Talk:Ejaculation/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Sequence of ejaculation image

This sequence is not a representation of typical semen volume. If it is to be used as the main picture, this should be illuminated. See cite, which solidly supports my point. Jeffrey Nilsen (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed in an edit to the Ejaculation article on October 23, 2009 that a lady named "SusanHaughey" changed the text under the photo of the sequence of ejaculation to say : "Sequence of an unusual male ejaculation. In this clip the man ejaculates 10 huge spurts of semen, with a delay of 13 seconds between the 6th and 7th spurt. This is totally abnormal and not consistent with with normal male ejaculation. The uploader is simply trying to immortalize himself as a superior ejaculator, possibly due to lenghty masturbation abstinence and/or mammoth semen capacity". The clip she is talking about is this video clip here : [[1]] which was uploaded by User Shadowhead on October 11, 2007, that the sequence of still photos was captured from to make the current lead image on the Ejaculation page. User SusanHaughey stated "The uploader is simply trying to immortalize himself as a superior ejaculator, possibly due to lenghty masturbation abstinence and/or mammoth semen capacity". She is right !!!! The "continuous loop" video file "Ejaculation_educational_ani.gif" was put up for deletion on November 20, 2008. The Deletion Request discussion is here : [[2]]. I did my usual research of the video file and it's uploader and discovered that the person who actually made and performed in the video goes by the nickname of "Krooga" on several porn sites featuring uploaded videos of masturbation / ejaculation. To verify this for yourself, just go to the Google search engine and type in the words "krooga" and "ejaculation" and start clicking the links to those websites. You will find 6 pages of website links to the "Krooga" videos with comments like “Not only do you have a beautiful cock, but your cumshots are amazing. You have a new fan! :)” ….. “impressive boy. i love the way you just keep spurting. i can usually do 3 good high flying spurts my first cum, the rest as i go through the night just pour out like most guys. i am good for multiple orgasms but i would love to cum like you.... such thick incredible volume” …… and “tried to email you amigo im straigh male 33 and I have like many of your fans a few questions....but the captcha code to submit does not work... any chance you can send me a PM so Ican email you? of course I will make my donation with pleasure for your help and knowledge thanks MAster of Cum!” The link to view these comments for yourself is here : [[3]] . Note that the last commenter stated “I will make my donation with pleasure for your help and knowledge” This guy “Krooga” has a pay website where people go and pay money to be a member and watch his ejaculation videos and get advise from him ….. the “Master of Cum”, and Wikipedia is giving him free advertisement. If you click this link, [[4]] you will see this video of “Krooga” in the same photo shoot as the version uploaded to Wikipedia 2 years ago. Same angle, same t-shirt, same penis. When the video starts you will see a copyright watermark that appears in the lower left hand corner of the video with the words “© 2007 Spritzing” that goes away in about 2 or 3 seconds. The video plays a realtime version first, and then goes into a slow motion version like the one uploaded to Wikipedia 2 years ago. Hmmm … now let me see. This is October 2009 so 2 years ago would be October 2007. The version of the video uploaded to Wikipedia [[5]] was created on October 10 2007 and uploaded to Wikipedia October 11 2007 …. what a coincidence !!!! The uploader of this video to Wikipedia simply edited it to show the slow motion portion of the video that doesn’t display the copyright watermark. “Krooga” even explains to a commenter here [[6]] how he created the still photos for the video that we now use for the LEAD IMAGE ON THIS ARTICLE !!!! …. “wow, great quality! What are you capturing those images with?” and then the answer from “Krooga” …. “The videos have been made with a digital camera (640x480 pix @ 30fps). For extracting the pics I use the mplayer package (windows and linux). Enter the command mplayer.exe -vo jpeg myvid.avi in a DOS window. –Spritzing” My conclusion ? I presented this evidence at the deletion request of the video that this sequence of ejaculation was made from on December 18 – 20, 2008 [[7]] to no avail. I believe that I have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is clearly a “self promotion / vanity” image that is gaining the uploader worldwide notoriety for monetary gain, and a copyright violation. Why was the video and all still photos made from it not deleted from Wikipedia ? The reason to KEEP located at the bottom of the deletion request was this : “Kept. First of all, clearly in scope . Then, on the account of copyvio, all I can say is that it is not the same as [3] and unlike most of those similar videos, it is not watermarked. –Tryphon 19:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)” The video he linked to is the same one I linked to that shows the copyright watermark “© 2007 Spritzing” for about 2 or 3 seconds and then goes away before the slow motion part starts, which is like the one uploaded to Wikipedia. What an idiot !!!! Sometimes is does seem like the lunatics are running the asylum !!!! Infofreak (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing us with a wealth of information from your surfing sessions on several porn sites. A couple of conclusions you draw from your discoveries are wrong. As the creator of the pictures and animated gifs I'm able to provide some facts in order to correct your statements.

The pictures and videos which I uploaded to commons are my donation to the public domain. They are not copyrighted in any way! I've never published them elsewhere and they are all different from those you refer to. If you look at the long version of the animated gif you'll see that the stuff on commons is different from all the stuff you found. However there is one video which is similar to the commons video but it's not the same. Again, my donations are all in accordance to the rules at commons and wikipedia.
Believe it or not I made this contribution simply to improve wikipedia (IMHO) since I didn't like the video sequence I saw when I first read the ejaculation article back in 2007 (no neutral background, no closeup, etc.).
How can you say "Wikipedia is giving him free advertisement"? How the heck should someone be able to find the vids on the porn sites you mentioned if one simply reads the ejaculation article and looks at the picture or at the animated gif? There is not a single link, hint or advertisment to any external source in the article. How can this be an advertisment? It's people like you who link the readers to those sites not me. Just look at the links you presented above. Should I say thank you for contributing to my "imortality"?
Sad to say but I never got any money for my "work" and I don't have a "pay web site" as you stated above. It's no evidence if someone writes in a comment to one of my vids that he will make a donation.

--Shadowhead69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC).

Well Shadowhead69, I am very glad that you have decided to join the discussion here. You stated "Thanks for providing us with a wealth of information from your surfing sessions on several porn sites" to which I say "Thanks for uploading your ejaculation videos to all those porn sites AND Wikipedia (the largest online encyclopedia IN THE WORLD) in 2007 and creating all this shit for me to have to research and try to figure out your true motives behind it all in the first place". I have several questions for you. You stated that "The pictures and videos which I uploaded to commons are my donation to the public domain" and "I made this contribution simply to improve wikipedia (IMHO) since I didn't like the video sequence I saw when I first read the ejaculation article back in 2007". What was your reason then, for uploading your ejaculation videos to all those porn sites about the same time as you uploaded the ones to Wiki Commons in 2007 in the first place ?, and where did you upload your videos to first ... Wiki Commons or the porn sites ? The reason I am asking this is because I am researching this matter from the standpoint that I believe that these videos and their still photo sequences that you made fall under "self promotion" / "vanity" images, but I wanted to be fair and give you the chance to give us your answers to these questions first. You stated that the videos that you uploaded to Wiki Commons "are not copyrighted in any way!" As you know, I have watched your ejaculation videos that you uploaded to the porn sites, and they follow a set format .... they start with a realtime version of the ejaculation that has your personal copyright watermark on it (either "Krooga" or "Spritzing") that stays there for about 2 or 3 seconds at the very beginning and then disappears, and then shows the same video clip again in slow motion with your copyright watermark NOT showing (referenced by me above). Why did you just upload the slow motion segment of the video clips to Wiki Commons ? Where is the realtime versions of the slow motion ejaculation videos that you uploaded to Wiki Commons and why didn't you upload those? Is it because the realtime ejaculation segment of the video clip that you uploaded to Wiki Commons had your copyright watermark on it ? Or maybe you're not really "Krooga aka Spritzing" after all, and you don't have access to the originals, so you had to edit the realtime segment wth the copyright watermark out and just show the slow motion part? And since we are talking about that, why the slow motion anyway ? .... why the continuous loop ? Is it because you think it looks more impressive, and "i love the way you just keep spurting" like your "fans" over at the porn sites say when they comment on your ejaculation videos ? You stated "How can you say "Wikipedia is giving him free advertisement"? How the heck should someone be able to find the vids on the porn sites you mentioned if one simply reads the ejaculation article and looks at the picture or at the animated gif?" My answer to that is .... I DID !!!! You stated "It's people like you who link the readers to those sites not me. Just look at the links you presented above. Should I say thank you for contributing to my "imortality"?" My answer to that is .... your very statement there screams CLICK MY LINKS / LOOK AT ME !!!! which in turn, screams to me SELF PROMOTION / VANITY !!!!, and no, I figure that you were pissed when I did my research and tracked all this down, and then brought it to the attention of everyone here at Wiki, or maybe I'm wrong and you really do enjoy the added attention. If I were going to get a "thank you" from anyone for my efforts in researching this matter, it should be from the Wiki community for caring about the project enough to try to figure out why a person uploading ejaculation videos with his own copyright watermarks on them to porn sites where his "fans" can then write comments after viewing them like .... "DAMN! Right on, man!! What a champion!!! You're a living miracle!!!" .... "Hmmmmm. owww wow that`s just so yummy !! Love the slow motion and sounds ! Cool vid !" ..... "Just amazing. Great cum!" ..... "you are INCREDIBLE and your vids keep getting better and better i get bone hard everytime i see you shoot" .... "What a fucking perfect cock and man juice shooter!!!" ..... and ..... "may i ask, it takes you how many days to save, having such quantity? In any case, its GREAT!" to which you answered this "fan" by saying ..... "A couple of days w/o jerking increases the amount of cum a bit. The cumshot in this video is the result of saving for a week. Spritzing" [[8]], and then uploading his ejaculation videos and still photo sequence shots to Wikipedia on October 11 and 19, 2007 [[9]] (again, which just happens to be the largest and most used online encyclopedia IN THE WORLD), placing them on the Ejaculation article on October 19, 2007 HIMSELF [[10]], and then stating here that "I made this contribution simply to improve wikipedia (IMHO) since I didn't like the video sequence I saw when I first read the ejaculation article back in 2007" (probably because it wasn't your own, oh great "MAster of Cum!”) to which I say .... yeah ..... whatever. I think you did all of this to inflate your own ego /"MAster of Cum!" power trip and promote yourself for your own, as well as your "fans" gratification. Did you really do this with purely educational purposes in mind to better Wikipedia? I don't think so, and the evidence I have submitted definately leans in the direction of "I don't think so". If I am wrong about all of this, give us your answers to my questions above with proper and genuinely verifiable documention and PROVE IT TO US !!!!" If I am indeed verifiably proven wrong, then so be it and good for you, this matter is finally over, but if not ....

P.S. What did your "fan" in that one comment that you referenced above, and I referenced also ... "“tried to email you amigo im straigh male 33 and I have like many of your fans a few questions....but the captcha code to submit does not work... any chance you can send me a PM so Ican email you? of course I will make my donation with pleasure for your help and knowledge thanks MAster of Cum!” mean ? What was he going to donate to you for your "help and knowledge" ? (which leads us back to "your ejaculation image on the Ejaculation article of Wikipedia possibly being used for advertisement / gain (?)" question). Also Shadowhead69, as the uploader to Wikipedia of these Ejaculation videos and still images back in 2007, just for records sake, can you documentively prove that you are indeed "Krooga aka Spritzing" ? If not, I'll add "copyright violation" to this too. Infofreak (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

@Infofreak, this is derivating into making personal attacks on Shadow and attacking his motivations. If the discussion keeps going this way, I'll just archive it; if you continue then I'll report you for violating WP:NPA. @Shadow, you don't have to answer to any of his questions. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting a little frantic, I agree. However, my first impulse is to say to Enric "Don't kill the messenger". Why make a threat when a simple rebuke will do? And why not answer a question if you're innocent? This isn't a trial, but a forum to participate in with good will (even if insulted).

My second thought is: "Didn't Shadowhead69 already answer the question?" Namely, a clear statement in bullet 1 that he is not Krooga. Well, I thought so, but...

Bullet 4 seems to contradict bullet 1. Can someone explain how "It's no evidence if someone writes in a comment to one of my vids that he will make a donation"of bullet 4 fits with "I've never published them elsewhere" of bullet 1? I'm not accusing, just wondering how one could possibly get a comment on a vid that he has "never published" outside of WP?

I really hope we can calm this discussion and focus on key points, so it doesn't have such huge volleys from each side.

To me, the larger issue is the accuracy of the imagery at the top of the page. I've tweaked the POV "correction" of its caption at least twice already. Maybe that image should just be deleted? I mean, do we REALLY need more than one video to demonstrate what the article is about? Martindo (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Attacking the motivations of other editors is plain not acceptable, and it only creates bad ambient.

It seems that the author didn't publish the video that he donated to wikipedia, but he published at least one very similar video. So the comments for the published video can be applied safely to the donated video.

This is not two videos, it's one sequence of images and one video. They are different things, the sequence to see it statically in detail, and the video to see the motion. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but you can always freeze a video, so I don't buy the "statically in detail" argument. Seems like too much controversy for too little value added to the page.

Also, I STRONGLY disagree with citing "comment on similar video" which is basically an opinion and verges on advertising because the link that was in the reference list went to the Krooga page rather than the non-commercial page of the author of the WP Commons video.

Let's keep captions short and to the point, and avoid comments that can be (or already are) explained in the text. Martindo (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've clicked through all the links that User:Infofreak has listed above and carefully looked at the videos and comments. I believe that the video that the sequence of ejaculation photo was made from is a copyvio too, so I am going to replace it with the medical diagram I used for this article back in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NightFlyer (talk • contribs) 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. NightFlyer (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think that it's a copyvio then please nominate it for deletion in Commons, and explain there your reasons. Don't just remove it from the article saying "it's a copyvio" without some hard proof. That last deletion discussion already explained why it wasn't a copyvio. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

P.D.:(after reading all pages in depth) First, this video[11] is not the same one as the sequence at commons because the folds of the t-shirt are in a different position. Also, the video has a watermark on the left-bottom position that doesn't appear in the image in commons, and which remains during all the duration of the video. Also, as commented by someone who identifies as the uploader, the image has higher resolution and quality than the video, and this can only be done by getting the images from the higher-quality video that was used to produce the lower-quality video that appears in that link. There this another video another video depicting the same thing with a different t-shirt[12] with the copyright notice saying this time "(C) 2009 Krooga aka Spritzing", so he's most probably filming himself, and not copying videos made by someone else. So, again, if you think this is a copyvio then go to commons and nominate it. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please take out the video, it doesn't add any value now that diagrams have been placed in, this is a place where everyone should be able to come, we don't want parents not letting their kids use wikipedia. If it were absolutely necessary to add value fine, but it's not, so what point are we trying to make here with that video? why not have an article with all the info and leave the video to the rest of the Internet? is there any encyclopedia out there that includes such a video? c´mon, some common sence here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.211.75 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written for children. Parents should not be letting their kids roam about the web unintended. WP:NOTCENSOR. The video depicts the subject of the article (by your logic, no articles would have pictures as they're not "absolutely necessary"). WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid reason for removal - a perusal of the Talk:Muhammad/images archives might prove instructive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. If you look in the article "Traffic Collision", there are lots of pictures of car crashes, but no videos. That's because the article is descriptive enough, and there are tons of pictures. There is no need for a video of a guy blowing his load to explain what ejaculation is. I would think Wikipedia thrives to be a place where people can do research, particularly to those who would be looking to do research or learn new things. If a 10-year-old hears "ejaculate" on TV, and he turns to Wikipedia to find out what that is, is it appropriate for him to see a video of an ejaculating penis? And as far as "not being written for children", do you want to make Wikipedia a blacklisted website that parents have to block? I mean, we want to brand a potential goldmine for inquisitive minds as inappropriate and blacklisted because we just HAVE to show a video of an ejaculating penis? This is ridiculous. This video is on this page because the perverts who run this page get off on blowing their load in a public setting. It's fucking disgusting, serves no educational purpose, and should go. And, I don't really give a shit how "uneducated" or "childish" I sound. If someone uploaded a guy beating off on YouTube, it would get taken down. It's a shame that the so-called Wikipedia community can't have the same respect.68.50.114.44 (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Attacking other editors wil get you blocked. Again, it's up to parents to supervise their children. Also, if you have a public domain video of a car crash, it might be useful to add it to Traffic collision. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, Where you can get your jollies

As has been said, perhaps it's finally time we began accepting submissions for video examples of Defecation since it's a vital biological process, or maybe Vomiting and Childbirth. That last would certainly be more informative than the :17 clip of some intrepid, brave sould willing to bare all for the sake of...science.

I object to the words: 'Wikipedia is not censored', as kneejerk and unthought-out catchwords. Of course Wikipedia isn't 'censored'; that particular folly is the exclusive prerogative of bad governments. In a private-property setting, between consenting adults, i.e., on Wikipedia, there can be no censorship--but there sure as hell can be agreed-upon aesthetics. It would be in poor taste to loop videos or .gifs of people shitting on each other for sexual pleasure. It would be in poor taste to replace the smooth glossy grey backgroud of Wikipedia's frontpage with hyper-flickering seizure-inducing psychedelics, or tiled images of catbutts. It would be in poor taste for a person to embed an audio recording of themselves annunciating the word Nigger, on that particular page, and it would be a grand leap of faith to assume the person embedding the recording wasn't doing so for their personal gratification since there are myriad other words needing explicit pronunciation for an international audience.

We all know why there are so many 'volunteers' for this page's apparent prime real estate. The sum of all human knowledge? Well, certainly we're all being instructed in detail on the apparent sexual proclivities of some of our contributors.

Here's the thing: I don't need to know that/those contributor's address, or license plate number, and I don't need to know the processes of his reproductive organs. In other words, this discussion may as well be about some guys posting pictures of their Mustangs, on the Ford Mustang page.

I certainly don't think my two cents here will suddenly spark some common sense; there are clearly parties in this article much more deeply invested than myself. But consider this: every second spent whinging and complaining, or defending and un-editing and banning and re-editing everything involved with this video, has been a wasted second; wasted because some guy gets off on having people see him come. I feel like if I went to the article on the American Revolution I would come across some paint-sniffing 15 year old's Sharpie-drawn interpretation on how George Washington 'busted a cap in dem Brit pansy-asses, yo.'

Screw academic appropriateness, screw lucid illustrations, screw the scientific process and objective media-vetting--because, after all, we at Wikipedia accept all comers.

How very noble, Wikipedia. **slow clap**Ektogamut (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Images and Captions

I think captions should be as concise as possible. If the photo shows a penis, we don't need to say "male" in the caption.

Also, captions should be "standalone" and NOT refer to each other. Thus, if one photo ends up being changed, it wouldn't be necessary to adjust the other photo's caption.

The average ejaculation is roughly the volume of a teaspoon. I don't see that being exceeded in either image, though there is a very large spurt shown in the controversial image at top. Frankly, I don't think it's easy to judge volume by viewing liquid flying through the air.

I wonder if we can discuss alternatives to the top image, which IMO is misleading because it shows semen already on the penis before the contraction, thus it doesn't demonstrate the initial spurt. Martindo (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The sequence of still images (from a video) at the top of the page is not accurately captioned. The four images only show one spurt and the "abundance" is somewhat a matter of opinion. I could go with changing "abundant ejaculation" to "abundant spurt" in the caption.

Also, why is there a reference to a scholarly article in the caption? The images do NOT come from the article, so such a reference is misleading. If the intention is to justify "abundant", then info should be inserted in the caption to demonstrate (prove?) that the volume shown fits the range of "abundant" described in the article. Martindo (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please take out the video, it doesn't add any value now that diagrams have been placed in, this is a place where everyone should be able to come, we don't want parents not letting their kids use wikipedia. If it were absolutely necessary to add value fine, but it's not, so what point are we trying to make here with that video? why not have an article with all the info and leave the video to the rest of the Internet? is there any encyclopedia out there that includes such a video? c´mon, some common sence here...

Ejaculation volume: more details?

Paragraph 3 of the Ejaculation Phase section refers to the relatively abundant flow in early spurts, the average number of spurts and contractions, and the correlation of spurts with volume (namely, higher volume is from more spurts, not bigger spurts).

However, all of this appears to refer to a well-rested ejaculation (so to speak). Do we have any reliable references on how volume and number of spurts change in subsequent orgasms during the same evening?

The Volume section does address the issue in general terms:

Adult semen volume is affected by the time that has passed since the previous ejaculation; larger semen volumes are seen with greater durations of abstinence.

But then it goes on to discuss disease conditions.

Can we get info that enables a "Subsequent Orgasms" (or similarly named) section to be placed after Refractory Period under Phases?

Here's something from the page on seminal vesicle:

About 60% of the seminal fluid in humans originates from the seminal vesicles, but is not expelled in the first ejaculate fractions which are dominated by spermatozoa and zinc-rich prostatic fluid.

I've asked for clarification of that info in the relevant Talk page. It might be worth adding to the Ejaculation page somewhere. Note that the "main page" of semen quality refers primarily to sperm testing, damage to sperm, etc. Perhaps "semen composition" would be a useful section to add to the ejaculation page, with a "main page" link to semen?

BTW, the Volume and Quality sections don't belong under the larger heading Phases. I propose a new umbrella heading for them (and possible additional material). How about "Characteristics"? Martindo (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think some answers are given in this paper [[13]]. At least the title contains "accessory gland secretions". Unfortunately, the abstract has no information about the volume and I don't have access to the full paper. Habbo42 (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The videos are gone - what a relief

The page is currently better than it has been in ages, not that I am checking it daily! Oh and remarkably even with them gone - Wikipedia is still not censored - look it even says it at the top of the discussion page!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It was recently readded because Wikipedia is not censored. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 03:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok - In the efforts of improving the page I am taking the video out. Please do not quote Wikipedia is not censored, because removal of material from an article in an effort to improve it does not necessarily equate to censorship.82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How does removal "improve" the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Some content can be unnecessary, and result in an article looking sleazy. The discussion page covers the reasons for removal, and I concur with most of what has been written in support of the removal.DMSBel (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So, in other words, censorship. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I did not remove the video orginally, I merely commented on the improvement in the page. It was re-inserted after my comments. I therefore removed it to restore the page what I perceive to be an improved state.DMSBel (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the page should be left for a period of time (one month perhaps) without the video, to see what comments are made. It would therefore be possible to see if there really is any case for it being part of the article.DMSBel (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) But you didn't say how the removal improved the article except for the "it won't look sleazy" comment which is pretty much what WP:NOTCENSORED covers. The last request for wide community input resulted in no consensus to remove the video. If you want to see if consensus has changed, I suggest you start an RfC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No - censorship is not the same as removal of sleaze or removal of what gives an article a sleazy appearance (whether it was intended to or not). The main criteria (that I am using to decide how to edit) is whether an article is encyclopedic in quality. In my view the video reduces the quality of the article in this regard. Please look at other encyclopedias online and see what they include in articles DMSBel (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is. You're trying to impose your definition of "sleaze" upon the community. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In my view it is sleazy. That is my view. If you disagree that is up to you. Like everyone I come to edit with my own sensibilities. Censorship is not the issue here.DMSBel (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how "I consider this sleaze so I'm going to remove it" is not censorship. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to make article as good as possible and as encyclopedic as possible is not censorship. The video does not add anything to the article that is not present in the static photos IMO. DMSBel (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What static photos? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored - of course we know that, some people wish to improve the page. You need to check what censorship is. As wikipedia is open to users to edit article, changes may be made that you do not agree with and content removed that you think should stay. No further case had been made for keeping the video, in the article. Therefore the change should be reverted.DMSBel (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you even check the link? "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer)." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No you are kneejerk about censorship. Photos refer to the two static images - sorry not technically photos, but i thought it was clear what I meant.DMSBel (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not photos and definitely can't be considered as replacements for the video. If they were, the photos in articles like penis, vagina, and breast would be removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what argument you are making here. The static images have been in the article. They are in my view sufficient.DMSBel (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying if the community decided that illustrations were adequate substitutes for photos, the photos in the articles I listed would be long gone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said two static images, please dont be pedantic - As there are obviously only two other images, though I technically was incorrect to call them photos.DMSBel (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being pedantic. A series of still photo shots showing the action could be considered a replacement for the video. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The main information people seek from an encyclopedia concerning ejaculation is the origin and path the semen takes internally before leaving the penis. After that what is there to know - how far it travels!?, seriously.DMSBel (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Now you're assuming you can read the minds of other readers. Again, if you want the video gone, start a RfC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I am assuming based on the text of the article that the important information concerns origin and path internally. Certainly that would be my own interest.DMSBel (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The video is not an improvement because it only shows the external emission of semen, and adds nothing in my view to the static illustrations.DMSBel (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, this is getting surreal. From the opening sentence, "Ejaculation is the ejecting of semen from the penis..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that is not all there is to ejaculation, it is only the final stage.- please re-read the complete article. That is a very inadequate description, if taken as total. Don't get caught in a loop of using this article as the sole authority.DMSBel (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So the video illustrates the final stage. Ergo, it does not "add nothing". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: why won't you start an RfC? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is that it does not add to an understanding of the internal origin and path, as illustrated. If internal video footage is available that would be better IMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMSBel (talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense to me. Videos/photos don't have to cover the entirety of a subject. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but to me actual emission of semen from the penis not what is important - while you can film it there is not a lot to say about it (apart from volume and distance which will vary widely as the text states)DMSBel (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we'll be able to convince each other but at least we had a civil conversation :-) The last RfC resulted in no consensus to remove. If you start a new one and consensus changes, I'll remove the video myself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the need for consensus, however the video had been removed - I don't know how long the page had been without it, but it was not there yesterday, yet it was back today. Who reverted it?DMSBel (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not long, take a look at the history. What usually happens is that the video gets removed (often by a new editor or a single purpose account) and then gets put back by someone who watches the article. The only way it's going to stay off is to convince the wider community. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

To summarise my reasons - the video has little to add IMO because it communicates nothing about volume or distance, one would have to guess as to volume or distance if these are areas of interest. There has not been robust arguments put forward for the necessity of keeping the video (repeated saying "wikipedia is not censored" is not an argument for keeping it). There are no videos on the page about urination, so if it is not deemed necessary there, then why on this page is it thought necessary to use video footage? Lastly it is detrimental IMO to the maintenance of this article's encyclopedic quality. Perhaps others would like to comment on those reasons. Thankyou NeilN, I shall not make any changes or remove the video. I am not sure how to do an RfC yet DMSBel (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way there is no record of who made this video, other than an anonymous individual saying in effect "I made this, this is me." I think for that reason also it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMSBel (talk • contribs) 01:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who made the video. Why would it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Neil, please see[[14]]

Duty to maintain records

Every wikipedian that uploads explicit material "shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the [US] Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the [US] Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times." Uploaders must provide a method of contact or else the image may be deleted. A good example to follow includes posting a similar text into the image description DMSBel (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Uploader to provide all documents

Uploaders that do not regularly maintain their Wikipedian user account should follow the above example. Explicit material that is not guaranteed or that can not be verified to have such a record of statement from the original uploaders will be deleted. Furthermore, if the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. finds it necessary, they may require the uploaders to privately provide the records pertaining to 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Disclosure Statement.DMSBel (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting but irrelevant. You're quoting from a project guideline, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline - big difference. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction: it's not even a project guideline, it's a proposed project guideline. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

By way of correction, I apologise as on reflection I seem to have misused the word "sleaze" above. I meant "inappropriate" both on the grounds of being unnecessary and tending to be liable to be considered as pornographic in nature (in spite of being intended ostensibly to be educational).DMSBel (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Video is WAY Inappropriate

I'm sorry, I just think the video is really unnecessary. I understand there are enough perverted men who want to blow their load in a public setting and this is the best they can do, but the video really serves no purpose what-so-ever. The article and diagrams are descriptive enough. There are tons of articles where a video could enhance an understanding, but no video is present. Yet, for some reason the "Ejaculation" page requires a video of a guy blowing his load on camera. I know I sound "childish" or what the hell ever, but it's really disturbing. I mean, if this video is necessary, perhaps we should post a video of a guy getting sucked off on the Blow Job page. Or perhaps we could post a nice "educational" video on the "Child Porn" or "Bestiality" page. Hey, I'm just trying to be "medical" and "open minded" and whatever else you all think separates you from a freaking voyeuristic pervert who just wants everyone to watch him blow is freaking load.68.50.114.44 (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you all know, I removed the video... seeing as how it's, you know, fucking inappropriate as hell...68.50.114.44 (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. A video conveys better an action than an image. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, well I'll put up a video of someone beating the shit out of a child, because a video of "child abuse" is a lot better than the description offered in that article. 68.50.114.44 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That would depict an illegal act. Wikipedia does not host such material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious difference between what is illustrative, and what plays to the prurient interest. Would a reputable encyclopedia include this sort of video? I highly doubt it; it seems that some things are better left to the imagination. Whats worse, god knows who made this movie; if it was made in a hospital by a doctor, that might be one thing; this video is clearly an amateur shot of some guy shooting a 4-roper. I vote to take the video down.Cdtew (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Read your own damn guideline; according to WP:NOTCENSORED, "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available".

I highly highly doubt that you could find a majority of Wiki USERS (not editors) who think this video is the most appropriate option.Cdtew (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1) We don't care who took the video (why would we?) as long it meets our licensing agreements. 2) As per Eric, ejaculation is an action and the video shows the action, making it relevant. 3) No one is forcing anyone to press the Play button... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You're still not looking at the guideline; re-read the part that says "and NO EQUALLY SUITABLE ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE." I have a feeling that some editors on here have a social policy axe to grind in favor of having this video on the site, but I'll be damned if that doesn't defy what Wiki stands for.

Aside from that, consider the fact that this video has no sourcing, no description beyond a bare tagline, and no explanation to provide any sort of scientific or cultural viewpoint of what's going on. If there's not some sort of guide as to HOW this sort of image is used, any random pervert could post a video of him/herself taking a shit or peeing on a person's face as an "illustrative" exhibit.Cdtew (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the guideline yourself. What do you propose as a suitable alternative to the video? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

An animated anatomical diagram would be perfect; I am new and don't do these sorts of things, but there are literally hundreds of them on this site. Find someone, and they could do it in less than an hour. That would be 100% more informative and 100% more appropriate than this voyeuristic sham of an "illustration".Cdtew (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you want the video replaced, it's up to you to find or come up with a better alternative, not anyone else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Wiki was a "community" full of "cooperation" to achieve the best results. You're full of it. Find me a guideline that says that, and I'll eat my hat, but otherwise, stop pushing your viewpoint on everyone else. Hell, if I didn't know better, I'd bet that you took that video of yourself -- it looks like the ultimate vanity shot.Cdtew (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a community but you can't say, "I want this changed and I want you to do the work to change it" (well, you can, but basically you're hoping that other editors who share the same viewpoint as you will do the work). Come up with a better example the community can look at and other editors will comment on it. If you wish, you can follow the instructions here and see what responses you get: Wikipedia:Requested pictures. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump into the middle of the discussion, but I agree with those who oppose this video. It's just repulsive, it's very, very very, reasonable to assume that many viewers, of both sexes, would find it to be exaggeratly realistic, to say the less. In the same line with those who support the video, one can add to the article on excrement a video of himself shitting. Whats the difference? do you realy find any fundamental difference aside for these you can made out of nothing with play of words? More, it seems that this video is the only disputed point in the article, and as there is no good consensus on it, I stongly suggest to remove it.--Gilisa (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That assumes your supposition that the "play on words" is "nothing". Obviously people disagree. And being repulsive is your personal opinion. If we went by opinions, half the pictures in articles dealing with body parts involved in sex would be removed or, dealing with another topic, any representation of Muhammad. Lastly, no user is forced to play the video. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You see, that's what I ment with play of words, because obviously the vast majority of the articles on body parts don't include a video that was uploaded by one the users of Wikipedia. They mostly, if not all times, include photographs or illustrations instead. I don't have any intention to blame you for exhibitionism, but this movie can easily look as such to the average article reader. So, I plead you to consider it again. --Gilisa (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The video is unnecessary as well as inappropriate. The text along with the two diagrams at the top of the page are all that is needed to describe this topic. Postoak (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it exceeds the most forgiving standards of any Encyclopedia, including Wiki ones. Also, I truely believe that it wouldn't be too far reaching to describe this video as 18+ one, but we know that Wiki is not age limited and that, for example, children attending to sex education classes could get to this video by accident. It add nothing to the quality of the article and it's in bad taste, I suggest we remove it a.s.a.p.--Gilisa (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, according to [15], there are exceptions to the image selection principle of choosing the "image that best illustrates the point"-and it seem that this video is by no doubt an exceptional that is not supported by this principle and is considerd as "vanity image". Another, even if debated principle is that "Photographs or video of sexual acts should be hidden behind links". There are also other clauses that this video skip over,maybe even according to Florida state laws.--Gilisa (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for children, articles can have images and videos to understand better its subject, and a video shows best the action of ejaculation. (An image sequence in the line of File:Ejaculation_educational_seq_4.png could be a good replacement.) --Enric Naval (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to ignore thse: [16][17][18]. There is no need for further illustration, the photos we already have are more than enough ( they describe the issue fully, and are not offensive). More, as I wrote, there is no consensus on the video here, and it's also the only disputable issue in this article. So,again, I remove it.--Gilisa (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not censored. Here's your past discussion Talk:Ejaculation/Archive_14#Survey_on_the_Video which resulted in no consensus to remove the video. Start an RFC if you want to change consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are both repeatedly ignore these ones [19][20][21]. As for the RfC, I have no intention to open new one now (even you can't predict the results from one vote to another) as WP consensus is no stronger than WP guidelines. It may take some time, but I'm pretty much optimistic about the chances that this movie will go down, eventualy. For now I don't have much time to deal with it-but hopefully soon I will take this issue for decision.--Gilisa (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring Wikipedia is not censored, which is a policy, and you are citing a proposed guideline from a wikiproject to support your position. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If WP:NOTCENSORED is an argument for the inclusion of the video, then what would happen if someone were to upload a video of decapitation or the like? It's simply not necessary and not appropriate. The reason we are discussing is so that we can come to a consensus, and blindly hiding behind policy links isn't furthering discussion whatsoever. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't say anything in regard to everything imaginable that could be censored should be displayed. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Heroic" ejaculations

I am concerned that some descriptions in this article refer to the most impressive ejaculations, in terms of number of contractions, amount of fluid and so forth. Most men will have less impressive ones. I think heroic ones should be labelled as such to avoid men feeling inferiority that they don't reach that level. Unless there is hard evidence I would err in that direction. I have made a few edits with this in mind.

I gulped a bit when I saw the ejaculation video, but I have to admit it is educational (as well as arousing). However, I would like to change the caption to "Video of a robust ejaculation" from "Video of an ejaculation" to suggest that it is not average, but I did not immediately see how to do that. I believe the amount of semen is on the high side. It is probably a young man who has not ejaculated in several days. It also looks to me like the man is using voluntary contractions of his abdomen to make it go on longer (or seem to). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart119 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Article protected

I pushed the article to full-protection due to the on-going revert-war over the video. The stable state of the article has been with the video included and there was no prior consensus to remove it. I thus locked it with the video included, due to no-consensus to change. This is an administrative action to avoid edit-warring pending a discussion with consensus to change, not an endorsement of how the article "should" be. Continue to discuss in the other sections on this talk-page, file an(other?) RfC, whatever. I'll check back in a few days to see if there is progress or any formal request that needs admin action. DMacks (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Was there ever a consensus to include it?

There is no "revert war". if by that you mean continual attempts to remove it? There is a discussion going on, that is not a revert war. After the video had been re-inserted no further attempt was made to delete it that I am aware of, certainly not on my part.DMSBel (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reviewing the many opinions here against the video clearly etablishes a consensus that the video is not needed. The only reponse we get is "Wikipedia is not censored" quacked to us like the AFLAC duck. Are our opinions being ignored? Where does Wikipedia policy state that RFC is required to establish consensus? Looks more like an article ownership issue by several editors. I agree, there is no revert war. IMO, DMacks should not have protected the article, this was improper. Postoak (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it has seemed to me from reading this discussion page that for some time there has been valid and sufficient reasons from several contributors for removing the video. DMSBel (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And other contributors are opposed to removing the video. Thus, the need to have an RfC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

on what grounds are they opposed? - quoting wikipedia is not censored is not a rationale for keeping it. It is bringing the entire article into disrepute, and preventing edits being made that could improve the article.DMSBel (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Try again. WP:NOTCENSORED IS WIKIPEDIA POLICY, all your arguments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

please respond to my arguments one by one to show how they boil down to IDONTLIKEITDMSBel (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The views against keeping the video

I want to compile just a few of the statements against keeping the video from the discussion so far :

The video is unnecessary as well as inappropriate. The text along with the two diagrams at the top of the page are all that is needed to describe this topic. Postoak (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump into the middle of the discussion, but I agree with those who oppose this video. It's just repulsive, it's very, very very, reasonable to assume that many viewers, of both sexes, would find it to be exaggeratly realistic, to say the less. In the same line with those who support the video, one can add to the article on excrement a video of himself shitting. Whats the difference? do you realy find any fundamental difference aside for these you can made out of nothing with play of words? More, it seems that this video is the only disputed point in the article, and as there is no good consensus on it, I strongly suggest to remove it.--Gilisa (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys, please take out the video, it doesn't add any value now that diagrams have been placed in, this is a place where everyone should be able to come, we don't want parents not letting their kids use wikipedia. If it were absolutely necessary to add value fine, but it's not, so what point are we trying to make here with that video? why not have an article with all the info and leave the video to the rest of the Internet? is there any encyclopedia out there that includes such a video? c´mon, some common sence here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.211.75 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The video add nothing to the article, would you add a video two people actively engaged in intercourse for the intercourse article?Yami (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me a lot of people are missing the point of this survey. Its not about censorship but encyclopedicness, also about not over illustrating things. also just because this has been going on a long time does not mean you should just keep it.Yami (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything is censored. It's just a matter of whose rules are applied. The text in this article explains more than enough. The video and picture are just gratuitous and silly. But if credibility is of no interest to you then disregard. Denizen of Reality (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

To summarise my reasons - the video has little to add IMO because it communicates nothing about volume or distance, one would have to guess as to volume or distance if these are areas of interest. There has not been robust arguments put forward for the necessity of keeping the video (repeated saying "wikipedia is not censored" is not an argument for keeping it). There are no videos on the page about urination, so if it is not deemed necessary there, then why on this page is it thought necessary to use video footage? Lastly it is detrimental IMO to the maintenance of this article's encyclopedic quality.DMSBel (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for unprotection.

Is one deletion and a revert enough for a page to be pushed to full protection, when it was already semi-protected? 82.18.164.15 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC) (DMSBel)

Votes for Video Inclusion (or Not)

Is there any place we can vote concerning inclusion (or not) of the video? Twipley (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:VOTE says no. The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, you're right. I've just fell on WP:DEMOCRACY Twipley (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't vote here and see WP:RFC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect, votes can be taken, there should be discussion first though. That is what that page means. There has been plenty of discussion.DMSBel (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please show me the voting mechanism on Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Straw Polls can be taken, that page you linked to even gives guidelines, it would only give guidelines if Straw polls are allowed. Do you want a straw poll?DMSBel (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It'd be useless in determining the outcome: "Content issues are almost never subject to polling. Out of our 3,188,733 articles, less than 0.1% were ever polled upon." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "determining the outcome"? If there have been only a small minority of articles polled upon that does not indicate how successful or not the polls where in settling disputes over the content of those articles. DMSBel (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Because I (among other editors) will not accept the result of a poll where a "Yes" vote with no rationale given would equal a "No" vote which cites policies, guidelines, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean?DMSBel (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's why we don't vote here - there are many, many contentious articles on Wikipedia, each attracting their own special interest groups (e.g, abortion, global warming, the Balkans). If content was determined by voting, it would be controlled by whichever side could get the "vote out". This does not help build an unbiased and neutral-toned encyclopedia. Instead, we determine the outcome of disputes by looking at the arguments of all sides and seeing which ones most fit with our policies and guidelines. So, for example, if ten people wanted to have an article on local criminal and just said "Yes", all their "votes" wouldn't count as much as the one person saying "No" and citing WP:BLP1E. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a comment of my own from hereDMSBel (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm trying to explain established Wikipedia practices to you. Read Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE. Content changes are determined by consensus which is facilitated through an RfC, not a vote. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough Neil I appreciate that you want things to follow established practices. As I have said I will not remove the image, once we have a consensus (in my view we do have one for removal) I will leave it up to someone else to take the video out, you can if you like. However RfCs are not strictly necessary for every change.DMSBel (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The video adds little to the article even if some consider it non-pornographic (it is amateurish though) and should not be made the central issue on here about which page protection revolves. That is to say the importance of the video to the article is IMO minor at best.DMSBel (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Puting full protection on a page (improperly) does not help build an unbiased and neutral-toned encyclopedia either, but that has been done and the page is impossible to edit. DMSBel (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am against the inclusion of the video. I think that as we are operating under the moniker of an encyclopedia, we need to have at least a smidgen of professional conduct. A video of someone ejaculating, especially when the video is just some arbitrary and amateur clip, is disturbing on many levels. Do we have videos of decapitations at the decapitation article? No? Why not? Even though we are Wikipedia and we are not censored, you need to draw the line somewhere. As an established editor since 2004, I venture to suggest we remove this video, it is simply not necessary; the photos are enough. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I wanted to point out that NeilN is correct, a vote is not appropriate in this situation. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The appropriateness of having a vote is subjective, I mean editors have different views on the usefulness of polls. Once again, one editor cannot just say "we are not voting"DMSBel (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you want to follow established Wikipedia practices and have a RfC? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

we have comments here, what exactly is the point of an RfC, anyone reading this page sees the arguments for and against.DMSBel (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC) It seems to me you are the only one asking for a RfC.DMSBel (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC) The guidelines suggest resolving the issue here on the discussion page before going to an RfC. What is YOUR rationale for keeping the video, please, you have just kept quoting Wikipedia policy and guidelines repeatedly, - What is Your Rationale?DMSBel (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The video offers additional information that an image can not offer. It is a real-time illustration of part of the process. No one is forced to view the video. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments CIS, yes I agree that editing should be done profesionally, unfortunately one editor as locked the page completely unneccarily IMO and the protection has been described as improper by another. I have not any intention of removing the video, someone else can do that if they wish. Your comments add to the growing number of requests that the video be removed.DMSBel (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The page was locked my an uninvolved third party editor who had no biases in the matter. As stated in the protection template, it is not an endorsement of the current revision of the page. The page was protected, appropriately, to stop the revert wars and allow us to migrate to the talk page for civil discussion. A vote is not appropriate at this time, and I would agree with NeilN in that perhaps you should pursue requesting for further comment through RFC. We need more organized and civil discussion from established editors. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out there was no revert war - only one deleltion then one revert - that is not a war. After that the page was semi-protected and discussion took place. look at the history.DMSBel (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason the discussion tends to become uncivil is that certain people won't give their view on the video, but just keep throwing policy into the discussion- that in my view when done excessively or inappropriately results in more frustration than holding a poll. The consensus seems to me to be for removal currently. What do others think?DMSBel (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

For a new editor, you're awfully quick to dismiss policy. Could it be perhaps you feel it's not on your side? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Neil, WP:NOTCENSORED is being called out far too often here, and simply citing a policy is not presenting an argument. Yes, it is a policy, but that policy states clearly that "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article". My argument is that it is not appropriate because it is both amateurish and unnecessary. We already have enough pictures to represent ejaculation; some articles have no pictures at all and get by just fine. I've yet to see an argument in favor of why it is needed at all. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't advocate including offensive material just because it's offensive; the video is simply not needed here. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I gave my reasons upthread and browsing through the archives gives more. I simply don't understand why DMSBel doesn't start an RfC as per established community practices. I've said if consensus is for removing the video, I'll be the first one to remove it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I will if others request it, but I will have to figure out how to do it. You are the only one currently requesting it. And one other editor has said it is not necessary and that he thinks consensus is for removal (See Postoak's comment above in article protected) Can others say whether they think there is a consensus here yet.DMSBel (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

CIS has also said you should pursue a RfC, there are three editors alone on this page which have disagreed with removal in the last 24 hours so obviously there's no consensus, and I offered to help you with the RfC process on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok I see that now, thanks. Yes maybe we should proceed down that route.DMSBel (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No I don't dimiss policy - what I object to is that it is used repeatedly but not to achieve consensus, but seems as has been said to have more to do with page "ownership". You see policy can be abused too, when it is called on to defend a stance that is contary to common sense, or when it is stood upon too rigidly - despite my efforts to maintain good faith that is an impression I keep getting from this discussion. Most of the objectors to keeping the video are I believe operating from a common sense principle.DMSBel (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think CIS has made probably the best comment so far in this discussion. Objectional material need not be simply kept because there are objections to it but the main criteria as I have said (and others have said) all along is whether the material contributes to the encyclopedicness of the article. In my view it does not - it makes the article less encyclopedic. Encyclopedic means drawing the line in the right place. The right place to me seems to be with the two illustrations.DMSBel (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: Is the photo in this version more acceptable to you? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No Neil, IMO neither this photo nor the current video do anything to improve the encyclopedic quality of the article. I do not believe the article would suffer without either. Thanks for asking DMSBel (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

a video is absolutely appropriate

anyone who has never seen an ejaculation has the right to look it up and wikipedia is the place to do so. no explanation, however detailed, and no drawing, however accurate, can give you an idea of an ejaculation if you never saw one before. reading through all the arguments i find none taking this into account. what i do see is people trying to force their moral values on sexuality on wikipedia. these values are reflected in comments and comparisons, that make my head spin.

what harm can this video do to a kid looking at it? he or she might be surprised, especially if parents kept sexual matters in the twilight or hidden. i would have been most grateful in my youth to have been able to see a video like this and i would have felt a lot better and much more secure about myself. my three kids would laugh their heads off at this discussion.
comparing ejaculation to defecation, urination, child molestation and whatever, shows me exactly, to what department sexuality belongs for these people. the same applies to the comparisons with violent or negative acts. sadly, most objectors would not mind their kids seeing violence and bloodshed on tv.
a reason for not showing defecation or urination on wikipedia would be, that everyone without exception can observe this any time he or she choses to look.

unless it is explained, what harm it does to a child seeing this video and why, or to anyone else for that matter, removing such a video is outright censorship. i suggest these people take their crusade somewhere else.Sundar1 (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the use of the word "absolutely" you are not speaking for everyone in this discussion, and even less for everyone on wikipedia - the lengthy dispute indicates many others disagree.DMSBel (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

neither are you. i never wrote that all people think like me.

make you arguments about the apropriateness or inappropriateness of the video, not about those objecting to it. We have given reasons, most of us don't just call everyone in support perverts for wanting it included. I can accept that people think it is educational, even though I think it is not. If they think that I don't consider them perverts. I think they are mistaken about what it is necessary to include in the article that's all.82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is a "crusade" as you call it to remove the video then there is equally a "crusade" to keep it. There is in my view an effort being made to improve the page - that is not a crusade. I merely came back to this page after several week, because I was glancing through what articles I contributed to the discussion in, I had almost forgot about this page.

Sundar wrote: unless it is explained, what harm it does to a child seeing this video and why, or to anyone else for that matter, removing such a video is outright censorship

Here is an explanation: There are appropriate stages in child development for a child to become aware of things, and it is recognised by some developmental psychologists that giving children awareness beyond their stage of development may be in some cases harmful (I don't have citations to hand but I have heard this reported). Ability to comprehend without confusion arising progresses as children get older. Quite simply, (and at least to me - obviously) the vast majority of 4 year olds are incapable of understanding ejaculation (even the proper names are difficult for them (they usually use the word "willy" rather than the proper term penis). Sperm is not even produced in a boy testies at that age. The process of sperm development called spermatogenesis, usually begins sometime around 10-12 years of age and is fully functional by the age of 14-16 years. A child might rub themself occasionally, but there can be reasons for this other than sexual stimulation. A wise parent knows not to explain things to a child before they are at an age when they can comprehend the matter more easily. Not only this, young children tend to repeat stuff without even knowing what it means (so do some wikipedians it seems) as well as at inappropriate times. A four year old talking about ejaculation (repeating words that they can barely pronounce) is likely to become embarrased in some situations, perhaps with older children, or in adult company. Introducing something like this to them, creates a strain on them, for they simply are not old enough to understand.(talk) 19:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I used the example of a four year old, however I think for the most part the same could be said for an older child (say 7 or 8 years). I know a four year old won't find this article on their own, and would not be able to read it. DMSBel (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

agreed, there are appropriate stages in child development - but, they come naturally and you are not the one to define them. first, i don't think a 4 year old has any interest in wikipedia. if so, he or she can just as coincidently stumble over other pictures on other sites, e. g. on wikipedia commons. you should also know, that hearsay about some developmental psychologists has no place here. you even only heard this reported. and with that background knowledge you put up a fight. some nerve. who are these psychologists, by whom are they recognized and what exactly do they say? in such a disputed matter this is the least info you will have to supply. b.t.w., thanks for filling me in on child sexuality- i very well remember my own and that of my kids. just for your info, a kid rubbing his- or herself does it exactly for fun! the rest of your explanation is only hearsay, your own assumption or experience and does not qualify.

I don't have citiations at hand, if I had access to PubMed or some such site I am pretty sure I could find you support, would you accept my argument if I provided that support or cast doubt on the psychologist, or demand more and more recognisation? Ok I have read on this subject and it is not simply for fun in every instance - it can sometimes be because of anxiety, you will probably ask for citations, but I don't have the time and, I am not stating this for inclusion in an article. [Special:Contributions/82.18.164.15|82.18.164.15]] (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sundar wrote: sadly, most objectors would not mind their kids seeing violence and bloodshed on tv.

as i said, there are more objectors than the ones participating in this discussion. it is a safe assumption that many of them have kids.

Why is it a "safe assumption", you are just guessing, even if most have kids you don't know what limits they put on what they let their kids watch. This is ad-hominem.82.18.164.15 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

which of the objectors do you know has kids? How do you know what they let their kids (if they have any) watch? DMSBel (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sundar1 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not wikipedia's responsability that a parent is letting his/her 4 year old child browse the internet unsupervised. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Been looking through the archives of this discussion

Very interesting. It also shows me how previous disputes here have been resolved. Can someone show me where and when in this discussion consensus was reached to include the current video? If not then there has never been a consensus, and the video should only be linked too, not completely removed.DMSBel (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a few thought about what censorship actually is and the value of inline links

The point has been repeated in this discussion a few times (see archives) that censorship is most often associated with a government suppressing information that they usually find embarrassing to themselves in some way. Now it seems to me that that is clearly different from simply putting behind a link an image or video which is or may be likely to cause offence. Goverments are trying to protect themselves when they attempt to censor, they are not seeking to find a compromise that doesn't give offense.Obviously censored information is not in any way accessible - you'd have to get an injuction, and fight it out in the courts to see it. Now on wikipedia it is possible to improve an article so that it does not offend by linking to a video. The link can still be clicked by ANYONE. The link also gives the person browsing wikipedia control (APatcher pointed this out earlier in the discussion), without forcing them to have to figure out how to block an image or a video. Once again I suggest that the video should be behind a link, as default. (See INLINE LINKS - Archive 13)[[22]] DMSBel (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

made minor change to intro paragraph

I replaced the word penis with male reproductive tract as it is more accurate.82.18.164.15 (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add new sections to the bottom of this talk page. How is male reproductive tract more accurate than penis? Semen is actually ejaculated from the urethra which travels through the penis. Also, regarding your other change, intercourse is not the only sexual cause of ejaculation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NeilN, the proper terminology is male reproductive tract [[23]]

"Male reproductive tract functions include androgen homeostasis, spermatogenesis, sperm transport and storage, and normal erectile and ejaculatory function ability. The control of these functions involves the pituitary gland, central and peripheral nervous systems, and genitalia.

- it includes all you have said, and is suitably concise for an opening paragraph. Re sexual intercourse, the intro paragraph says usually, not always or only, so IMO that allows for other causes. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't object to male reproductive tract but changing sexual stimulation to sexual intercourse is needlessly restrictive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok let it stay at stimulation, thanks for linking the other term.82.18.164.15 (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Video redundant

The video is redundant with the photos back in.82.18.164.15 (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Further to this, I do not see in discussion where the photos were suggested as supplementary, they were offered as an alternative to the video. Though discusion is still open on the need for either, until that is settled one makes the other redundant.DMSBel (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Something that would never be used in schools

Some have claimed this video has educational merit, can anyone reference a sex education course that uses a video to depict ejaculation, I very much doubt it (in fact I would go as far as to say that I am almost absolutely certain that none would use a video like this), the subject would be handled much more discreetly than this. In fact if shown in sex ed lessons at all it is shown as it takes place during penetration.DMSBel (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're associating "education" to what is taught is schools which is irrelevant for our purposes. There are many sexually themed articles on Wikipedia whose contents would never be taught in schools. Doesn't mean they're not educational. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you got me, I was associating education with what is taught in schools, how dumb of me. Has the video been used in any educational material? I notice NeilN you tend to zoom in on what you think the minor flaws in an argument and assume that identifying any such flaws automatically supports your viewpoint. How would you define educational? I define it by what an educational establishment would be likely to use, does not have to be schools but obviously it is a useful test and relevant here to ask what content might a sexual education course use. There have also be television shows on sexuality, now i am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, but I highly doubt that any of them has shown anything remotely like this, and of course they are not censored either, in the case of the TV shows the producers simply have a better sense of what is crass, and the intelligence not to use it. Can you prove to me that it is educational and that it would be likely to be used in other educational sources? This is important, the video is kept in the article only by default or page protection. It is fairly likely that this and other images were uploaded to test the limits of wikipedia. I mean would anyone filming this not have wondered will wikipedia editors actually use something as explicit as this in an article? There have been only the weakest arguments in support of keeping it. Quite simply the arguments for keeping actually amount to little more than thought-terminating cliche's [[24]] - "because that is our policy". DMSBel (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC : Views on using an INLINE LINK to resolve video dispute

DMSBel (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC) No one actually wrote anything in this section. I will just re-state the section header: "Views on using an INLINE LINK to resolve video dispute". I don't know what the context is. harej 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

First time setting up an RFC - sorry. The context is the current discussion to find a resolution to the ongoing dispute concerning the ejaculation video in the article. The discussion on this page provides the context, it very nearly all revolves around the ejaculation video and arguments for keeping or removal. This has tended to be polarising and intractible, so this RFC is aimed at reaching a compromise. The video under discussion is the one in the article currently.DMSBel (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: With the aim of reaching a compromise over the video I ask that editors would register their views and degree of support for or opposition to the use of an INLINE LINK as default for any video with sexually explicit content in this article. For clarification INLINE LINK is used here to mean that the video be kept in the article (for such time as it is agreed to keep it) but would only become visible when someone actually clicks on it. This would mean that those who wish to view the video will still be able to. This is not to discuss the suitability of the current video (which is still open to discussion)DMSBel (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please use Support, Oppose, Strongly Support, Strongly Oppose (in bold text). Those taking part here should be familiar with the discussion, new contributors here should scan through this page and the last couple of archived pages (13 and 14) before registering their views here. DO NOT register support or opposition WITHOUT explaining why one or the other. Remember this is aimed at reaching a compromise. Please keep comments short (a few lines) and to the point, DO NOT REPEAT yourself and do not drag out your arguments - and don't abuse this RfC by using it to cite policy in place of reasoned argument.DMSBel (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC) This is designed to find a compromise if possible not to debate the suitability of the video or whether it is offensive ,neither is it the place to air your opinions, thoughts on what censorship is, there has been plenty of that in the discussion. It is specifically for registering your support or opposition to the proposed compromise. Do not try and influence others who have yet to comment, simply state your view and whether you support or oppose. One comment each please. Do not comment on others comments and do not insult others who have commented.DMSBel (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

DMSBel, while your undertaking to start an RfC is to be applauded, your attempt to set down arbitrary rules is not. RfC's are designed to request outside input and to stimulate discussion. See Talk:Chile#RFC:_Infobox_image and Talk:Genesis_creation_myth#WP:RFC_Request_for_comments for examples. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I very much agree Neil the RfC is to stimulate discussion. Nothing I have said in my intro prevents outside input(during) or discussion (afterward). As a guide to how to set this up I studied the previous one in the archive, if you check you will see that discussion followed the RfC, and was based on the comments made there. My initial intro was very brief, however contributions to the RfC started to become very lengthy. I do not wish to prevent anyone from commenting either for or against an INLINE LINK. Citing of policy has been done repeatedly in the general talk and does not seem to get us anywhere, because it is cited selectively. As one editor cited the same policy at least three times in the RfC, it seemed necessary to make it clear that the RfC was for people to give reasoned arguments, not just cite a policy . Ad homimen arguments have been used in the general discussion. It should not be necessary to say no insults please. Even having said that there is some thinly veiled ad homimen in one of the RfC comments. Much of what I said is pretty much what Wikipedia says. By saying no comments about comments, I was not inventing a arbitary rule but just following how the previous RfC was done - ie comments where made then discussion took place afterward. I have looked at the RfC you linked to, but in all fairness it does not look any different to general discussion. (DMSBel)82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Support - placing the video behind an inline link, with a caption. The ability to do so is a technological advance which gives control to the person viewing the article. It avoids both censorship (narrowly understood) as the content is still available at a click and also avoids causing offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMSBel (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose -- It has long been determined that censoring articles because of objectionable content by placing them behind inline links is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not censored. The image is directly related to the topic, as it is a human ejaculation. There is nothing pornographic in nature about it. Some may feel that it is sexually explicit. There is nothing wrong with an image being explicit in describing the topic. Of course it is sexual in nature. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles and images that are sexual in nature. The use of blocking or censoring an image with an inline link is never acceptable. Either the image is appropriate for the article, or it is not appropriate. Atom (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider also please -- if someone thinks that they may be offended by the video -- can't they just decline to click on it? Is it not already, essentially inline linked in a fashion without censorship? Atom (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Throughout the discussion and going back 3 years the option of an INLINE LINK has been taken to mean a link in which the video is available (at a click), but not visible. As it currently is the video is visible but not playing. Since there is a difference we cannot use INLINE LINK to refer to the latter. As that is the definition given to INLINE LINK (not by me but by others) it would only confuse the RfC to define the term as you suggest. It means not visible until clicked.DMSBel (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please continue comments at bottom of this section

Wikipedia is NOT censored

Consider previous global discussions on this type of thing Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images and Wikipedia:Censorship_(2006_proposal) I quote:

What censorship is: For the purposes of this policy, censorship is any change to any article, image or media file on the grounds that you find it "offensive" or believe others may find it "offensive".

Changes include but are not limited to: Moving - Moving disputed sections to other pages where they will be in turn further whittled down in due time. Deleting -- Deleting or removing items from an article. Listing -- Listing images on MediaWiki:Bad image list. Replacing -- Replacing photographs with drawings, replacing literal description with euphemism or metaphor, or using other similar means to minimize the information provided in text or image form. Resizing -- Making images smaller. Hiding -- Using panels or having the same background and text color. Blockading -- Getting "alliances" of like minded editors to block encyclopedic and legitimate insertions into articles.

What censorship is not

   * Doing any of the above for reasons other than censorship including relevance, verifiability, copyright.
   * Allowing users to use their own css files to hide content.
   * Deleting it because its use on Wikipedia is illegal in the State where particular servers are hosted.
   * Deleting it because of legitimate editorial concerns, such as irrelevance, lack of information content, or redundancy."

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image.

Pictures and video

If you are editing this page to contest the picture and video, then please check first the archives for past discussions. There is a "recurrent topics" lists that you can consult. See also WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:Options to not see an image.

Atom (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

One last thought: At the bottom of every page is the Wikipedia Disclaimers. Within that (one of the disclaimers) is the Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer. I won't reiterate it all -- we all agree to this disclaimer implicitly by using Wikipedia. This is clear in the disclaimer: "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE" and "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy." Atom (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly... what? Wait a minute. What are we discussing about, here: an image, or a video? Twipley (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the header to this section its all there and very clear (the video, for those too lazy to scroll back), the debate has been about nothing else than the video for quite some time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMSBel (talk • contribs) 01:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Reminds me a little of the almost permanent discussion about images on Vagina, Clitoris and numerous other articles. This is content that is actually taught in schools (on this side of the Atlantic), to kids aged 12, with pictures etc. If it remains in the article, which I strongly advocate, leave it as it is. _noisy jinx ^huh? 01:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Important Please Note : Atom has inadvertantly quoted from proposals that were rejected, ie. the 2006 censorship proposal, and Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images proposal. Both are Failed proposals. I have asked him to remove this as content quoted from a rejected proposal is not going to help us here, and is detrimental to reaching a consensus or compromise.DMSBel (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. it is true. The proposal to allow censorship of the type you suggest was rejected in the past. You are entitled to your opinion, but the fact is the kind of censorship you suggest has been much discussed, many times over the years, and yes Wikipedia still has a policy of NO Censorship. The discussions (on both sides) within those proposals interesting and enlightening. They point out discussions as far back as 2005 and 2006 where the same kind of censorship that you advocate was rejected. I appreciate your concern that pointing out that censorhip was not accepted in the past may be detrimental to your viewpoint. I think all of the points (especially the ones that discuss current accepted policy on Wikipedia) I made are valid.

If I simplify my wording it seems simple to me. You want to hide content behind a link so that people can't see it. Your basis is that you find the content objectionable, or that others might find it objectionable. The Wikipedia disclaimer clearly warns you and others that content in wikipedia may be objectionable. Your remedy, and theirs, is to not visit Wikipedia. You say the best way to deal with it is to censor it. The Wikipedia policy is that content is not censored. I think your energy would be better spent trying to get people to change the policy and disclaimer that allow the content that you find objectionable, not asking people to disregard Wikipedia policy. Atom (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Of interest might be: Archive - "Do you want wikipedia to be taken seriously?" and Pornography Atom (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole point is that proposals to remove "offensive" graphical material have been rejected.

The first link only has four sections that achieved more support than opposition:

The second link was rejected in a poll here. Please read the oppose votes.

There was also another failed proposal Wikipedia:Image_censorship, where the option with the most support was never censor any image that is relevant. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder who I am with in this case, but personally, I'd better see some other thing there than that video. Don't get me wrong: I'm in favor of including explicit material. That is, educational one, especially for young or women-who-have-never-seen-a-male-ejaculation types of people. If it is a eight years old that is curious enough to go look up Ejaculation on Wikipedia: fine, let him/her watch the explicit material. Same for all the other articles... e.g., one should not complain of seeing an "explicitly" nude butt at Human anus.
That being said, I would much more favor the inclusion of a quality video / set of pictures rather than this relatively poorly executed video presentation. Furthermore, like was said before, I would just be happy for someone to bring me an abstract from a peer-reviewed, reputable scientific journal (via Google Scholar, e.g.) indicating potential "people below their teens should not have access to such material," if you see what I mean. See above for a set-of-pictures alternative to the current video. Hope that helps, Twipley (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think many people have a similar view. For many years I have thought that a better video would be nice. A video, or high quality image from a peer reviewed scientific journal would be better quality for the article. However, after looking myself, and asking for other images, none has surfaced. (And it has been like five years.) The current video demonstrates the topic well, while not being in any way pornographic. Yes, some people view it as offensive, because it is a man, and his penis is exposed. It shows ejaculation without any other element. No eroticism, no other people interacting, not even the subject touching himself. One has to wonder how an image could be more detached and yet still be demonstrative. In other articles, such as breast and human anus rather than an image being replaced, it went to many images. So, if a picture, rather than a video were supplied in this article, it would probably be suplementary. What would the qualities of a prospective replacement image that was demonstrative of the topic in a scientific way, and yet minimize thr potential for suirprising or offending others be? A close up of only the end of the penis as the ejaculation occured? It would pretty much have to be a male, and have to show the penis in some way, and those are the combined elements that people seem to find objectionable. Please give me ideas. Atom (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How do statements like "get rid of all the verbiage" display good-faith? I realise there are a few people here, who at all costs want the video to remain and will not compromise, there may also be a few who would wish it to be gone entirely with no link (ie censored). But from reading through the archives it seems to me that the majority here (and those who support inclusion of the video) are willing for it to be put behind a link. Once again, having a link is appropriate in this case and does not ammount to censorship. I wanted this RfC to be kept to conciseness (views against the link can be concise as well as views supporting it), people are getting close to the limit of what they want to read on this. So please abreviate your comments Atom and remove the quotes you made from the failed proposals. I also emphasised no comments on comments - you have done that also. Re-read the intro to this RfC. You have already commented twice (you could have spoken to me about the issues on my talk page or yours) and abreviate your comments please.DMSBel (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the wording of "get rid of verbiage" to express what I meant better.

Let me try to say it a different way. Removing images behind a link is, by Wikipedia Policy, not acceptable. It is not a matter of majority vote or consensus on an individual article. Putting an image beind a link is censorship, and Wikipedia is NOT censored. If it WERE true that most people who commented here wanted it behind a link -- it would be still be a violation of policy to do so. As it is, many editors do not comment on the matter because they already KNOW that putting it behind a link is against policy, and they have seen the same issue, over and over, brought forward by people who are new to Wikipedia and do not realize that.

What would good criteria for removing the video, or replacing the video be? Is the image representative of the topic? Does it give a fair and balanced view of the Article, or the section where it is used? Is it of poor quality? Is there a better image or video that represents the topic available? Does the image violate the law in the state of Florida? (Where the servers are located -- Is it pornographic, rather than scientific, educational or literary in nature?)

Reasons one could possibly use:

I have an image or video that is larger, clearer, and illustrates the topic of ejaculation much better.
The image does not illustrate the topic of ejaculation, but of masturbation (This was the case for a prevopus image, not so in this one)
The Video is copyrighted, and not in the public domain or licenses for free use.
The video only illustrates a white circumcized male. We need more images to represent the breadth of the topic better.
We need to add images of female ejaculation.
The article is focused primarily on humans, and we needs images of ejaculation for other biological organisms too.

Reasons that may not be used:

I am offended by the image.
Children might see this image.
We want Wikipedia to be respectable.
I think explicitly images of human sexuality should not be used on Wikipedia.

Either the image/video illustrates the topic well, or it does not.

There is nothing obscene or pornographic about the human body, or male human bodies. The penis, and the biological act of ejaculation are anatomical, biological, scientific and medical in nature. If one views it as erotic, or eroticism, or pornographic, then that person needs to change their view -- not the entire community of Wikipedia. Any user of Wikipedia can choose to turn off the display of images on Wikipedia, or to not use Wikipedia at all, or to avoid searching for topics related to human sexuality or anatomy on Wikipedia. If you have children, and your view that preventing your children from learning about biology or human sexuality is the right approach to sex education, then please don't let your children use Wikipedia. Atom (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And, Atom, do not reword (or simplify as you put it) other peoples comments here or elsewhere in the discussion whether or not you think they "boil down to something". This is highly incorrect etiquete for a discussion I should have thought someone on Wikipedia as long as you Atom would have known this. As my input to this RfC is two lines, I believe my comments are as concise as possible (and cannot be "simplfied" any further except to misrepresent them.) I am considering asking Admin to look in on this.DMSBel (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay -- where did I change someone elses comments? I've looked back and I don't think I have done anything but offer my own insight and opinions. Atom (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Atom (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you just changed part of your comment to "if I simplify my wording", Ie, did you just add the word "my"? I don't recall reading it like that before.DMSBel (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok having looked through the history I see what change you have made. However the context of your remarks imply that the "verbiage" was from others not yourself, so I do not understand why you changed it to "if I simplify my wording"?? You are still refering to other peoples views. Re-read the intro to the RfC and bring your contribution in line with what was asked for please.DMSBel (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked back at *your* comments, and what I hear you saying is "I ask that editors would register their views and degree of support for or opposition to the use of an INLINE LINK as default for any video with sexually explicit content...". Is that correct? I'm not misrepresenting your view, I hope.

What? That is exactly what I am asking for - ie. concise views on this specific area - use of an INLINE LINK.DMSBel (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, since censorship and use of Inline linking is against Wikipedia policy, shouldn't this be a discussion at the policy level, not on an article about ejaculation? If you were to get many editors who agreed with you here, it could not be implemented here. Atom (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It is quite appropraite to discuss here. It it not against policy to use INLINE Links when appropriate - if other articles have not used them that does not mean it is against policy, in most cases there is still discussion ongoing about how to display sexually explicit content in other articles. For each article it is decided what content is suitable by the editors of that article. Their is no requirement to put pictures or videos in an article just because another article has them. Articles in an encyclopedia quite often have no illustrations at all. Again whether there should be images, videos etc. and whether they should be behind links is a decision for the editors working on a particular article. It is not that the video is sexually explicit, it is because it is lurid that it is being objected to, by myself and others. Neither has it been shown to have any educational merit.82.18.164.15 (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I referenced the WIkipedia Wikipedia is not censored earlier. In case you haven't had a chance to read that, among other things it says "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." (Bold emphasis I added)

I have read all that and it was cited previously in the post by CIS.DMSBel (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Inline linking of an image that one person or another has not found acceptable has been tried before. You aren't the first one to think of it. It has been tried over and over, many times. As an editor whose primary area of focus is Sexology and human sexuality, I see that a lot. It has been discussed many times, frankly, ad nauseum for most editors. There was at one time a Macro for automatic inline linking. By Wikpedia Policy, that was deleted. Attempts to re-create it have been deleted. After years of countless discussions of the use of an inline link, it is commonly accepted that the use of inline linking an image is censorship, and that we do not censor. That is why it is policy to not allow inline linking of an image.

If there has been a consensus and any simple person can see that there has been a consensus to use an inline-link, then why (if it was tried either here or anywhere else), was it reverted because a very few objected afterward? Show me where any revertion from an INLINE-LINK was done by consensus.DMSBel (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If inline linking were considered acceptable, I can give you a list of many articles that would currently have inline links to cover over images. Please take a look at Human_anus, breast, penis, Vagina, Cunnilingus, sexual intercourse, Creampie, Pearl_necklace_(sexuality), Gokkun, Bukkake, Cum_shot, Snowballing_(sexual_practice), Facial_(sex_act), Scrotum, Threesome, Frot, Semen. And there are, of course, many more after that.

No, those articles are still being discussed on their pages. Nowhere is it prohibited to use an in-line link. Citing a only part of a policy is not right, or a failed policy is not right. Maybe you should take a break Atom.DMSBel (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Because of concerns like this, I started a discussion some time back at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines. The discussion was active for awhile, and then eventually died out. You are welcome to try and reactivate it if you wish. Atom (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you see what you have done to this RfC?DMSBel (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. You didn't want a discussion or comments? Or perhaps you thought that since you submitted the RFC you were allowed to limit the length of the comments you asked for? I understand that you desired concise and I did not comply with that. I apologize. I've made clear what my view is, and what Wikipedia policy is. As I said before "If you were to get many editors who agreed with you here, it could not be implemented here." I'm going to drop the discussion at this point. Let's let others comment, and both of us stay out of it for the next week or so. Ok? Atom (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You agree you did not comply. And again you seem to twist my words. Of course i Want comments I set up the RfC. I thought it was obvious how to use a RfC - ie not dragging out arguments - citing policies. It is a REQUEST FOR COMMENTS. I had no desire to say more than I did in my own comment, however it has proved necessary to stop this (although it now has) descending into a joke. The RfC is not supposed to be like the general talk here. Do you not see that?DMSBel (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you consent I will delete this and restart it?DMSBel (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please disengage here. You (especially DMSBel, but also other early discussants) have said your point. Repeatedly. You have said you wanted an RfC and to get others' input. Now is the time to step back and let others wade through this becoming-repetitive back-and-forth and comment if they would like. Do not monopolize the discussion with metadiscussion about it. There's no need to hand-wring about the path it's taken yet. DMacks (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The path it has taken only concerns me because of it bloatedness, its not a good example of how an RfC should be - surely the point of an RfC is to avoid the kind of bloat that general discussion at times, and frequently here descends into. I am not sure how long Atom has been away from the discussion, but he has not contributed over the last two days - he of course is welcome to take part in the RfC, but not to swell it. He has cited the same policy twice in his first "comment" then gone back to it again repeatedly. The RfC has also be used to comment on others comments. I may be newer here than Atom but if the RfC is just going to be conducted like general talk what is the point of it? Lets keep it concise please! I have now disengaged!!DMSBel (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please continue comments here (below line)

strongly oppose - initially i was leaning toward hiding the video behind an inline link as a compromise. but after reading the further discussion i oppose this suggestion. this would have to be applied to many more articles in wikipedia. i am generally opposed to banning pictures or videos explaining or showing natural things just because others have hang-ups, consider them to be "offensive" or "morally questionable". these people are trying to turn their own problems into problems of others. Sundar1 (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

quite strongly - (as repeated from earlier on) - I think such a visual medium is welcomed for people browsing an encyclopedia for educational purposes. However, it is not clear in my mind yet which one of [25] and [26] is of best quality. Twipley (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sentence makes no sense at all

Under the heading stimulation there is this sentence:

If ejaculation occurs prior to "pre-ejaculating" then it can pick up sperm that did not leave the urethra, and cause a possible pregnancy, but is not probable.[3]

This makes no sense. If ejaculation occurs prior to "pre-ejaculating"????. I know what the writer is attempting to say, but it is lacking in coherence. For this reason I am removing it.DMSBel (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That said the part about seminal fluid picking up sperm that did not leave the urethra is very valid and needs kept in the article. Perhaps it is just a case of a slightly awkward edit. I am trying to re-work this part into the paragraph in question. I note that the article on pre-ejaculate says that sperm are rarely present in pre-ejaculate. There does seem to be some significant doubt about this still. The pub-med citation does in fact say that further research is needed to verify the initial findings.

The more significant finding, however, was that most pre ejaculate samples did not contain any sperm and those that did had only small clumps of a very small amount of sperm which seemed to be immobile. A larger study is needed to verify these results.

Yet another website says sperm is present: [[27]] I am leaving it as "rarely present" for the time being. I have also added here that the pre-ejaculate can contain infections - I think this is important enough to have in the paragraph and it is also on the page for pre-ejaculate.DMSBel (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ejaculatory duct

There is a better illustration on wikipedia than the current one at the top of the page IMO. The current one does not point out the ejaculatory duct very well. I suggest it is replaced with the one here [[28]]DMSBel (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed and width increased to make labels somewhat clearer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for changing this I have been working on the image and have an enlarged version to upload, when I figure out how. I actually prefer the illustrations the size they were (is that possible), most people will click on it to enlarge and the layout looked slightly neater in the smaller size. Have to go to bed now thoughDMSBel (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

made minor change to intro paragraph

I replaced the word penis with male reproductive tract as it is more accurate.82.18.164.15 (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add new sections to the bottom of this talk page. How is male reproductive tract more accurate than penis? Semen is actually ejaculated from the urethra which travels through the penis. Also, regarding your other change, intercourse is not the only sexual cause of ejaculation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NeilN, the proper terminology is male reproductive tract [[29]]

"Male reproductive tract functions include androgen homeostasis, spermatogenesis, sperm transport and storage, and normal erectile and ejaculatory function ability. The control of these functions involves the pituitary gland, central and peripheral nervous systems, and genitalia.

- it includes all you have said, and is suitably concise for an opening paragraph. Re sexual intercourse, the intro paragraph says usually, not always or only, so IMO that allows for other causes. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't object to male reproductive tract but changing sexual stimulation to sexual intercourse is needlessly restrictive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok let it stay at stimulation, thanks for linking the other term.82.18.164.15 (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Video redundant

The video is redundant with the photos back in.82.18.164.15 (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Further to this, I do not see in discussion where the photos were suggested as supplementary, they were offered as an alternative to the video. Though discusion is still open on the need for either, until that is settled one makes the other redundant.DMSBel (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus or unanimous agreement

How do people understand consensus? Clearly it is not the same as everyone agreeing - which would be unanimity. In my view there can be a consensus co-existing with a minority in disagreement. What do others think?DMSBel (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with you, but that's not what you have here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is with what decision (remove or keep) the consensus supports. If there is not both a consensus and a minority in disagreement, then we either have a unaminity in favour of either removal or keeping, or a 50-50 split. Do you think it is fifty-fifty, or if not what action do you think the consensus would support? I apologise I hope I am understanding consensus correctly, please correct me if you disagree with my explanation.DMSBel (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of lost so as to where to reply; I thus choose to do so at the bottom of the page. Personally, I find the video educational, and non pornographic, that is, not arousing lust, at least not in me. It is viewed as appropriate by me. Twipley (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I would find it quite improbable, as was put above, that a four-years old be looking at that video. If a human being is old enough to browse through an encyclopedia, and is interested in such topics (be it a four-years old genius), so be it (in my own opinion, which I realize may differ from other people's opinion). Is it especially those reasons for differing that I think are sought to be made explicit here. Twipley (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you find it "educational", if you don't mind me asking? The opening sentences of the article describe with great detail exactly what the process of an ejaculation consists of, and the graphs help draw out more than enough of an idea. I see your argument for keeping the arbitrary, amateurish video quite weak. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 23:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that the video conveys some information that is difficult to convey through words only, that is, the pressure, the shooting, etc. Rhythmic contractions exemplified by video medium. It complements the description by images. It is hard to imagine both the shooting range and the consistency of the fluid without such a medium, I think.

However, I agree that the video is of relatively poor quality, and would hope for a better one to be included. Twipley (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not arousing lust does not mean it is not pornographic. Pornography does not arouse lust in everyone, some might feel repulsed rather than aroused.DMSBel (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think this issue springs from the definition one has of the word "pornography." "Lust arousing," or, still, designed to "stimulate sexual desire" are definitions from WordNet, which Google seems to base itself upon when one looks up for "define:pornographic." I think what I wanted to say is that it does not seem "lust arousing" to me. Twipley (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but some have said they did find it arousing, if you want to search through the archives you will see the comments (I can understand if you have better things to do, lol)DMSBel (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, lol, I've just found it through the archives. Now I'm really confused; never would have I thought possible to append the "lust arousing" label to that video. Taking a break for a while. Yours, Twipley (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes with reference to your earlier comment you see one weakness in the way I framed the argument. It was in reply to Sundar's request for an explanation of what harm it could do. The argument does not centre on 4 year olds. My main point was that introduction to sexual knowledge should be appropriate to normal development and normal progress in sexual awareness. It might be difficult even for an 8 or 9 year to understand as their body has not begun the process of making sperm. The possiblity still exists that an child over 4 years old could see it. And I doubt very much that most parents would want to use this video as a way of educating their child. What is so wrong in some peoples view with explaining things to children at the appropriate ages - just because a 8 or 9 year old does not know this stuff is not about being sheltered, its normal for them not to know. DMSBel (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

DMSBel, you seem to have a pretty strong argument there: "There are appropriate stages in child development for a child to become aware of things, and it is recognised by some developmental psychologists that giving children awareness beyond their stage of development may be in some cases harmful." However, I think it would be useful for a valid reference to that claim to be found (a reliable source).

Furthermore: I would like to hear more discussion on that claimed "confusion" resulting from difficulty of understanding. Maybe children have difficulty understanding such things. But, confusion? That might benefit from being sourced, too. What do you think? Twipley (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, I was trying to source it but it comes from memory of a TV news article - most of it seems common sense to me, maybe confusion is the wrong word. I'll see if I can come up with anything. But its not my main objection to the video, my main objection is that including it is simply overkill. I am pretty sure this would not even be used in a sex education lesson. DMSBel (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Too much, too soon": by Norman Wells. If you do a search you should find it. He writes that "introducing sex education at an early stage runs the risk of breaking down children's natural sense of reserve. Far from being a hindrance, children's natural inhibitions and sense of modesty in talking about sexual matters are healthy and provide a necessary safeguard against both sexual abuse and casual attitudes toward sexual intimacy later on." Also there is this from the Telegraph [[30]]

Agreed. As I stated earlier, there have been no good arguments for the inclusion of this video. I don't believe it is educational; the article's graphs and text provide more than enough description about the natural process. I hate to generalize the opinions of the supporters of the video, but I think many of them are just vowing to keep it solely because of its graphic nature; they think WP:NOTCENSORED should mean that all graphic and potentially offensive content is warranted, when that's not the case. A good argument is needed for why this content is necessary. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree also, the video should removed because it is not necessary, not because is is being censored. The two static images are all that is needed to illustrate the topic. No good argument to keep it is provided, just a repeat play of the "wikipedia is not censored" broken record. Postoak (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"No good arguments" - in your opinion. Have you gone through the archives and read the various debates and RfC's? Alternatively, have you gone to a random article and argued for the removal of a random photo? I'd wager that most photos on Wikipedia are not educational by your definition. You do realize that you're using the exact same arguments as Muslims do on all 14 archives Talk:Muhammad/images right? It just seems it would be hypocritical of Wikipedia to remove the video here while the same arguments are given very short shrift at Talk:Muhammad/images. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's comparing apples to oranges. We already have images on this article showing the process of ejaculation, and nobody's arguing that we shouldn't, we're saying that the video is not necessary and is not encyclopedic. Those who objected to images of Muhammad didn't want any images, for religious reasons. Comparing the use of a picture of a historical figure to illustrate its namesake's article to a video of a random amateur man ejaculating on camera and uploading it to Wikipedia (for what ever sick reason) to illustrate ejaculation is ridiculous. How can we call trivia sections unencyclopedic yet think this video is?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 04:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to bed. Thanks for your contribution here CIS, your posts are about the only thing keeping me sane in this discussion at the moment, you are right, no comparison between this and Muhammad photos. Just a crude, vulgar, amateurish, unencyclopedic cum-shot, for voyeurs to enjoy (freeze-framed as a big long drip of semen hanging from someones penis). There ya go, - that's the audience wikipedia is seemingly aiming to capture. And nothing can be done because NeilN cannot tell what is encyclopedic and what is not encyclopedic, or when ridgidly adhereing to policy violates common sense. DMSBel (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're going from "sleazy" to "inappropriate" to "crude, vulgar, amateurish", hmmm? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Unencyclopedic, not necessary, offensive, no good reason to keep it - same arguments (plus it's not a "real representation"). I did suggest using the image in this version but DMSBel rejected it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

NeilN have you been appointed as an arbiter in this dispute?DMSBel (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What have I written to make you think that? You're the one who seems to want to dictate what should go in the article without soliciting wider community input. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My reason for removing the video a couple of days ago is because I thought when I saw the page without it, I thought it had been like that for some time as I have better things to do than keep check on whether it is in or not, I therefore thought a consensus had been agreed. The re-insertion seemed like an attempt to stir up controversy again. I moved too quick to remove it I agree, but I did not enter into a revert war. I have used the discussion board for two days now, anyone can reply to me and have done so, how am I dictating on this? Initially I could barely post without you questioning me "why are you doing this, how does it improve the article etc.", and trying to lay bare my reasons. Then you lump my arguments together as IDONTLIKEIT. You did not show how they boiled down to that, only stated that it seems to you that they did. I agree IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient reason, however I have tried to look at whether the page seems encyclopedic and professional with the image even if i object to it on other grounds. And I cannot convince myself that it does.82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It won't be a straight vote count. An uninvolved editor (probably an admin or senior editor) will look at the arguments on both sides and see who has the stronger ones with more support. Or perhaps a third compromise proposal will come up. If it's close and consensus can't be determined then the matter may go to the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee (if consensus can't be determined I would drop the matter). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I've said all that I'm going to say on this matter right now. If no other editors support the inclusion of the video then I won't revert the removal of the video. If other editors feel it should stay, then I'll start an RfC if no one else will. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine by me - I have given up a lot of time on this, as have you, I cannot do a RfC until I understand better what it is and how its done. That won't be for a while as I don't have time to look it up for a few days. I don't mind in the least if someone else wants to do one.82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - As someone who just happened upon this article, and has not had any interest in editing it, I wanted to add my two cents. After reading the long drawn out "debate", I am going to have to say I would support inclusion of the video -- or rather, noone has proven to me where WP Policy says it is inappropriate for this article and must be removed. As stated previously, Wikipedia is not censored, and most of those arguing for the removal of the video have failed to provide a policy-based reason to back up their argument. In fact, a fair number of the arguments for removing it, while not outright saying so, seem rooted in editors own personal morals and/or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Personal morals and IDONTLIKEIT are not valid reasons for removing content; and when the removal of established content is contested, then the burden of proof lies on those who want it removed -- not those who want it to remain included. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 08:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be making a quite a bit of a leap here. From the start I have said that this is a quality issue, inappropriate and unneccessary content affects the quality of an article? I have the right to state what I think is sufficient content to maintain encyclopedic quality. Others can disagree if they want - I could equally argue that those including it are attempting testing the limits what can be included

You say no one has provided a policy-based argument for removal - thats just it the "arguments" if they can be called that for keeping, nearly always are mere citations of "WIKI is not censored", It is possible that removal of the video can be done for other reasons than "censorship". What I mean is that there is no outside agency like a government deciding what can or cannot be in the articles. Also tring to shift or assert who has the burden of proof here is wrong IMO, that can be used by either side to exempt themselves from making a good enough case. Policy rather says discussion should focus on the appropriateness for inclusion, see above. As articles are supposed to be encyclopedic and professional, that is how I determine appropriateness. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC) By the way, how much discussion took place before the video was included - was it just inserted or did any discussion take place first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - As noted earlier, I think such a visual medium is welcomed for people browsing an encyclopedia for educational purposes. However, it is not clear in my mind yet which one of [31] and [32] is of best quality. Twipley (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I already commented that I was in favor of inclusion of the video, as the illustration of an action. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

comment - as i stated one section above, there is no explanation as to what harm such a video does, no matter what age a person is. assumptions, hearsay and unfounded fears of parents are not acceptable. anyone who has never seen an ejaculation has the right to look it up and wikipedia is just the place to do so. no explanation, however detailed, and no drawing, however accurate, can give you an idea of an ejaculation if you never saw one before. a video does, therefore i'm fully in favour of keeping it in. for all the worried ones and crusaders, i wouldn't mind it to be hidden, so that you have to click on it to open it, plus a warning. Sundar1 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So others that have opposite opinions are "crusaders" and "worried ones". Others have the right to voice their opinion without having a label attached. Nobody said those that support the video are perverts. Postoak (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah thats the second time Sundar's argument has ammounted to little more than an ad-hominem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Listen. Arguably some of you are blind to the value of some arguments. Sundar1 has brought up a notable argument, and has labeled one camp as "crusaders," which simply mean "advocating reform." Furthermore, maybe it was not needed to call that camp "worried" peoples, but I think everyone taking part in this debate is (at least a little) inherently worried. Because, isn't that the motivation of debating in the first place? But, using labels such as "perverse" I think is really out of context. It is a plain moral judgment, and we've seen enough of those. The main problem I've noticed in this discussion to date is that it seems to be dealing with moral judgments more than with arguments as such, and it is time for it to be noted and stopped altogether. Twipley (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From DMSBel: "Just a crude, vulgar, amateurish, unencyclopedic cum-shot, for voyeurs to enjoy (freeze-framed as a big long drip of semen hanging from someones penis). There ya go, - that's the audience wikipedia is seemingly aiming to capture.". Pretty darn close. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of the site YouPorn? Look, DMSBel, voyeurs, perverts, and whatever you want to call them are welcomed to browse away to that site. The other group, the one merely interested in reading and producing/improving encyclopedic matter, will stay here and continue the debate. However, we will refrain from using such judgments as "crude," "tasteless," and "vulgar" in our arguing, because we feel they amount not to anything. I have actually encountered some information pertaining to the inclusion of a video/image medium in this thread, so you cannot just come over and label that medium "un-encyclopedic" before first reaching consensus. You can propose it, but not dogmatize it. Twipley (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I apreciate your previous two posts here Twipley, I don't agree with them entirely, but you have made some very good points in places. My objection by the way to Sundar's arguments are that two times they have descended into ad-hominem attacks. Can I ask who is the "we" here you are refering to? If we follow your advice it would restrict the grounds on which the video can be discussed as appropriate or not. This would be detrimental to the discussion. "Crude, tasteless, etc are perfectly valid terms to use in a discussion here otherwise it is left open for anything to be included. Why are moral judgements not valid here? Those who favor inclusion of the video have frequently used moral arguments in support, ie. they say they see nothing wrong with its inclusion, they say they see it causing "no harm", or question "what harm" it would cause to a child. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me Twipley, I apologise if my comments have not been clearer. By un-encyclopedic I do not mean that the video medium is un-encyclopedic, obviously in an online encyclopedia it becomes possible to include video. I have no problem with video itself. You are right we cannot dogmatise what is or is not encyclopedic with regard to media, I have a view of what I think is. My issue here is with content, not the medium. More discussion, on this needs to take place. But it is also necessary for people to say what makes it educational, if they think it is. Ejaculations are going to vary widely, is there any way of saying what is typical here? We don't know the age of the person in the video. We don't know if it is a "rested" ejaculation. There is no context to place it in. - for these reasons to me it lacks sufficient educational merit for inclusion. [Special:Contributions/82.18.164.15|82.18.164.15]](DMSBel) (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

DMSBel, can you please log in when editing? I know you don't mean any harm but avoiding even the hint of sockpuppetry is good. Also, can you indent the standard way when replying? Sorry to be a nitpick but it makes the conversation easier to follow. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, laziness on my part. You are right. just to clarify 82.18.164.15 = DMSBel DMSBel (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Another issue with the video is that it does not seem not very well staged - there is a drape of some kind behind the guy here but its not very well set up, its pulled in at the bottom and does not seem to extend all the way across. DMSBel (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree than an important issue with the video is its quality. I am not against the inclusion of such a video, but I do question the quality of that video, and whether it should be included or not. Furthermore, as NeilN has noted above (his proposition has been mentioned in my comment following the blue dot above), there might be alternatives to the video, i.e., better ones. Twipley (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As the video is included and accessible and not censored even if only linked to, do you support there just being a link to it, if that would provide a way for this dispute to be resolved?DMSBel (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left a small space here for an answer to the above and so that my thoughts below won't be misunderstood as an answer:DMSBel (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I still think this video is not appropriate, I do agree that if someone had an educational reason for needing to see an ejaculation it would be better to find it here rather than on a porn-site. I am not sure that there is any educational aspect to this video, or whether that is just a cover for wanting to upload this video and get it on the internet. It is possible I suppose that the uploader really did think this would be helpful. It is also possible that it is an attempt to test the limits of wikipedia, or just simply to cause controversy. What I really do not understand is the rejection of the compromise (by a few people here) to just link to it. It really could only be considered "censorship" if there was no way to access the video at all, as it will most likely still remain on WP it is not being censored as it will still be there. And there is already a link at the bottom of the article. Can anyone explain why that is not enough?DMSBel (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The video is not a link for the same reasons that the images are not links. All the images in the article can also be reached via the Commons link at the bottom of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try again: This issue should not be side-stepped, like it has just been. Can someone explain how providing a link to a video which is in WP Commons (and therefore freely accessible to ANYONE) is "censorship". IT IS THERE. Do people seriously think that a government censors a newspaper article by saying "for more info see page 10"!!! Seriously. Unless someone can show this to be censorship then the discussion should move away from that issue to focus on finding a compromise. While WP is not censored, it is also not here to as a platform to test the limits of what is acceptable. Surely it is vitally important to keep that in mind too?DMSBel (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The censorship is in removing the video from the article despite it being an appropiate content for readers to learn better about the topic. The commons link is for extra images and videos. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No - having a link is not the same as removal. Removal would mean no video and no link. Seems clear to me, anyone else think so?DMSBel (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to redefine the censorship concept to fit the argument at hand. If we replaced the images with links to the images we would be censoring the graphical content. Idem for the video. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No re-definement is needed or has been done (by me), I think you have misunderstood what censorship is. I would prefer to move away from censorship talk, as it is so misunderstood. The issue of censorhip has nothing to do with this article. it is just a policy and one that is being incredibily abused here. Those deliberately abusing it are going to find it difficult to participate in any discussion, for it should be seen from this debate how they have conducted themselves. I suggest we all back away from citing WP is not censored. It was agreed very early on that it should not be brought up. I am prepared to go further with this if I have to. It should be seen from the archives that censorship was rarely mentioned until recently (by those who see it as an easy way to defend their demands). That censorship was not raised (even when it was requested at times that certain pictures be removed on grounds of offensiveness) shows that removal was never except by a very small minority ever thought to be censorship. We have a few diehards here who will not compromise. People can see who they are.DMSBel (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

First, There seems to be no consensus among other editors to remove the image because you find it objectionable. Second, "when it was requested at times that certain pictures be removed on grounds of offensiveness" this is called "censorship". Third, we've asked that you give objective, rather than subjective criteria for editing the things that bother you. I have suggested, and I do again, that if you have a change in the article that will improve the quality of the article that you do that. Can you suggest a better image of the topic? If this image bothers you, let's compromise by replacing it with a better image, okay? I am not sure how any other editor views it, but when you say over and over that the only solution that you are happy with is to remove one or both images (or hide them under an inline link), it sounds to me like you are not willing to compromise. Atom (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Something that would never be used in schools

Some have claimed this video has educational merit, can anyone reference a sex education course that uses a video to depict ejaculation, I very much doubt it (in fact I would go as far as to say that I am almost absolutely certain that none would use a video like this), the subject would be handled much more discreetly than this. In fact if shown in sex ed lessons at all it is shown as it takes place during penetration.DMSBel (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're associating "education" to what is taught is schools which is irrelevant for our purposes. There are many sexually themed articles on Wikipedia whose contents would never be taught in schools. Doesn't mean they're not educational. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you got me, I was associating education with what is taught in schools, how dumb of me. Has the video been used in any educational material? I notice NeilN you tend to zoom in on what you think the minor flaws in an argument and assume that identifying any such flaws automatically supports your viewpoint. How would you define educational? I define it by what an educational establishment would be likely to use, does not have to be schools but obviously it is a useful test and relevant here to ask what content might a sexual education course use. There have also be television shows on sexuality, now i am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, but I highly doubt that any of them has shown anything remotely like this, and of course they are not censored either, in the case of the TV shows the producers simply have a better sense of what is crass, and the intelligence not to use it. Can you prove to me that it is educational and that it would be likely to be used in other educational sources? This is important, the video is kept in the article only by default or page protection. It is fairly likely that this and other images were uploaded to test the limits of wikipedia. I mean would anyone filming this not have wondered will wikipedia editors actually use something as explicit as this in an article? There have been only the weakest arguments in support of keeping it. Quite simply the arguments for keeping actually amount to little more than thought-terminating cliche's [[33]] - "because that is our policy". DMSBel (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)