was declined as I did not realise at the time they do not deal with content disputes) the committee stated that they hoped good editorial judgement would be exercised here. DMSBel (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

TLDR: Don't leave your children alone in front of the computer/TV. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"...spare children from the under-world of online sexual perversion?" We should also protect them from people who would make them believe that a normal biological process should be seen as sexual perversion. The role or parents, among other things, is to guide their children appropriately and give them proper context. "It's because these images titillate..." They may titilate you, but that is your personal issue. Do you find an image of someone picking their nose titilating to you? Is hearing about someone farting titillating to you? The way that people (including children) determine the context of an act or an image is by how others treat it. I think every editor on Wikipedia agrees that children should be protected from porn. They don't need to be protected from learning about normal biological and sexuality topics though. The issue is that your cultural upbringing, like many others, has trained you to be embarrassed about anything related to sexuality, and so, anything sexual in nature that is seen in the public forum is perceived as some form of erotica, or worse, pornography. Human sexuality is healthy and a normal part of life. Being sexually excited about something or someone, and learning to deal with it appropriately in a healthy fashion is also a normal part of life. Characterizing anything sexual in nature that occurs in the public forum as Pornography is a lack of skill in properly dealing with that. It is a common fault. It is something that we should all be forgiving about in others, but not allow to propogate. Atom (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Atom you are wrong. You also are an perennial case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You willfully ignore the evidence that the four-plate photos are from a porn site (it's all proven in the archived discussion) and thus porn, it is not my or any other editors subjective appraisal - it is an objective fact, that you refuse to acknowledge. You say children should be protected from porn, but you refuse to support the image being removed. Rather by sleight of hand you try and make it out that those requesting it to be deleted are pervs. It is not a "lack of skill" on anyone's part but rather a refusal to deal with reality on your part. You may not care whether imagery is pornographic. Myself and other editors however are able to tell the difference between imagery made for educational use which is clinical in nature and that which is made for voyeurs only. No one is characterizing everything sexual in nature as porn, no one wishes to remove the top two illustrations. I am leaving the film-clip out of the discussion for the moment, because I think despite it being uncouth it might not (unlike the four-plate image and the video they are from) have been made for voyeurism.DMSBel (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. The issue is that you look at it from an absolute perspective, rather than a relativistic perspective. The context of where and how an image is used is important. If a sexually explicit image is used on a web site where access to erotic and pornographic images are provided for money, it would be fair to call one of those images pornography (In that context). If the same image is used in say, the National Geographic Magazine, or in sex education textbook, or Wikipedia (within its proper topic) then that is a different context, and that same image is not pornography. An image is not inherently pornographic, just because it is sexual, or sexually explicit, or just because one or more persons perceives that image as "sexually arousing". In this case, the provenance of the image is important from a copyright perspective, but not from the perspective of whether or not it is pornographic. The fact that it is used in an educational article within Wikipedia, on the proper topic, in the proper way means that, in this specific context, it is not pornographic. This same image may very well be perceived by some people in another context as pornographic. You continue to assert that the image in question was created with the specific intent that it "was made voyeurism". First of all whether it was made for voyeurism has nothing to do with it. Second, the very word "pornographic" is subjective on a person by person basis. The Miller test is the test used to determine if it is obscene or not, not your personal perspective. Thirdly, you have given no proof that it was created with the intent of "voyeurism", only asserting that to be the case. (You have shown that is currently is on such a web site -- but that happened after it was created, suggesting nothing about the "intent" of the original image." Lastly, even if it had been created with the intention of it being pornographic, the very fact that it is used in an educational context means that it is not pornographic in that context.

In other places you made your argument, it was thoroughly discussed, then we had an RfC, and then you filed a Request for Arbitration. In all cases your view did not prevail. I respect your desire to do what you think is right. But, in this case, there seems to be no consensus for your view. Atom (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There was no consensus about the four-plate photo

There was no clear consensus found either way on the four plate - either to keep or delete. That was the result of the last RFC. Please stop closing discussions on the matter. Currently there is just you Cyclopia and Atom arguing for keeping (or rather just Atom, as you only close the discussions). So I think given that we do exercise editorial discretion and don't just keep everything inserted in an article the image should be deleted. I have no agenda here (I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist) - I simply want to maintain an encyclopedic quality to the article. Context does not change the material - putting porn in an encyclopedia article lowers the tone and quality of the article. As regards voyeurism - the website it is from is called X-Tube, the videos are pay to view live streams = for Voyeurism / Exhibitionism / Porn. It did not end up on X-tube by some accident, it was made there, recorded from a live stream - so it was made for voyeurism or exhibitionism, whichever way you want to look at it. The simple fact is the top two images (both sexual) fit well with this article and there have been no objections to them, whereas the video and fourplate have been a constant source of dispute - even from users who had no awareness of the source - so context does not make something educational. And the fourplate provides no additional information. It should go. DMSBel (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus :Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, firstly - general agreement and, secondly - group solidarity of belief or sentiment. Consensus decision-making

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. WP:BURODMSBel (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

They're not the only ones who support the inclusion of the image you find distateful. They're just the only ones who are still patient enough to continue replying to you time and time again. --13² 21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I suggest you not to feed the trolls either, 13^2. Let's leave the guy talk with himself, if he likes so. . --Cyclopia^talk 23:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And I have not been the only one arguing for its removal, if you want to go back through the archives. I had to start a new section because Cyclopia closed the previous discussion (which had not been started by me btw) - and one of the reasons I keep replying is that I don't like the way policy is being used to shut down disenting viewpoints thats why I quoted from WP:BURO - because of the way WP:NOTCENSORED is being used. You'll see it says that disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Also editors with a view on this should not close sections that are disenting to their view. Atom's comment also needed a response. It's also been said that there is consensus to keep the photo when there is not, at least at the last RFC the closing editor said that he would hesitate to say there was a consensus with such limited input. Again, what information would the article lose if the pictures where deleted? The whole biological aspect is covered in the diagrams. DMSBel (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Censor vs. Freedom to aquire knowledge

People you all need to realize this is wikipedia 1. Even Wikipedia has its limitiations, and these are within those limitations 2. Being a discussion you are free to post, but realize that the law remains firm 3. Someone would not be on this page if they didn't know what it meant 4. Hitting random page would give you a 1/3,000,000 chance of landing on this page 5. It is a body process that is not showing anything inappropriate or disgusting or wrong

So please keep morality and responsiblity aside —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.31.182 (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

1. I don't think this has anything to do with "limitations" as you put it. Rather lack editorial discretion, and insufficient numbers of editors capable of exercising good judgment, how else does material from a porn channel become content here. Yes it has to do with the nature of wikipedia as such and it being possible to insert almost anything, but before that it has more to do with a particular mindset. Most people know the type of editor (actually they usually are not editors by any stretch of the imagination they just fly-by on sexuality articles and ask why no photo, why no photo?) Sorry but a little discretion is needed sometimes - we can't always rely people to know where to stop. If this was facts about the casualities in a war or something of that magnitude that were being held back I'd call that censorship. Collapsing the video as default maintains the freedom to acquire knowledge, all one has to do is click to bring it up, everyone is free to do that. That compromise was offered but rejected.

2. The principle behind the policy is the important thing here. The policy does not actually state that we have to keep objectionable material and it certainly does not say we can't delete it. Correct me if i am wrong. The policy is more than its title!! Also censorship and editorial discretion are not exactly the same. Thats why we can and have had RFCs on keeping or removal. If a outside individual or organisation started to unilaterally remove content - that would be censorship pure and simple. Normally we present reasons for keeping or deleting content. Most of the time "keepers" use WP:NOTCENSORED in place of reasons. As we can have RFCs on content that means that deleting content without it being strictly censorship if there is a consensus is a possibility. The very fact that there are RFCs means the possiblity exists for deletion to be the result.

3 & 4. Not necessarily, if they just click a link. Yes most people (over the age of 10 roughly) will already know what an ejaculation is basically and looks like, they would most likely be here to find out biological details, not an ilustrative depiction. The problem here is with different views of what an encyclopedia is supposed to provide.

5. We already have visual depictions. There is nothing to say that actual depictions are needed in describing a biological process the main details of which are internal. External we know about, its the internal that most people will be here to read about.

What is there incompabible with morality and responsibility and making an encylopedia? What's wrong with being responsible? I have become more and more fed up with wikipedia and the vagueness of it's policies. User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You're bringing up the same "arguments" again and again, but expect the consensus to change - that's not very likely. A new consensus will only come with new, convincing arguments. Illustrating an article called "Ejaculation" with pictures/videos of its topic isn't "irresponsible", nor is it "unencyclopedic", and insinuating it is will not help you convincing others that you're trying to improve rather than censor the article. Both the photo and the video are only shown when you scroll down, and you have to click on the video to start it, so nobody has to watch the video, yet people can watch it if they want to (and they don't need to go to porn pages for that). So, do you have new arguments? --84.177.54.21 (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I realise what you are saying, but most people know what an ejaculation looks like, or can work it out from the description - lets give our readers some credit. Do you really think there are a lot of people who need to actually see an actual ejaculation to understand it. Also I am fed up with people claiming a consensus here, there is only a status quo. No convincing arguments were given for the picture in the first place. Firstly there was dispute on the video then in the middle of that the four plate (which really adds nothing) was inserted. If there is a disagreement then compromise should be sought, adding more content which is controversial in the same manner as that which is already under dispute is absolutely the opposite of finding a compromise. Atom argued for keeping both - how is that seeking a compromise!! So did others at the time. The video was moved down then someone added the four-plate and Atom and others defends its inclusion. When there is disagreement a compromise must be sought. It was not. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for compromise, because the consensus is that this aspect of the article is fine as it is. Requiring compromise after you've lost the argument is unlikely to succeed. --Nigelj (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion criterion for images isn't that people otherwise can't work out how something looks. It illustrates the article's subject which is really all you can ask of an image, and while some people can imagine things from a description only, others may prefer an image. I read some of the archived discussion and did find convincing arguments both for using images and for using a photo and a video of an ejaculation. I also think that the images' placement is a compromise already as articles usually have the most relevant image at the top (and looking back through the article's history I see that was the case in the past). --84.177.54.21 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly there is no consensus here just a status quo. Or what did the editor closing the last RFC mean when he said "I'd hestitate to say there was a consensus".

I am still learning about how wikipedia works, I did not sit down and read every policy and guideline before I started, I suspect I am not the only one who launched in and was bold. I have tended to check policy when conflicts have arisen. I am doing that moreso now. I just found this.

It is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise - with the understanding that the article is gradually improving - than to try to fight to implement a particular 'perfect' version immediately.Wikipedia:CONSENSUS

Also anyone can still delete the image and give a reason even if there was a consensus. Then we see what happens (ie. if it stays like that). Thats how this works. You'll notice I have not deleted it, my main reasons for continuing here are to counter some of the impressions being given that there is some consensus for keeping. Finding compromise is part of the consensus process when there is disagreement.

This has not happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You say there's no consensus, others disagree.--84.177.54.21 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The closing editor at the last RFC on the four plate said "he would hesitate to say there was a consensus". I am just repeating what he said. In any event by putting additional controversial content in an article (that is already causing dispute) is not seeking compromise, it is disruptive editing, read the article on consensus, and look at the flowchart above which clearly shows some compromise should be sought. Those wishing to delete the video were prepared to compromise to a collapsible format by default at the time it was being discussed. Someone adding more controversial content is seriously disruptive. DMSBel (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But dozens of editors, an RFC, and Wikipedia policies all agree here, and one continues to disagree (I assume DMSBel and 62.254.133.139 are one and the same). If we had to compromise the article whenever one person doggedly holds out against all that, the encyclopedia would suffer. If several other people turned up, with new policy, fact-based and citable evidence, then we may have a 50/50 situation in which compromise was the answer. This isn't that - it looks like just one personal view with the same point made over again. P.S. Can someone link the RFC, I've lost it. --Nigelj (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thats my IP. I'd hardly say dozens of editors only 6 in agreement in the last RFC. Many of those who disagreed in the past gave up and moved on. Its impossible to have discussion with a lot of the editors in favor of keeping cause they generally cite WP:NOTCENSORED from the beginning of any RFC. I only joined this discussion again becuase there was further disagreement, which was dismissed rather rudely. Wikipedia policies do not say what content has to be included, they don't say articles must have controversial content or even photos. The RFC simply maintained the status quo.

What I find really galling here is the way extra controversial content was just put in when there was already a dispute about what was already in. Editors would not compromise on the video. I think when there is already a dispute any extra provocative content should be barred from inclusion - especially when it adds nothing.

I'll cut and paste the closing comments the the full RFC is in archive 16.

It appears no further input is going to be added to this discussion. As an uninvolved editor I'll put a button on it so it can be archived for future reference (and I don't doubt the issue will be breached again). 6 editors (inc. Luna Santin) are in favor of the image's inclusion in the article while 2 editors oppose it. Although not the largest sampling of editor input, it appears the brunt of reasonable arguments for or against have been put forth by both sides with a clear majority of editors in favor of image inclusion (I hesitate to call it a consensus with such limited input). As the article already reflects this conclusion, there is no need to make any change to it.

Dissent is based in the belief that the detail of text obviates the image's inclusion or that the image is simply unnecessary with a video clip already illustrating the exact same process. The former holds little water as any properly written article should thoroughly detail its subject without illustration - the purpose of the added images is to enhance and present the material in a different way. However, the latter argument certainly presents a potentially valid justification for exclusion. While a rebuttal exists in the fact that some users may lack the means to properly view the video, I haven't been able to dig up any guidelines or precedent with regard to multiple formats visually illustrating the same thing. The use of embedded video throughout the project is still largely in its infancy and many such stylistic guidelines have yet to be established. As such, if this matter is revisited in the future, I would recommend requesting input from a wider audience in an effort to do just that. --K10wnsta (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It was not actually said that the article needed no illustrations, the objection was that the article was satisfactorily illustrated already by the two diagrams and that the four plate being from a porn video lowers the tone of the article and actually added nothing. I'd agree to a compromise on the video to collapse it, or if that is too much for some, deletion of the four-plate only. The main substance is in the diagrams. DMSBel (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Images are Wiki-standard. While you may feel that these images are "controversial", there's no policy that says articles with sexual content have standards different from the rest of Wikipedia (and I also disagree about the images not adding anything). If you feel that the consensus has changed you're free to start another RFC, but as long as there are no new arguments I expect the outcome to be pretty much the same. link to last RFC.

addendum: it doesn't matter where the images came from as they're not in that context anymore. --84.177.54.21 (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Context doesn't make them encyclopedic, they may illustrate but they damage the quality of the article and wikipedia.DMSBel (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does. --84.177.54.21 (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I take the view that they retain the tone of the where they came from, and that that still is evident when viewing them even here. After a while people may become desensitised to them but thats only those who have worked on the page probably. DMSBel (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do they add that is in anyway significant? Don't you think porn lowers the tone of articles? Again its not me calling it porn, I only call it porn because it came from a porn pay to view site. I think that is scraping the bottom of the barrel to include it. Why won't people compromise on this. Collapsing the video as others have suggested is not exactly censorship as it would be available at a click. DMSBel (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

People, please let's stop arguing with DMSBel. It's a pointless exercise, he is a terminal case of WP:HEAR. He just wants the attention. Let's leave him alone. --Cyclopia^talk 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As for you Cyclopia you seem to just remember what those who agreed with you said, I am throughly fed up with you and your insults, I will go straight to arbcom about your conduct if you attack me again. DMSBel (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the link you provided: "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.". Also: "It's not me calling it porn, I only call it porn because ..." - so you're not calling it porn but you're calling it porn O_o People won't compromise because they already did compromise (position of the images), and the video isn't on autoplay. --84.177.54.21 (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So add more controversial content to make up for the compromise? - some compromise!!. I'll settle for the position of the video and it not being on autoplay. But compromise does not mean adding something else to make up for moving the video down.DMSBel (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And you understood what i meant about not calling it porn, I meant it was not my subjective view, because it was from a porn site. DMSBel (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't understand what you meant. I disagree with you on it being porn (porn is meant to arouse which is not what we're trying to do here). I'm not Cyclopia, but I guess their suggestion to ignore you was a good one (IOW: I'm going to do that from now on). --84.177.54.21 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I may have phrased myself poorly but I thought it was fairly obvious what I meant. Sorry your comment came right after I had replied to Cyclopia I apologise. Yes I did not see that header at the top of the page. Apologies. You may not being trying to arouse people but that is what porn does regardless of context, images of a clinical nature are better for medical and sexological articles. But still agreeing to move something down and then adding something else equally if not more objectionable is not compromise. DMSBel (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: DMSBel has posted an issue about the images here. --Cyclopia^talk 11:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So?DMSBel (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the issue is about this page, people following this talk page ought to be informed. --Cyclopia^talk 13:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Adding such links is actually a requirement under policy to prevent forum shopping. --Nigelj (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea if the image is from a porn site. It looks like about as "clinical" of a depiction as one could get of something like this. That doesn't mean no one will find it objectionable, and I am sure there are those who would even object to us having a text-only article that discusses the subject candidly. Our goal here is to provide knowledge on subjects, even subjects some people may find objectionable or difficult. I would say that the video and photos do contribute to the article, without being unnecessarily graphic or sexual. They depict, in as clinical a method as possible, the exact subject that this article is about. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Seraphimblade.Dosbears (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You have all been had

Once upon a time, a pervert video taped himself ejaculating. However, having it on tape wasn't enough for him--he had to share it with the world. So he needed a proper venue to force unsuspecting people to watch his erupting semen. And thus he posted it here, on this article. He duped the moderators into believing it was informative--after all, it's not like anyone who has never seen a male orgasm wouldn't be able to figure out what it looks like after reading the description. Now, anyone who criticizes the article for its video is admonished for being a prude and for not being "enlightened" enough to tolerate the sight of an ordinary physiological function. Meanwhile, somewhere, the original poster is out there somewhere, masturbating relentlessly knowing that his dream of showing off his glorious cum geyser to the world is now a reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.254.5 (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WP content is freely reusable. One of the keys to the licensing is that there is no control over who, how, or why it is reused by others. DMacks (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how you'd know any of that anyway, but for the sake of argument, let's say your scenario is entirely true. So what? What effect would that have on anyone else? It would just mean we have free content for a subject it might not be so easy to secure freely licensed media for. I wouldn't say that counts as being "had". Far as using media, it would be my hope that any of our articles describe their subjects sufficiently so that a reader reading the text alone could figure it out from that. We use media to enhance, not supplant, high quality textual content. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How do I know a pervert posted this? I consider two alternatives. Conceivably, the poster of the ejaculation footage genuinely believed that it was scientifically relevant and that this footage meaningfully contributes to the treatment of the subject. However, I am a medical student, and I own several texts pertaining to anatomy and physiology. None of them contain content anywhere near this graphic. Therefore, either the original poster has an unorthodox and possibly avant-garde approach to what is scientifically relevant, or he's simply a pervert. Strictly speaking, I don't know which alternative is the truth, but I do know intuitively which one is far more likely.

Which brings me to the followup question, "so what?" As described above, the most likely reason these media exist in the first place is because somebody out there gets his jollies showing off his forest of one tree to the unsuspecting public. By maintaining the video and pictures on the page, you are complicit in what most polite circles would consider a lewd act. I suppose one could argue that the informational value outweighs the questionable motives of the original poster. However, that's a mighty big stretch, and that's why you have all been duped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.56.178 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If "being duped" means that we manage to have useful content for the encyclopedia, then I'm happy of having "been duped". I don't give a frak if people who upload stuff do it because they jerk off on it or because of the most hideous possible hidden motivation. I care about the end result. So thank you for your concern, but it's something nobody really cares here. --Cyclopia^talk 22:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

in what most polite circles would consider a lewd act; such a comment is entirely the reason for WP:NOTCENSORED. Fortunately the Wiki has ideals a little less constrained by what segments of society have decided are "lewd acts" to protect everyone from. *sigh* --Errant ^(chat!) 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, I'm not making these comments because the pictures are offensive. I'm making them because the pictures are RIDICULOUS. Cyclopedia considers them "useful." Really? You don't believe people can figure out what an ejaculation looks like without video footage? As far as I can tell, the only information these pictures usefully convey is that someone is playing a joke on the editors of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.56.178 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi DMSBel, what about logging in? --Cyclopia^talk 23:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record the IPs comments above are other users, not myself. DMSBel (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the pictures... please

Remember that 50% of Wikipedia users are men. This is absolutely disgusting for most of us to see this, we like experiencing it but we don't need to watch it. I looked this page up to find out how many sperms there are in one ejaculation and it literary made my fruit salad come up to my throat. I am not joking. Those pictures are unnecessary! Do you have close ups of defecating people in the feces article? no. well, you have a funny drawing. Someone please remove those pictures, I am not a prude but it is simply unpleasant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.60.108 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it makes you so uncomfortable. I'm male as well, and am not bothered by it (after all, it's an experience most men have had many times...). You may want to look at the top of the page for instructions on how to keep media you personally find distasteful from displaying. However, since Wikipedia is not censored, we would not be able to remove the image to alleviate your personal discomfort. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Despite misunderstanding on the part of several editors, there is nothing in policy to prevent deletion of these images. They are unacceptable here, a joke, and any user who wishes should delete without hesitation and without concern of breaching any policy, please note the page is semi-protected so you will have to sign in. You will not be breaching any policy by deleting, if you think the page and wikipedia will be improved you will be exercising due editorial discretion. Just remember to give brief reason here for deletion. And if questioned you should refer anyone to WP:FIVEPILLARS. DMSBel (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus (perhaps not a very strong one, but a consesus nevertheless) to keep them. You can always start a new WP:RFC, but until then you'll have to accept this consensus and try not to recruit others to delete them. --Six words (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Despite misunderstanding on the part of several editors, there is nothing in policy to prevent deletion of these images.  : Except perhaps a small thing called WP:NOTCENSORED. DMSBel, by insisting obsessively you're being a disruptive editor. --Cyclopia^talk 19:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in that policy to prevent deletion either.DMSBel (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD. It will clearly be a controversial edit, so it's pretty much up to the editor who wants it to get consensus to do it. I suggest you give up for now--there's clearly no consensus to do that and there are no new arguments presented to sway others' opinions. You're headed into the land of WP:TE, accomplishing lots of time spent for no gain. DMacks (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Continuing a discussion is not TE. Simply attempting to dispel a few myths here. It's true what has been said above "we have all been had" and I consider myself in that too. Question is how many here will recognise that and see sense, and how many will continue to let themselves be played for fools. DMSBel (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel, I'm afraid you've lost this round. I've been there too, failing to gain consensus and still being quite convinced I'm right. But you win some, you lose some, and there comes a time to move on. Do you have anything to present that you haven't yet? You haven't gained consensus with what you've put forth so far. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's like this - I don't intend to be played for a fool any longer. A few editors are incapable of excerising good editorial judgement here. Since the last RFC we have had renewed and increased support for removal, and it is not necessary to persuade everyone to have a consensus, so new arguments do not need to be put forward. If some editors remain unpersuaded that cannot be helped. I am deleting as my assessment is that (with the exception of a few editors) there is consensus for removal. DMSBel (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to start an edit war here as there have been a couple of reverts, but it is my assessment that the consensus is for removal.DMSBel (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Other editors have disagreed with your view DMSBEL, over and over. The RfC resulted in consensus (again) that the images that bother you should remain. How can you say that consensus is removal, after this very recent RfC? If you are convinced then be BOLD, make editing changes to the article as you feel will improve the article. If you are reverted, then clearly your viewpoint will not have consensus. I know that you have done this in the past, and been reverted by at least three other editors. So, now you claim in that talk page what is not, in fact, supportable. I've looked at your edits, and your single focused purpose on Wikipedia seems to be the ejaculation article. Isn't there anything else within your background that could benefit Wikipedia than arguing endlessly, over and over against most other editors, against Wikipedia Policy and against common sense? Atom (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought Bono's page was the best example of how Wikipedia became a living image of truth distortion but I can see now this one is better. I went through the same type of "reasoning" and pointless rhetorics when I tried to add a simple piece of information about Bono being featured in one of South Park episodes. There is NO WAY you can add it. I learned then why Wikipedia and all other sources of information are so highly unreliable. The truth is this: behind every fact is a self-proclaimed, deeply disturbed "guardian of the truth". Those are usually people with no moral value system and very low self-esteem. They believe that what they say makes perfect sense regardless of all the logic working against them. Being right or satysfying own ego is more important then any logical evidence, scientific fact or pure common sense. For them black is white and there is no other way around it. The fact alone that this discussion takes place means that those pictures are disturbing for some. That might be irrelevant, I agree, but they are simply UNNECESSARY. Wikipedia doesn't have pictures for every human phisiological function - look up 'vomiting', 'defecating', 'spitting' - there is no pictures there. Why do we need one for ejaculation? For the same reason every second profile on Chat Roulette is a masturbating user. There is a highly insecure, sexually unfulfilled individual with exhibitionistic tendencies guarding his "freedom" hiding behind "policies". The rest of people is just lost and pick sides.

Wikipedia is like democracy - it doesn't work and it can't work, but we are not able to afford or create anything better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.60.108 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, actually I would say Wikipedia is now borderline on becoming a cult, if the servers stopped few people would notice or care as most editors over estimate its importance. Some of the editors/admin will no doubt reassure themselves by banning me that it does work, and try to remain oblivious to the elephant in the room, and my ban won't solve their headaches anyway because the ridiculousness of the video and pictures here will always be a source of dispute. It seems Allan Bloom's penetrating remark that "It may well be that a society's greatest madness seems normal to itself." is relevant here. Retracting remark in toto made in the heat of the moment and deemed offensive by some editors.DMSBel (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia makes no pretentious claims of presenting the Truth. It is what it is, and that's what it is, like every other source of knowledge in the universe including the 5 senses and your brain. Actually, Wikipedia does considerably better since you can read exactly what it's about in the various meta pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.163.162 (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

AN/I thread

There is an AN/I thread which is related to editing on this page and talk page. Editors here may be interested in commenting. --Cyclopia^talk 01:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an ARBCOM request which is related to editing on this article and talk page. Editors here may be interested in commenting. --Cyclopia^talk 10:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have two pictures of ejaculation?

Why is there both a video and picture? I see discussions to remove the explicit content have failed, but is it really necessary to have both of them?

Is this where the pervs upload their stuff so millions could watch it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.81.34.140 (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that's the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.61.50 (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Want to be taken seriously?, sign in. All an IP address says is I can't be bothered, so I don't need to be taken seriously. Trumpy (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Greater pleasure for men with larger penises during ejaculation

Ejaculation for men with above average penises (7+ inches) is more pleasurable than ejaculation for those with avergae or below-average penises, as the semen must travel the entire length of the penis, causing a longer-lasting and more heightened experience. Men with above average girth enjoy a significantly more pleasurable ejaculation due to the tension in the increased muscle during the retractions. Basically, a man with a 9 inch length and 7 inch girth would enjoy a far more pleasurable ejaculation than a man with a 5x5 inch penis. This should be noted in the article. Jerome Lundegaard (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for this assertion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely logic is enough? Saying larger penises enjoy more pleasurable ejaculations is like saying the sky is blue. Jerome Lundegaard (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In wikipedia that's called Original research. You need to provide a reliable source that directly makes this assertion. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And besides, it is not the length of the penis that provides pleasure, it is the prostate. Prwagner3 (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's just like fingers, it's the total number of nerve endings (and not just in the prostate) that count. Big penis, average number of endings, perhaps slightly reduced sensation as ejaculation occurs (less sensors per square unit of measurement). More nerves, smaller penis - just like fingers (more sensitive) (which is why women in general have better small motor coordination of their hands). You can look it up. Just not on Wikipedia!207.233.106.102 (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone clean this up?

Can someone with editorial control take care of this promptly? I have nothing against biology textbook depictions of a bodily function. However, the video and photo collection are purely pornographic. There might as well be someone posting images or videos of coitus on "appropriate" pages. Ocanada11 (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. There's nothing pornographic about a biological function. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

So you'll be there to keep people from removing a video I post of myself pooping on the "defecation" page? It's pretty plain to see that having the video on this page offers no additional educational information, but by removing it, a number of editors are afraid of that being tantamount to "giving in" to censorship. But it's not. If having the video served as educational, then taking it down because it offends some would be censoring; since that isn't the case, it's just silly to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.73.180 (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand why people see a clearly labeled video, click the play button, then promptly get offended about it and begin to demand that it should be removed. Nobody is forcing you to watch the video. It's there for people who may want to see it, if you don't want to see it then don't watch it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.95.161.152 (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

SERIOUSLY?

Is the video clip of the guy splooging really necessary? I would have liked to see a more scholarly and encyclopedic tone to this article, not be assaulted by a video still of a semen-strung penis. What possible relevance does that add to the article from a scholarly standpoint? If someone wants to see the actual process of ejaculation, they can imagine it from the text. No further visual aids are necessary! That video is tantamount to having a video of someone being murdered on the Wikipedia page for "murder."

-Totally. Can we please get rid of it? 86.158.74.181 (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This website is a total disgrace. I was looking for scientific info, not some exhibitionist posting public videos to get his rocks off. 99.61.36.78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

Agreed. An explicit image depicting the act is educative enough from a purely encyclopedic point of view. This video is inappropriate and unnecessary. --Live2create (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Video removed. --Live2create (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Video restored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. A video is more educational than a still image for processes like this. ^L_Wizard @ 17:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's great. I'd like to submit a request for the video of the guy ejaculating to be linked to the "Curiosity" page. Seeing as it's clear that it offers no additional educational support to this page, the only reason people click on it is out of curiosity as to what sort of video some dude took of his penis erupting would be posted on wikipedia. So, again, can someone post this video on the "Curiosity" page with the caption, "Click to see the result of curiosity". Thanks, internet!

Really disturbing photos and video. If I need to see some jizz I would search for some free pornography. Please remove all. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If your going to have a video of a male ejaculating, you should also have a video of a female ejaculating... Or even better, dont have it up there. Any person above the age of 10 knows what ejaculation is. The use of a video here is not of any use.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Elixergtarist, 24 May 2011

I'd like to request that the pictures and video be removed from the page. It ads no encyclopedic value to the article.

Elixergtarist (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus for this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sex is a biological function too, but I'm not gonna video myself having sex and then post it on wikipedia. Not OK. Pornographic movies show the same "biologial functions" taking place. But they're PORNOGRAPHIC movies, not movies the family sits down to watch. Everybody uses the "wikipedia is not censored" rule to go pass the limits of what's appropriate, so then you get pics and vids of people masturbating to ejaculation and posting it on wikipedia. Ridiculous!

NO CONSENSUS?? Almost every discussion thread on this page is multiple users requesting that the inappropriate and unneccesary pictures and videos be deleted. There is a resounding consensus that they add nothing to the article, are disgusting, inappropriate, UNENCYCLOPEDIC, and perverse. This is not a whack-off forum, it's supposed to be a scholarly encyclopedic resource. If someone wants to see pictures or video of what ejaculation looks like, they can find it a million other places on the internet. It is inappropriate to have it here. 70.91.70.193 (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Right comment: pics and video make this article look like a whack-off forum. Please remove all. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If Biological Functions =! Pornography...

Then why is there not a video of female ejaculation on the Female Ejaculation page? In the interest of fairness - which is at the heart of Wikipedia - I propose that an enterprising female film herself ejaculating and upload it for use on said page.

Furthermore, I propose that videos and images be added to each of the following pages in order to add educational and encyclopedic content:

• Anal Fistula
• Vagina Dentata
• Felching

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.0.201 (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple: those articles don't have images because none are available. You can of course suggest that someone produce images/videos and upload them (in which case they could be used in those articles), but not having images in other articles doesn't bar us from using images here so it's not a valid reason for changing this article (which I guess is what you really want). By the way: what does this have to do with “fairness” (are you saying those articles are jealous of the ejaculation article because they don't have images)? --Six words (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It might also be pointed out that vagina dentata does not actually exist, and therefore images and video remain unavailable. But he's right, these images should be removed from this article. Master Deusoma (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You actually did remove them, Master Deusoma, and I have re-inserted them. It's extremely inappropriate for you to make unilateral changes for an obviously controversial issue while simultaneously discussing that issue. Note the formal discussion below as well. We'll all have to accept the result of this discussion once it concludes, and in the mean time recognize that little more harm is being done than has already been done by leaving it as it was for a few days longer. The current state is based on a previous discussion, so until a new consensus emerges, we are fairly bound to follow the previous one. DMacks (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed pictures on the basis that they did not provide educational content - medical diagrams, animations, or a photograph by medical agencies that describe this act can be found to replace them

Again, I like other users arrived on this page among others for the purpose of researching into biology and sexuality. I found that the pictures of a male ejaculating did not serve an educational purpose, but rather seemed like other users have stated, to be exhibitionist photographs. I did not remove them on the grounds of censorship - I believe that relevant diagrams, animations, or a photograph by medical agencies that describe this would be able to replace these images and not be observed as having no educational value and merely being exhibitionist by some users. Their removal until new images by medical agencies can present a similar but more educational display of the topic is appropriate to resolve the concerns of the multiple users who have addressed this but also to present a solution that does not involve removing all images of this natural act, but requests educational ones preferably from a medical source.--R-41 (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to actually do the legwork and find the better images. You can't just say "I'm deleting this part of this article because it's not as good as it could be." We wouldn't have any encyclopedia left if we did that. ^L_Wizard @ 06:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a rather disingenuous argument. There have been numerous posters asking to take the video down. Shall we put it to a vote again? Images and videos in other articles have been changed over time, such as the video clip in "Cum Shot". How is making a video of oneself ejaculating any different from posting original research?Jtempsn (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Request edit}}

 Not done Due to ongoing healthy discussion below, encouraging consensus. --Lexein (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed disingenuous. It really did seem to me like R-41 believed that the article was better with those images than with none. Uploading a photo (of oneself or otherwise) to Wiki{m,p}edia doesn't generally constitute original research: that's where a whole lot of our pictures come from. If you'd like, we could have another poll to see if consensus has changed, though I don't see why it would have. ^L_Wizard @ 16:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed..."should be replaced by better" is very different than "should be replaced by better and should be removed until one becomes available". The former is almost standard for wikipedia (as a work in progress that is never "done"). The latter has repeatedly failed to gain WP:CONSENSUS when proposed for media on this and related topics (and almost contradicts the whole way WP content evolves. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

One further note, are we clear where any of these videos/images have come from? Do we conclusively know that these were not posted by an underage individual and therefore do not constitute child pornography?Jtempsn (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You're free to read the image-description page, where that sort of information is usually either included directly or via a link to some other site. DMacks (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't any of the videos on this page also on pages for "orgasm" or "masturbation"? How is that those pages manage to convey the necessary information without videos? How is this page different?58.38.119.92 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to pursue recommending that editors add videos to those articles, you are free to do so. However, the videos here on this article do not depict masturbation, but instead specifically depict ejaculation, and help uninformed readers to fully understand that process. 50.129.121.250 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The point that I made, and you have tacitly conceded to, is that all pages do not have videos. This page is the aberration. I suggest trying to add videos to those pages and seeing what reaction there is. It surprises me that despite the number of protests to the video in the past few years nothing has been done. 222.64.130.209 (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that other pages do not have videos is not a compelling argument for concluding that videos depicting the subject matter should be removed here. It may surprise you that protests by others over time have not resulted in the outcome you desire, but you might do well to carefully read those protests and discussions. You can see them by going to the top of this page and inside the guide box just above the thread content list, click on the [show] button to the right of the banner "Recurrent topics (links to archived discussions)". There you will see a long list of discussions on this very subject, in which editors debated the issue you're concerned about, and the consensus which formed that the imagery should stay. 50.129.121.250 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A normative argument is completely appropriate. There is a certain balance that must be struck in the composition of all of these articles. The consensus thus far on other topics having to do with sex or sexual function has been to restrict the media to text or images. Why this is an exception is quite beyond me. Furthermore, would you mind explaining your rational why the images need to be exposed immediately? Given that users of any age must see those images when viewing the page, and that there is not an option to click and then view it leaves me skeptical that this is anything other than blatant, puerile exhibitionism. IMDB has a spoilers alert warning that can be clicked away. Why not on this page as well? I also am not impressed with the argument that users can adjust the viewing settings on their browsers. There are plenty of people, young and old who do not have that savvy or the wherewithal to make the adjustment. Given that the viewers of this site are overwhelmingly male at 87% (and probably white, based on the users who submitted videos of themselves ejaculating) and between the ages of 18 and 30, it does not surprise me at all that others who have protested this video have not succeeded. That's why I am submitting this for review of the site administrators. Jtempsn (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on the arguments you've presented, you do not appear to have read the prior archived discussions and arguments (see linking information above). All of your points have been raised by others before for consideration; the result was a consensus not to remove or restrict the images. Unless you demonstrate that you are bringing up something new, other editors are not obliged to entertain debating the same points ad nauseam. If you want to ask site administrators to review that consensus, please do so, the result is fairly predictable. 50.129.121.250 (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is mildly condescending and a bit elitist. Consensus? Consensus among whom? The editors? The viewing public that I am a member of? If you would carefully read through the threads, you would say that were many users who disagreed that simply gave up arguing with the defenders of the video and pictures. Out-waiting your opposition and declaring consensus when they leave isn't really arriving at an agreement, is it? You haven't addressed what I said about putting minimum filters over the images and videos that someone could click past if he or she chose to. Is there any reason why that wouldn't work?58.38.120.218 (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The general consensus among the majority was that the images should stay; those who argued for removal or filtering were in the minority. There wasn't 100% agreement, but there doesn't need to be 100% agreement. If an editor wishes to overturn this, they'll need to either present novel arguments that haven't been raised before and succeed on those merits, or be joined by numerous other editors exceeding the weight of all the editors who feel the images should not be censored or restricted. You're certainly correct that I didn't address putting filters over the images and videos; that has already been discussed in the archives. If you feel this is condescending, I'd recommend you proceed straight to contacting site administrators for a speedy resolution. 50.129.121.250 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus (majority) may also have been reached, but what about Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground? I bet that more of a half of the people landing on this page for the first time get, at least, shocked by finding such explicit pics and video inside an encyclopedia. Removal (with a banner warning about readding) would also be an act of peace among viewers and editors. If you type ejaculation on google you find million of better and more explicit links. We really do not need to host images about sexuality. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

At present, there is no consensus for removing the images. I'm sure people who don't want to see images of ejaculation are indeed shocked when they come to the encyclopedia's article on "ejaculation" and see images of ejaculation, but Wikipedia is not censored and the images are not pornographic in context. To date, no one has presented a compelling policy argument as to why they should be removed or restricted. Be sure to carefully read through all the prior discussions if you want other editors to seriously re-engage in debating the issue; you can see them by going to the top of this page and looking inside the guide box just above the thread content list, click on the [show] button to the right of the banner "Recurrent topics (links to archived discussions)". 50.129.121.250 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There may be no consensus for removing the images, but there is also no consensus for keeping them either.

It is undemocratic to keep repeating that "this has been discussed, as consensus has been reached and that is the final verdict". Any democratic body will revisit its opinion, especially when there never was consensus. I submit the following complaints I have with this article and the editors for discussion:

(1) Who are the editors for this page? Who elected them? Where are they? It is shameful for them to sit back and ignore discussion. If they can't be bothered to write a few sentences and engage with others once or twice a year then they deserve neither the title nor responsibility of "editor". (2) Does Wikipedia aspire to have common standards? There are no videos for sexual intercourse, defecation, urination (not of people), menstruation, masturbation, or cum shot. Additionally, none of these sites use actual pictures of people. The community standard seems to be that these topics can be explained and properly convened to the reading audience without videos. What is the reason why this article needs a video and the above sites do not? Can the non-present editors explain this apparent incongruity in policy and why this is not just exhibitionism given the topic? (3) Although the video may not be "pornographic" the editors of this page have made no effort to exercise any caution or restraint despite the complaints of many. A warning at the top, or some sort of simple, one-click "cover" could be used so that those individuals do not have to see something. What are the laws about showing videos of sexual function to minors without verifying their age or desire to see them? What is the reason for this? (4) Who is the intended audience for the video? Who viewing this would not already be familiar enough with ejaculation to require seeing it? Minors? Women? There are no videos of women menstruating or urinating. I find the arguments about "it's for those who don't understand the process" rather ridiculous given that none of the other pages for bodily function require videos. (5) You have mentioned again the "general consensus among the majority"? What were the numbers exactly? Two versus one? I have taken the time to read the threads and most of the time the disputes are one versus one. Again, that is not democratic decision making. (6) Just because information is available doesn't mean it needs to go into Wikipedia. It is hard for me not to conclude at this point that given the intransigence and unwillingness of the editors of the page to do anything whatsoever to address the complaints of others that their real reason for keeping the videos is that they simply get a sick thrill out of having the video.Jtempsn (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You can find most of the answers yourself by reading WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so consensus doesn't mean counting votes and a personal dislike for an image or the fact that other articles don't have images aren't valid reasons for removing an image. If you want to test whether consensus has changed, you can start a Request for comment. --Six words (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What is consensus if not democracy? The two terms are not mutually exclusive. If it pleases the powers that be that I cite so-called Wikipedia statutes to bolster my arguments than that is the approach I shall take. Talk to you again soon. Jtempsn (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There won't be much to talk about if you don't bring up something truly new. That will require that you read through all the prior discussions in the archive carefully, comprehend both sides points, and formulate a novel argument; something previously unconsidered that will warrant others returning to debate the issue (and perhaps reach a different outcome). 50.129.121.250 (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Obscene Pictures/Video Violate Florida State Law -> Must be Removed

{{Editsemiprotected}}

I'll make this short and direct. The photo and video fail the obscenity test as they fail community standards (community here does not mean "Wikipedia community", rather it refers to the normal standards in a typical community) for decency. One may argue that given the demographics of the visitors to the site (64% male and 94% over the age of 18 where they would not need a video to depict this function) one could conclude that this appeals to prurient interests. Furthermore, the image cannot be defended on scientific grounds because Wikipedia is not a scientific journal..

The "Wikipedia is not censored" argument fails because Wikipedia's servers are in Florida and must abide by those state laws. As this has failed the obscenity test it thus fails this section of the Florida state law and must therefore be removed. Jtempsn (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice that you've presented a conclusory argument that assumes the material is obscene? This is a Wikipedia article on ejaculation; the objected to imagery within the article visually depicts and demonstrates ejaculation. It is not pornography in this context and it is dubious reasoning to conclude that the demographics of Wikipedia's users proves this material appeals to prurient interests. Of course, this ground has been covered before; perhaps you can come up with a better argument? 50.129.121.250 (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not say this was pornography. I said that this was obscene material. The two terms are not the same. Please re-read the statute. Given legal precedents, this qualifies as obscene material. Additionally, I said that one "may" and "could" conclude that it appealed to prurient interests based on the demographics, not that it definitely did. Additionally, this undermines the argument of necessity. Again, I note that other articles do not have images or videos of bodily functions.

I emphasize, under the Florida law, even if the party seeing the obscene material has agreed to see it, it is still illegal to present it. Whether or not this page has found consensus, or discussed the issue before does not matter.

Lastly, would you mind signing in Mr./Ms. 50.129.121.250 if you are an editor? Otherwise I may look to someone with real credibility to discuss this issue with. Jtempsn (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is Florida state law then I'm curious what human sexuality and anatomy classes are like there.Aar☢n Bruce^Talk/_Contribs 07:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You're stalling. Copyrighted material would be taken down immediately. Please remove them.

To answer your question there may be legal waivers that parents must sign first, as is the case in many states.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or images nor is it a scientific journal.

Furthermore there is no other online encyclopedia with this kind of content (see "when you wonder what to do") and thus fails another test. 58.38.122.183 (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

To be regarded as obscene, an image has to “predominantly appeal to prurient interests” which isn't the case here, so I seriously doubt we're legally required to remove them. The images were chosen because they depict the article subject (just like close-up images we use at our articles about the Human penis, Vulva, Human anus, ... I bet some people feel offended by that, too, but such is life). The status quo of this article represents the current consensus for the article, if you think consensus has changed you're free to start a Request for comment. --Six words (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Two things. One, you cannot argue around obscenity laws just as you cannot argue around copyright laws. Two, you can't pick a few words of the law. It has to be read in full. The Florida is written to be as broad as possible and is written to cover "obscene, lewd, etc." which means that the standard may be broader than the three planks of the the law which I am re-posting here. The Florida State law is as follows:

"Obscene" means the status of material which: "(a) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

(b) Depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined herein; and

(c) Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

I am arguing that the average person, NOT the average Wikipedia editor, would find that it appeals to prurient interests, and taken as a whole does lack serious scientific value.

You also have not addressed whether other encyclopedias actually have any content like this. (The answer is no.)

And yes, these statutes may apply to those pages also. Jtempsn (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would not find, that taken as a whole, that images specifically depicting ejaculation, in an encyclopedia article, on the subject of ejaculation, appeals to prurient interests; nor would they find them patently offensive or lacking any value for the use therein. If you don't think so, and think somehow you're right and all the editors who disagree with your position in the archived discussions are wrong, then you have a simple solution. Simply contact the Wikimedia Foundation and point out to them that they obviously have material here on the ejaculation article on Wikipedia that violates U.S. obscenity laws. Be sure to confidently quote your statutes again as you've provided above and give them your reasoning. If you're correct, surely they will immediately take it down, right? Perhaps it has all been simply overlooked, and you are somehow completely justified and on target in your jurisprudence and legal interpretation of obscenity laws. 50.129.121.250 (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to get some input from some new voices. Jtempsn (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not commented in this latest thread-set, but as before, I support inclusion of a video. I don't care if it's this one, but this one is the best anyone has found to use. It is clearly on-topic and appears to be "as minimally pornographic as possible" given the content it needs to contain, it contributes in ways that plain text descriptions cannot, and it provides an opportunity for readers who are not comfortable discussing this with others to learn about it. The topic is what it is, so there's obviously going to be some possible offense or shock at seeing it, but if you are looking at an article entitled and about this topic, I don't think it's reasonable to complain when you find pictures of it. If there are actual legal concerns, I agree with previous section--they need to be raised with WMF directly. We as editors are not in a good position to make legal judgments. However, I and other editors have made claims that it provides an educational benefit, so "it is only prurient" cannot be considered a given. DMacks (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC comment. This is difficult to give an opinion on without being directed towards the video and photo being discussed. Is it what's in the article, or are there alternatives to consider? --FormerIP (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I'm pretty sure we're talking about the video and the composite photograph that are on the page. I don't edit this page, and I came here from the RfC notice, so I think I qualify as a "new voice", but I do remember an RfC a long time ago about the same video, and there was pretty clear consensus to keep. I don't think the legal arguments to delete hold water. The Wikimedia Foundation has responsibility for assessing legal considerations, so the editor posting the RfC may want to consult with them. Absent a finding from the Foundation that it should be deleted, there is no legal rationale for doing so. As an editorial consideration, I'm not entirely convinced that we need the composite photo in addition to the video. Maybe the video alone is enough, but I don't feel very strongly about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, unless replacement found - As Tryptofish says, the legality is not an issue to be decided by editors here on the Talk page (in contrast to material treading on BLP defamation issues, which should be removed immediately by any editor). So the legal concerns are not reason to remove the video or photos. As for whether they belong on the article at all, WP:NOTCENSORED suggests that offensiveness alone is not a reason to remove them. To the contrary, they seem very relevant to the article, and since images are an important part of any WP article, expecially articles on health/medical topics, it seems like they should be removed only if replaced (either with other photos, or with a diagram). --Noleander (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

At the top of this section is a {{Editsemiprotected}} request; I can't perform that request right now, because clearly it isn't uncontroversial; if consensus establishes that a specific/clear change should be made, please use another {{Editsemiprotected}} (but, to be honest, it is likely that one of the participants here will make the edit anyway) - for now, I'll cancel the {{Editsemiprotected}}.  Chzz  ►  01:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep unless a replacement is available and supported by consensus (or, obviously, if the Foundation decides it cannot remain for legal reasons). I am not Wikipedia's lawyer and neither are you. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• RFC comment: I don't think both the video and the photo composite are needed (though I think moving the video down the page may be a good idea… maybe place it where the photo composite currently is?). The video does give better knowledge of an ejaculation. As mentioned above, it would not be our place to decide if the video breaks Florida's obscenity laws, that would be up to the legal counsel of Wikipedia. Any way to get them to specifically chime in on this? Mentioned below, it was helpful for at least one mother, makes it a good candidate to keep. Is there a way to change the default frame? maybe not having the dribble being the first thing seen, but a clean penis might be a bit of a plus? If/when Wikipedia gets the ability to hide images by default, this video would be a good candidate. VikÞor | Talk 04:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  Several interesting ideas in here, Vik-Thor. Given that the topic is an action (and the value many have asserted is seeing the action), I could support removing the still photos as they add little if anything to the video that is present. DMacks (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• RFC comment: I reckon we can ignore our self-assessed legal experts and their inferences, and leave the wise to wrangle, as long as we may assume that FL laws permit technical medical literature. Conversely, I agree with DM that VT has some of the right ideas as a basis to work from. I disagree with VT that the composite is unnecessary; not everyone had video capability, or can afford the download costs or limitations, but those are details. This article is a straw in the wind and probably the first of many more serious shouting matches on whether WP should permit such obscenities as unveiled faces or bare elbows. You never know what to expect; I saw at least one (apparently serious, though I do not vouch for it) complaint about a picture of flies mating, and that in an appropriate position in a relevant article...! I am still recovering. Thing is that every gynecological, urological, proctological, mammographical, or generally anatomical image will drive some juvenile to terminal sexual obsession and every self-appointed guardian of public morality to frustrated frenzies of denunciation. To censor or water down appropriate technical material is not acceptable as I see it. However, we could in perfectly good conscience debate a range of measures that would put the onus of viewing arguably unwelcome material (whether biological, political, scatological, or religious) on the user. That would make it extremely difficult to formulate effective legal objections, and would enable parents with prurient objections to apply whatever controls they see fit. As a probably unacceptably crude measure, but probably effective, conceivably objectionable pictures could be placed into dummy articles that can only be accessed by clicking on a labelled button, or the article itself could be accessed only via a disclaimer page that says the likes of: Warning! The content of this article is of a technical nature; it might offend those of certain beliefs or tastes. By invoking it, you accept that you indemnify WP and the editors and staff from any blame... blah blah... to avoid seeing the material you may click... Leave the detailed wording to the legal beagles. There are other options, such as a picture-free format, and as VT pointed out, much could be done as a stop-gap simply by moving pictures to the bottom and so on. Instead of weeping over the delicate sensitivities of the delicately sensitive, or over the principle that everyone should see all the Good Stuff whether they or their parents approve or not, we should concentrate on making it easy for people to read what they like or need and not read what they don't like or don't need. As for the principle of removing material information... THAT I call obscene. JonRichfield (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry! Careless wording... When I said: "picture-free format" I did not mean that we should publish articles without pictures as such, but that there might be an option that a reader could invoke at any time s/he chose, to have graphic presentation disabled for protection of her/his personal emotional vulnerabilities. Instead there might appear only the frames with a "graphic display inhibited; to see graphics activate the option in ..." caption or the like. It could be offered as an option like say, the floating captions option. If it proved legally more secure, we could make the default option the graphicless option. But as I said before, details, details... Just don't disqualify suitably sourced valid material! JonRichfield (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, per the above arguments. Legal arguments should be made by lawyers, and would have already been covered by our legal staff. Implications that Wikipedia's standards are below a "normal community" (community here does not mean "Wikipedia community", rather it refers to the normal standards in a typical community) for decency, or that a video of ejaculation in an ejaculation article is "indiscriminate information" are way off mark. We have already arrived at a consensus not to censor Wikipedia per WP:CENSOR, and without any legal or article quality arguments there is no reason to remove media which accurately details its subject.AerobicFox (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Severely flawed legal arguments, just ask Newyorkbrad. Uʔ (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep – The original argument is a legal one and any test of its validity must be via the legal route, not a debate of legality amongst editors. The opinion that it would fail the legal criteria is made from a one-person perspective, and is evidently not substantially supported by the opinions of others who care to comment. I would suggest that people who are offended are generally far more vocal than those who are not, biasing impressions towards a greater proportion of people apparently being offended. And finally, I consider the material to be appropriate, informative, and valuable for education as already noted by others. Quondum (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)