Talk:Creampie (sexual act)

Upgrade to image

I have installed an improved version of the original image, with a little more color (why should the poor woman have to have plain sheets - a nice print is much better). If anyone prefers the original version, we can discuss aesthetics here on this talk page. Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it, there's no reason to change the image. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"[T]here's no reason to change the image" is not actually an argument. There is plenty of reason to change the image. It's a fairly poor image to begin with, and adding some color enhances the image and adds a much more "realistic" feeling to the scenario. In addition to which, as pointed in the link that you deleted -- which after all is a previous discussion on a deleted version of this page -- , a paterned sheet reduces the visibility of staining and is therefore probably recommended and therefore more realistic. Herostratus (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, if you have a real reason to change the image (not a poor attempt at a joke about sexual health) then by all means begin a discussion. Until then there's no reason to disrupt WP by making inane changes to encyclopedic images. Please stop doing so. Further, the link you contributed was purposely misleading, feel free to use the archives to find legitmate previous discussions if you so wish. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: the discussion he was linking to was an offsite archive of Wikipedia with the names removed. The original is still preserved at Talk:Cum fart#Diagram. —Soap— 23:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I didn't check talk page before reverting Beyond My Ken -my fault. Problem is, it seems the image Herostratus added is deleted (judging from how this diff looks like), so I don't really know how to weigh into the discussion. While we debate which image to put, wouldn't it be better anyway to fall back to the default one while we talk? --Cyclopia^talk 02:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right, I did not realize that page still existed, sorry for that link. As to the other: I appreciate the note that "This is an encyclopedia". I did not know that. I thought it was a cheese shop in Devonshire. OK? Now moving on to the substance of the matter... um, is there one? I have not found WP:PLAIN SHEETS ARE PREFERABLE TO PATTERNED SHEETS or its equivalent. "[P]oor attempt at a joke" and "inane changes" are not arguments and not discussion. At any rate, another user removed the image and, while the matter is in dispute, perhaps this is the best interim solution. Herostratus (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I don't think that there is a "default" image. Probably best to have no image while we work this out. Herostratus (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Better having one than none. By "default" I mean: the one that was there before all of this happened. --Cyclopia^talk 03:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)No image is necessary, the text more than adequately describes the act, the image adds no new information, and, in fact, does a very poor job of illustration. This has nothing to do with censorship, I don't object to the image per se, there simply is no need for it, and we don't encourage extraneous images (free or otherwise) which do not add something to the article. The reader's understanding of what a creampie is is not in any respect enhanced by seeing the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If an image depicts the article subject, it is proper in the article. See human nose: I guess everyone knows how an human nose looks like, yet I don't think we go deleting that image because it is "unnecessary". An image depicting the article subject always enhances understanding. If it doesn't that for you, that's no reason to make it impossible to do that for others. --Cyclopia^talk 03:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a poor-quality image; we would not feature a comparable quality drawing of a nose in Nose. I would not be in favour of including a photograph, either, and indeed prefer presentation of the text without an accompanying image. If editors do want an image, the best course of action would probably be to contact User:Seedfeeder in Commons, who might be able to produce something useful. --JN466 13:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that I have renamed "File:Cumfart 01.svg" to "File:Creampie drawing 1.svg" in Commons. --JN466 13:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -the renaming is indeed a good idea. --Cyclopia^talk 17:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing discussion and activities here, at ANI, and the images, I have concluded that Herostratus disrupted Wikipedia to try and make a point. I have issued a final warning; he's not a new user and knows better. This shouldn't have happened. The generic point and discussion about appropriateness of images are fine. Playing silly buggers with image files and disruption to try and make the point are not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree entirely, I've read the sections, Maybe George Herbert can back up what has been disruptive. I think he's quire missed the mark. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)My attention was drawn to this issue by the ANI discussion, but has given me some concern over the lack of application of policy. From a review of the edit history, the now disputed original image has been in place since January 2010 and there has been around 90 edits to the page between then and Herostratus' first edit to it. I should argue that a WP:Consensus is apparent for its inclusion in "original" form, and that consensus would need to be changed for it to be amended or removed. The two ways to change it would be by prior discussion - which did not happen in this instance - or Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/WP:BRD. It appears to me that WP:BRD was attempted in both amending the image and later removing it, and in each case the edit was reverted. However, instead of then moving to the discuss aspect an edit war took place while there was talkpage activity. I would strongly suggest that unless and until there is a consensus for the removal or alteration of the image it should be returned to the page. I think that User:Beyond My Ken should restore the image, and then continue the discussion why they feel it should be removed (or amended) and try to form a consensus for that view. Only at this point should WP:NOTCENSORED or other considerations be raised. I am disappointed that - again - personal viewpoints over what is (not)suitable has taken over from discussion based in policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To Hellinabucket; I agree with GWH that Herostratus was disruptive in making a point, in that they did not follow the correct procedures in trying to amend or remove the image but was intent in trying to enforce a viewpoint. Their quick resort to personal attacks instead of arguing upon policy indicated they were not interested in following the proper route for resolving these issues. It was my intent to warn Herostratus for that, also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with LessHeard vanU. I'd restore the image but I consider myself involved, having done it before. --Cyclopia^talk 17:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the image, we use similar images on a lot of other sexually explicit articles where an image is necessary to aid understanding but a drawing does just the same job as a photo. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

First, there is no necessity for an image, given the text is explicit and clear. Second, if we have an image, it should be one that adequately illustrates the act, this one does not. Third, we are not obliged to use a free image simply because it is free and available, especially when the quality is closer to what one would find on a men's room stall than to what one would want to see in an encyclopedia. This has zero to do with the subject matter, or with censorship, and everything to do with the image being extremely poor quality, not sufficiently illustrative, and adding nothing to the article. Let's not confuse issues here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and think the image adequately illustrates the subject matter in as much detail as is necessary. Because the text is sufficient to you, does not mean that is the case for other users. Others prefer images as it aids understanding. I din't quite understand your free image argument, I've not mentioned free images and have no interest in whether it is free or not. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you but it would appear that interested editors are generally in favour of keeping the image and I think that your opinion of it shouldn't trump our trying to make a more accessible, user-friendly encyclopedia. If you really feel that the quality is so poor you may want to address the other articles where similar images are used. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Let me be clear. I do not think that the article requires an image, as the text is perfectly clear without one, but my objection is not to the article having an image per se, but to the use of this specific image. It's clear that the consensus here is that images should not be removed because of their sexual content, and I agree with that, but my removal was not for the general content of the image, but because it specifically is inadequate and of poor quality. This is resona I removed the image, and it should not be restored until a consensus is found which agrees not about the use of any image for this subject matter, but the use of this specific image.

In other words, my removal was not based on any interpretation of policy which might be construed as censorship, but was an editorial decision based on the quality of the image. As with the drawings made by User:Rama, I do not think we benefit from having poor-quality images just for the sake of having an image. If we do accept a poor quality image, it must bring something to the article which the text does not, and that is not the case here.

So reversions of my removal on the basis of WP:NOTCENSORED are misguided, since that's not why I removed the image. Let's have a discussion about the efficacy of this specific image and not about images in general. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly concur with Beyond My Ken. That is one of the most sophomoric, unprofessional, and generally unencylopedic illustrations I've seen on Wikipedia. It is absolutely inappropriate for this article. Not because it has OH MY GOD NAKED GIRL PARTS, but because it is a poor illustration. Removing that image isn't censorship. It's editing. Nandesuka (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand the argument that there is an issue with the quality of the image, but I still regard the removal as against consensus; in that the image has been in place for a reasonable time and over several scores of edits. The image should be returned until there is a recognised consensus that it should be removed/replaced. Consensus is not negotiable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of "consensus" would not allow any long-standing problem in an article to be corrected, simply because it has been overlooked or ignored for someperiod of time. That hardly seems in line with what we, as editors, do, which is to fix and upgrade articles. In this case, the image is poor and the article is improved by its removal. , we will find out if there is a consensus when that is determined here, without threat of sanctioning for our normal editorial actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, since a full review of the policy would show that "against consensus" is an invalid argument for reverting an edit. "No consensus" for the new edit, however, is - it just means that the B and R of WP:BRD has now been covered and it goes to the D aspect. Also, as consensus is based in policy and not numbers a good edit that is "bounced" should always prove to be kept after discussion. Editors who appear to WP:OWN the content of an article and disallow good faith attempts at improvement are every bit as disruptive as those who persistently unilaterally change the text, and are just as liable to be warned (and sanctioned) for their non collegiate, non consensus seeking, editing mannerisms. This really is the way that editing disputes are supposed to be resolved, by seeing who has the best interpretation under policy, because editorial decisions made on that basis can only be undone should policy (or its reading) change. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this image adds anything to article. The text, although short, describes it fairly well. My personal experience with this was that I saw the act itself a long time after I first read about it and- unsurprisingly- I was not surprised at all, because the writing was sufficiently detailed. I wouldn't necessarily object to any image here (such images don't offend me; people have been doing this for thousands of years, who am I to object?), but the one currently in the article isn't cutting it for me; it's obviously an amateur drawing, and doesn't have nearly the sort of quality that would be expected in an encyclopedia. Like Nandesuka said above, it's the drawing itself, and not what it depicts, that's the main problem, at least for me. Using the example of a nose is a red herring; this article isn't describing a thing, it's describing an act, and there's a big difference. I can go into more detail, but I'll save that for another post so this one doesn't enter tl;dr territory. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

re WP:CONSENSUS

I would draw editors attention to the wording of the first couple of sentences found at Wikipedia:Consensus#Process; "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process on articles across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." Therefore, by the image not being reverted until several months and very many edits to the page it is clear that there is consensus for its conclusion - and equally clear that there is no consensus for its removal pending discussion, since those edits were immediately challenged. For the record I have warned Beyond My Ken for edit warring against consensus, and I will enact sanctions upon further instances of edit warring. The image should be returned to the article, and only removed when it is agreed that, under policy, it should be either replaced or removed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that this is not an administrative issue at all, but a normal part of the back and forth of reaching consensus. BMK's reversions were not edit warring in the normal sense, but rather a response to those reverting him on the basis that he was trying to censor any image, rather than removing an inappropriate image. Issuing warnings seems a bit premature (although this issue is confused by the "smiley face" replacements issue raised on AN/I, that happened at around the same time, it's clear that BMK's edits are not directly related to those). LessHeard vanU, I think you are jumping the gun. Nandesuka (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Nandesuka, you are exactly right in all instances. LHVU's threat to sanction me was unwarranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Image discussion

Well, now that the image has been reintroduced, let's discuss.

• Remove. In my view, the image degrades the article; it is a poor-quality amateur drawing, and we would not feature a drawing of comparable quality in any other more mainstream article. I don't see why this article should have a poor illustration foisted upon it. --JN466 01:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Remove per my rationale above. If you really want me to copy it down, I can. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Remove. This particular image looks, quite literally, like it came from a 7th-grader's sketchbook. It is neither anatomically correct, nor does it shed any light beyond the text of the article. It is amateurish. Nandesuka (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Remove per my multiple comments above: the image is of exceedingly poor quality (like something off a men's room stall), does not well-represent the act involved, and does not add anything to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep or remove, but not "improve". The image is sufficient for the article subject to be understood at a glance, and the viewer may then choose to read or leave the page; a better graphic or image is unlikely to enhance the understanding of the subject, but may be considered more offensive to some readers. I tend toward keep on that basis, and also because not all readers will have the command of the language to understand the text to the standard of the image but would not object to the removal of the image. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep : Most of the arguments here boil down to the image quality. Now, Wikipedia is not meant to be an art gallery, it is meant to be an encyclopedia. I agree the image is not great. However it does its job, that is, depicting the article subject. A poor quality but clear and correct image is better than no image at all. Of course if and when a better image comes out, the better, but meanwhile this is no reason to remove it entirely. We don't delete articles because they are poorly written; therefore we shouldn't remove an image because it is not beautifully drawn. Moreover, "quality" is a subjective judgement: what is more important in this context is the content. --Cyclopia^talk 12:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep It's a basic drawing that clearly depicts the subject matter. The fact that the drawing is simple is a feature, not a bug. It conveys everything that needs conveying about the subject immediately, without excessive details. If anyone still possess a physical dictionary, such as Merriam Webster, take a look at the illustrations in that. They're all basic line drawings. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 20:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep WP is an encyclopedia, not a porn site. The image is sufficiently detailed and of good enough quality to illustrate the subject matter. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, since for now, it's the best free image we've got. Though I'd note, that if anyone would like to come up with an image they'd like to suggest as a replacement, they're certainly free to do so. But we do illustrate articles such as this, despite the fact that such illustrations may not be comfortable for everyone. We're not censored, and that includes on topics some people may be squeamish about. (I would also note that these issues are not generally decided by polling, and there seemed to be a perfectly good discussion on the matter.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

  WP:NOTCENSORED isn't being challenged here; I don't think anyone who wants this removed is trying to "censor" the article (in fact, I explicitly (har!) said above that I'm not opposed to having an image in the article). I'd just rather have a drawing that looks more "professional"- although I know this isn't an art gallery, it's also not deviantart.com- it's an encyclopedia, and images should meet a basic standard. After taking a gander at other articles on similar topics, I noticed that the illustrations (where there were illustrations) were clearly done by someone with considerably more skill. If I had any ability to draw (my fine motor coordination is so abysmal that I physically can't), I'd make a better drawing myself, because someone has to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  I've asked User:Seedfeeder if he can help us out here. (Although he doesn't usually do illustrations for articles comprising less than three paragraphs. Perhaps someone might like to expand the article, using reliable sources, to increase our chances of his taking the job on?) --JN466 03:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  If you can give me until Friday, I'll have some time; this is the sort of thing I'd rather research when I know I'll be alone. Of course, it'd be great if I had assistance. If we can, then Seedfeeder would seem to be the perfect person for this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)\

  I'll chip in if I find time. :) Some sources in google books: [1] Some of these are used already. --JN466 08:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete image and don't replace, an image is not needed here. If the image is replaced, the subject should definitely be male, for various good reasons I won't go into here. Also, if the image is replaced, there should definitely be an accompanying .OGG file to aid in scholarly understanding of the subject. Herostratus (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • For the record, my preference would also be to present text only (but if we have a picture, it should at least be well done). A creampie image has a strong visual impact, and is processed by parts of the brain that are very different from those ordinarily involved in reading an encyclopedia. The net effect is that, going beyond the basic "semen oozing from an orifice" information, the image actually distracts and detracts from the information the article can provide, rather than adding to it. Its presence decreases rather than increases the likelihood of the reader processing the information provided in the text. --JN466 03:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Are you serious? I find it quite insulting to our readers that you assume them incapable of reading a short article because there is the illustration of a sexual act. They may be distracted for a few seconds, granted, but it's not like their blood drops completely from the brain to the genitals. --Cyclopia^talk 08:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Quite serious. :) It is not insulting to assume that people are human; ask a psychologist. Incidentally, Jimbo once went so far as to say images could completely destroy the educational value of an article on pornography. --JN466 13:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Jimbo gets a lot of stuff wrong on these issues. He panicks about PR. --Cyclopia^talk 13:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I am of the philosophical perspective that relevant media should be associated with a particular article. The perceived 'quality' (or lack of) is not sufficient justification for the removal of an image. Passages containing poor spelling, grammar, and/or prose are not deleted out-of-hand, but are instead corrected to improved their utility. In short, until a more accurate and aesthetic image is provided, I see no reason to delete this particular one. --SeedFeeder (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Seedfeeder has said on his talk page that the article is not developed enough at present for him to invest time in creating a better picture. --JN466 13:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The quality is not great but it depicts the subject perfectly well. It is also free. If someone wants to get a picture or create a new image that they feel is better then that is something that should be considered. Since both have substantial hurdles we should be happy that someone put up some media for us to use for now.Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, we do have others available (not work appropriate from the related Wikimedia Commons). I am under the impression that the shots (pun intended) might be a problem with the new standards that were being considered a few months ago over there but am not sure.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are photos, these should definitely be used, making also moot many of the "drawing quality" concerns above. --Cyclopia^talk 11:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The image is representative of the topic. I think that a real image of the topic, rather than a line drawing would be better. Atom (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC?

Should this discussion be widened into a formal RfC, since there appears to be more of a majority toward one option rather than a consensus? A RfC will hopefully draw in a wider range of commentators. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Cyclopia^talk 13:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think another option should be listed in the RfC below (thanks for doing the necessary, Herostratus) which is improve/delete or improve - some of those who wish the image removed want a better one, and some want no image at all. I think the original votes can be retallied on that basis (and perhaps some of the keeps can be moved into a "improve" tally?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Request for Comment

• This RFC is Closed. Keep the current image until a higher quality image that a consensus agrees upon is found. WP:CENSOR carries the strongest weight. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Some editors above have suggested a Request for Comment re the image, so this is it. There has been discussion already directly above at Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#Upgrade to image and Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#re WP:CONSENSUS.

To summarize:

• Some editors think that the image is substandard and should be removed pending improvement.
• Other editors have said the image is OK.
• Other editors have said the article shouldn't have an image at all.

No one has come forward with an improved version, except for the one shown below at right, which is felt by some to be no improvement.

The existing image

File:220px-Cumfart 02.png

The only alternate that has been put forward so far

A count of traditional bolded comment summaries above show, so far, 5 Remove, 6 Keep, 1 "Keep or Remove but do not improve". (Of course this is a great generalzation of the many interesting and cogent arguments advanced above.) New perspectives are invited. Herostratus (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• You failed to mention that other alternatives have been submitted: commons:Category:Creampie (sexual act) And Keep as commented above[2] Cptnono (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• As Cptnono has shown, we've already got free content photos on Commons that are actual photos. You can't "improve" much more than that. So most certainly keep, and use one of those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, are you guys serious? Nooooooo, no photos, please. While we are all in favor of information, there is such as thing as Too Much Information, if you know what we mean. Or, to get more technical, 1) a photo can detract from a scholarly article by overemphasizing the visual, and 2) it's difficult to fully appreciate the scholarly virtues of an article while you are cleaning your breakfast off your keyboard. Herostratus (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hero, Wikipedia is not censored. Images can't be removed just because you happen to think it's too much information. As for which image, I personally think a real photo should be on the page, but I'm not sure which one. Real photos, unless of low quality, always convey the information better than a sketch will. --13² 18:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If I put a video of me dumping a shit in the article defecation, will you also argue that it has to remain in the article because "WP is not censored" and you cannot get better than an actual video of the act? There is such a thing as editorial judgment, you know, and NOTCENSORED is a poor replacement for it. --JN466 01:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In the defecation article, I think we could reasonably argue that a video of an animal defecating is just as illustrative and far less distracting, so I'd support that instead. I would not, however, support no video whatsoever—if we did have such an animal photo or video, I would certainly support its use. That's what we have free media for. In this case, however, since this is in essence a term applicable only to humans (unlike defecation), a human photo is about the only option. I mean, really—who comes to an article entitled "Creampie (sexual act)" and expects to not find content about, well, sex? The fact that it makes some people squeamish is in no way a reason to avoid illustrating an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It is a policy. Your argument of editorial judgment is addressed in it "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so". Note the exceedingly so bit. Wikipedia encourages users to upload their ownf images. Some editors believe that paintings and drawings are preferable but there are exceptions. Can you say that we are not attempting to treat it in an encyclopedic manner? You don't get any more straight forward then a view of the subject without distractions (an actor pulling a funny face while climaxing or some naughty lingerie). It is a simple image the depicts the subject. It is considered obscene to some but to others it is perfectly reasonable. It is a subject that causes distraction in the text to many people. An image pairs with it nicely and should not draw undue focus away from it. And keep in mind that everyone reads an article differently. Some scan images and leads. Some click on every source. This image will assist the understanding (as odd as that may sound) for some readers. The only reason for objection I can see to using the actual photograph is legal issues but it is a gray area that even Commons hasn't worked out. It has the license we need so we should be able to run with it. If that is too offensive then editors need to get over the lower quality of the drawing since it isn not as bad as some are asserting. It isn't perfect but it is good enough and will likely reduce the knee-jerk reaction of seeing a vagina with some semen. Let me know if you need some wikilinks to support the above.Cptnono (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what we do here in this article, I do think as a culture we have to grow beyond NOTCENSORED as a kill-all argument against removing any media file from an article. Take beheading videos embedded in the biographies of all the people who were beheaded in Iraq, or rape videos in rape -- including the latter would be illegal according to law in Florida, where our servers are located, but would you argue that based on NOTCENSORED Wikipedia should feature such a video, and will do so if and when our servers are relocated to a country with less restrictive legislation? --JN466 13:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

How exactly would you propose to get an appropriately licensed video of a rape? "Yep, that's me, I'm the copyright holder! No, I certainly am...why are all those police cars parked outside my house?" We would also have significant privacy issues there, as the victim would almost certainly have been filmed unwillingly. That's quite different than a shot where the person, in addition to not being identifiable, is also clearly knowingly posing for the shot. There is a tremendous difference between rape and consensual sexual activity, as I certainly hope everyone here would know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe you may be sidestepping the issue, by bringing hypothetical objections into play which may not apply, and to avoid thinking about the question. The beheading videos e.g. may well have been released under a CC license -- certainly they were meant to be circulated as widely as possible -- and there is nothing in NOTCENSORED that prohibits the inclusion of media depicting injuries people suffered against their will, or media that is exceedingly offensive. In the case of rape, simply assume that a video is available (rape videos are commercially available, after all), and assume even, for argument's sake, that the person is not recognisable, because their face is covered or out of shot. Or indeed, assume that the person is reconisable and consent is not a problem -- recently we had an editor here, User:TechnoFaye (now banned), who claimed to be a woman who liked being raped, and who posts pictures of rape, and videos of herself, on her blog. Note the self-description at the bottom. This was one of the account's edits to the rape article. It would be entirely within character for such a user to post an image or video of rape under a CC license, insert it in the rape article, and argue that it is informative and must not be removed under NOTCENSORED. If that were to happen, would we all stand up and say, The image has to remain, because (1) Wikipedia is not censored, (2) whether the image is exceedingly offensive to viewers does not matter, and (3) what could be more informative about rape than an image of it? I believe not; and that is why arguments of this type should not be conducted on the basis of NOTCENSORED, but on the basis of editorial judgment. --JN466 00:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would involve editorial judgment (not the least of which the question of whether something someone likes and wants is a rape at all, but that'd be a discussion more specific to the situation). But I suppose, in the unlikely even that we were to get a video that were appropriately licensed, did not raise privacy concerns, and was germane to the subject, we'd use it. Why shouldn't we? The specific role of NOTCENSORED is to say "We do not exclude things because people are squeamish about them", and replacing the word "censor" with "editorial judgment" is a simple case of euphemism, and does not change what it means. As to the beheading videos, yes, yes, and most certainly yes. We show graphic images of suffering in articles about The Holocaust, even though that may not be the most comfortable thing for some people. Why wouldn't we do so in an article about another horrific act, if the material is under a license we can use it with? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position that you consider it desirable, perhaps even imperative, to include videos of actual rape in Rape, and videos of actual murder in Wikipedia biographies of murder victims, and that the only thing that prevents you from doing so at present is a lack of suitably licensed media files. I can't say that I agree with you – I don't see WP:NOTCENSORED saying that we are duty-bound to include such material, i.e. forbidden not to include it -- but it makes your stance clear, and I will bear it in mind should we discuss similar issues again. --JN466 01:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my position. You asked for what it would be in a hypothetical situation where several restrictions that would apply in reality didn't. As I said, in reality, it would be difficult if not impossible to get a video of rape that did not implicate privacy, licensing, or both, and I know of no such video in existence (we would certainly have the privacy issue, in which a victim of actual rape is by definition not consenting to the act, let alone its filming). As to the murder videos, as I said, we certainly do provide relevant images, even when they are difficult, to the corresponding articles, provided that they are either appropriately licensed or are acceptable as nonfree content. I think we are absolutely bound to include such things. We are not only here to educate people about easy subjects, we're here to educate on the parts of the world that are difficult or revolting as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I still find it amazing that you would be prepared to "educate" readers about rape by showing them a video of one (there may well be historical ones that are out of copyright, and whose participants have died). Do you think this is the sort of thing readers, especially female readers, would be looking for if they go to rape? I find it equally amazing that you would "educate" readers about the Iraqi murder victims by including the videos of their killings in their biographies, without considering readers' feelings, or indeed the feelings of these people's families. (Present consensus at these articles does not even support linking to the videos. Anyone who really wants to see them can find them online in less than a minute.) As far as I am concerned, your position is logical, but lacks humanity and empathy. --JN466 05:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting off topic and straying down a weird path. But a note, it isn;t about the female readers. It is about readers reading work like Wikipedia (as well as everywhere else both on and off the internet) differently. Human feces would be great in that article (different colors, consistency and so on can mean different things health wise) and rape might also have a valid rationale (I don;t know and won;t get sucked into that sure-to-be terrible discussion unless it is over there). In THIS article, as I have pointed out, it does not unduely distract from the topic while also illustrating the topic.Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have no issues with videos of animals (including humans) defecating on appropriate articles. I'm sure you were looking for an "OMG THAT'S SO GROSS!" response, but you won't find it from me. --13² 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is not whether you would be grossed out watching it. The question is, what encyclopedic value would it add? I don't think there is a single human being on the planet who needs to watch a video of a person defecating to understand how defecation works. --JN466 13:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If that is your real rationale, then why aren't you going to support removal of images from human nose? But your chat about rape and beheading (both subjects for which I'd strongly advocate a video for, if there could be a free, privacy-keeping one) makes me lose WP:AGF a bittle on this grasping at straws of yours. Let me remember that we, as a culture, had to grow up a lot to accept not being censored. Censoring is the exact opposite of "growing up as a culture", Jayen. --Cyclopia^talk 07:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the use of an animal in illustrating this article has been extensively discussed, and in fact was more or less accepted as preferable. This was after some discussion over the which sex the figure should represent; the consensus being that, with an animal, the fur could cover the naughty bits, rendering the dispute moot. Obviously the requirement for fur would rule out some species, such as giraffe, tapir, or lobster. How about a roundworm? They don't have sex organs. Anyway, leaving up for further discussion the matter of the preferred species, I'll be the first to support this.

• Support inclusion of an image, but only if it avoids human-centric bias by depicting an animal. Herostratus (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think that would be frankly bizarre - there is nothing in the text that refers to animals, but everything about human sexual behaviour. Creampie, as in sex, is specifically about either the use of a term relating to pornographic depictions, or a fetishist consideration within a sexual act. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with LHVU here. --JN466 13:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Frankly bizarre" is not, in my experience, a valid reason for rejecting encyclopedic content, and may I remind you that the Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. I think rejecting out of hand that our four-footed friends may fully participate in loving and caring consensual interspecies sexual encounters, and be so depicted, is what is frankly bizarre. Herostratus (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest that "interspecies sexual encounter" seems to be another word for bestiality (and all that that entails, regardless of WP:NOTCENSORED) but my point is that the article specifically notes that the subject is derived from the pornography industry, descriptions and the titles exampling such productions do not include references to animals. While I am sure that there are images available of post animal mating - same species, obviously - they would not reflect the content of the text. A picture of a recently serviced mare is not a suitable image for an article noting a human sexual act. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• I assume he was not being serious. —Soap— 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the article should be illustrated with an image, and if there is a photograph available, it should be used. I find the drawing frankly grotesque, and actually offensive to me as a female.

Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 09:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• • For reference, there are two available photographs at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Creampie_(sexual_act). The one that is technically better is of a coloured person. Robert Harris, the Foundation consultant currently looking into the question of controversial content, commented the other day that Commons hosts around 1,000 images of penises, and they are all white. Yet the one decent photo of a creampie we have in Commons features a coloured woman; it was originally titled "File:IndoMiMiPussyCream-1.jpg" and authored by someone called "Hardttcore". I find that bias towards serving white males' proclivities offensive, too. --JN466 13:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. If there is an image in this article, it would have to be a male. It's disturbing that in all the sex images I come across here, when a person is shown in an awkward, compromising, unfortunate, or degrading position, it is always a woman. I think the subtext of this is frankly unacceptable. Let the gentlemen step up to the plate and take some of the awkward poses. Herostratus (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that this type of thing used to be more common in gay pornography, an illustration showing a male would arguably be more relevant. --JN466 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it is more prominent but that is OR. More importantly, can you draw such an image? I can't but wouldn't be against someone else doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs)

• Remove, unless someone can come up with a freely-licensed photograph of the act that is notable in and of itself, according to reliable sources. It doesn't seem to me that this concept demands illustration for illustration's sake. It's described perfectly adequately in text, and in fact no one drawing seems able to adequately capture all possible meanings of the term as defined in the article. Doing so with drawings would create a pornographic gallery, not an encyclopedia article, due to the variations required. Therefore, I think any depiction should be specifically notable for some valid reason. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content WP:NNC so your reasoning is by know means a requirement across the project. And as discussed above (02:03, 29 September 2010) a single image illustrating the subject in a way that is no more distracting than the text itself can be achieved. This is not a pornographic gallery.Cptnono (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of a photo: since we have good photographic alternatives on Commons, it is absurd not to use them. Standard considerations apply: given that we are not subject to censorship and that such a picture would be a direct illustration of article subject, the picture is therefore appropriate and there are no encyclopedic or legal considerations to remove it. --Cyclopia^talk 07:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• If we are leaning towards using a photo, then I assume we need to figure out which one. We could use both with the recent expansion but I understand the concern of turning it into a gallery. If we do want to address legalities, there could be a problem of no proof of age. I don't know if the pubic hair (see Tanner scale) or protruding labia are enough to make the assumption. There also could be a concern with a release from the subjects. Not sure though and it doesn't look like there has been a problem at Commons with either (besides a deletion discussion that resulted in "keep"). I would like to use at least one of those but don't know what would be preferred.Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I was just thinking of asking Seedfeeder again if he could do a piece of artwork, as the article now meets his minimum length and content criteria. It might be possible to do an image of an anal creampie that leaves the recipient's gender ambiguous – either by having the penis cover the relevant area, or by having hands stretching the anus, and covering it that way. Thoughts? --JN466 02:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Those sound like fine ideas but I don't know if he takes requests that specialized. He might also decline it since we have two photos and a drawing. Might be worth asking though.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. --JN466 03:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Update. --JN466 00:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't understand why can't we use the Commons photos instead of bothering Seedfeeder. --Cyclopia^talk 10:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• keep an image in the article. I don't care if a image or a drawing is used, as long as the drawing illustrates well the topic (and the drawing at the top of the RfC is good enough for me).

And why on heavens should we use animal photos instead of human ones? And I think that the overwhelming majority of sources are about human creampie? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep WP:NOTCENSORED - simple. If someone makes a better image then sure we should remove this one, but in the same way we don't delete an article because it is badly written, we don't remove an image because it looks a bit amateurish. If people don't like this one, maybe they should contact the creators of the images found in cum shot, Pearl necklace (sexuality) and other articles to see if they might make a new one for here. (Just noticed that's already been done). Smartse (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion (NB: judged premature, consensus is the RfC will remain open until 27 October)

Well, discussion has pretty much died down here and so the RfC has run its course. Let's see where we stand.

There hasn't been much support shown for depicting an animal or for using the alternate File:220px-Cumfart 02.png, so let's dispemse with those.

There have been discussions about obtaining a replacement image, but so far nothing has come of that. So that's not an available option at this time.

There was some support for using a photograph (two are available). So the options in play are are:

• Keep current image
• No image
• Photograph

Prior to the RfC the Keep/No Image "votes" were about even at around 5. The RfC produced few extra "votes" on the Keep/No Image line, instead adding a couple of Use Photo "votes" and considerable discussion around the idea of using a photo. However, the "Use Photo" camp didn't garner enough "votes" to get numbers to match the Keep/No Image camps, and there were also some anti-Photo comments.

In addition: I don't know if the "Use Photo" faction is kidding or not, but if they are kidding they should be congratulated for keeping a straight face throughout. I was hoping for the kicker final post that said just "...the Aristocrats!" But if they're not kidding: of course there isn't going to be a photo. Don't be silly. It would be have immediately removed under the "Obviously inappropriate content" clause, for starters.

So that leaves us about where we were before the RfC: Keep, or No Image. As I said, the "votes" are about the same. But we don't really count numbers of "votes" in a case like this.

Well, what we are left with here is strength of argument. Let's see:

• One editor called it a "poor-quality amateur drawing" that "degrades the article".
• Another editor said it was "obviously an amateur drawing, and doesn't have nearly the sort of quality that would be expected in an encyclopedia".
• Another editor said the image "looks, quite literally, like it came from a 7th-grader's sketchbook".
• Another editor described the image as "of exceedingly poor quality (like something off a men's room stall)".
• Another editor found the drawing "frankly grotesque, and actually offensive to me as a female."
• I didn't comment on the quality of the image, but I concur that it's basically of amateur mens-room-wall grafiti quality and well below the quality of any other article illustration I can recall.

That's a lot of pretty strongly worded negative commentary.

The "Keep" commenters weren't really able to refute any of this. No Keep commenter said anything like "of fully professional quality, comperable or even superior many of our article graphics" or whatever. Because they couldn't, because it isn't. The comments were in the manner of:

• "sufficient for the article"
• "of good enough quality"
• "perceived 'quality' (or lack of) is not sufficient justification for the removal of an image"
• "The quality is not great but it depicts the subject perfectly well"
• "agree the image is not great. However it does its job... A poor quality but clear and correct image is better than no image"

Kind of damning with faint praise, as it were. Only one editor really defended the image as being of good quality, saying that it was a "basic drawing that clearly depicts the subject matter", comparable to images in "a physical dictionary, such as Merriam Webster" which are also "all basic line drawings"

So you pretty much have have every single editor agreeing that it's a substandard image. That's not a really good indication for keeping the image. And the folks who don't like it really don't like it, and the defenders don't really like it. So all in all, I don't see any strength of argument on the Keep side. So I deleted the image. I don't think there's any easy way to appeal beyond actually going nuclear, so let's please be graceful and not edit war over this, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC has not run its course. Even if it had been concluded, !votes and arguments discussing policy and guidelines are still in favor. A replacement is a good option but that also needs to be discussed. Just removing is not acceptable at this time.Cptnono (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, somebody has to decide these things. We can't keep the RfC open forever, and discussion seems to have pretty much died off. If anyone is going to close, it might as well be me, since I'm reasonably fair-minded (I closed my own RfA with a decision against myself even though it could have been arguable, for instance). I can't remove half the image or something. What would be unacceptable is edit warring. I am not really up on the steps following an RfC close, but Wikipedia:Dispute resolution probably has info, or you could ask around. You can certainly request an ArbCom ruling, I don't know if that's the recommended next step or not. But good luck, and let me know what you come up with. Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK, just glancing at the dispute resolution stuff, there is also mediation, I guess. I don't know anything about that but you can look into it if you like. Herostratus (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RfCs can run 30 days. No need to pull the trigger early. Furthermore, editors have been saying a photo would be good. A new image does not mean NO image at this time. If you want to move on to that discussion then fine but so far there is not consensus to remove the image while more editors have supported an image (including the drawing). (I also removed an errant copy and paste on this talk page) And no further DR is needed unless you continue to remove the image without consensus.Cptnono (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And the recent conversation #Upgrade to image (and the following sub sections) should not be disregarded simply because the conversation was expanded. Many arguments for Keep there. Please also see.[3]Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RfCs have to be closed by uninvolved editor. This is disruptive, Herostratus. --Cyclopia^talk 08:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would note that I have warned Herostratus that he will be blocked if he again attempts to enforce his version of consensus in this matter - and also noted that some of his contributions to the discussion verged on trolling (and I am referring to his suggesstions of using depictions of animals, and for his apparent disinclination to provide reasons for using images of males or nondetermined gendered individuals). I have no objections, of course, for Herostratus' continued policy compliant participation in these discussions or elsewhere on the article and talkpages, but think that AGF has been extended as far as it can go in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you, especially on the "verge on trolling" thing. --Cyclopia^talk 14:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I should not have attempted to close the RfC. I didn't know about the 30-day rule (and can be reasonably be chastised for failing to do due diligence). So sorry, and ignore that. I was just operating on the basis of "well, this seems to have run its course, no new editors have joined in for a while, and I suppose it's dropping down on the RfC list so we probably won't get any more, and no new data is being presented, so let's move on".

So the RfC expires on (I think) October 27. I will say that it's probably true that not many new editors will weigh in before that, or cogent new arguments or data be presented, so this is probably a technicality. But rules are rules. But let's not get all excited about a simple mistake.

One editor points out that the RfC has to be closed by an uninvolved editor. But:

• It doesn't say that at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs (although I'm willing to be pointed to where it does say that, if anywhere), and
• The lead sentence WP:RFC says that its an "informal, lightweight process", so exactly how rule-bound is it supposed to get, and
• It's hard to get an uninvolved person, because this is a fraught subject and people usually have strong opinions on it, and
• My aborted close contained a reasonably accurate summary and was reasonably fair-minded, I guess - at least no one has claimed otherwise - so how much better are you going to do with someone else?

So, again, sorry for my error, and if everybody would sit down with a nice big cup of Lighten Up, that would helpful, I think. Herostratus (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I claim otherwise, and think your dismissal of those arguing to keep is quite in the wrong. It certainly is in my case. When we have free images of an article's subject, we use those. So, for clarity's sake, I am firmly, unambiguously, and absolutely against removal of the drawing. I would prefer to see a real photo, but if there's no consensus for that, the drawing it is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and it is becoming practice for uninvolved editors (often admins, simply because the inherent familiarity with policy) to close RfC's - and especially where there are conflicting positions. Your own attempts to determine consensus indicates why it is vital that someone with no position but good understanding of policy is best to referee the final decision, since it is harder to argue against an independents determination under suspicion of bias. Now, you could trawl the policy pages to counter my comments or you could, you know, just assume good faith with what the other editors are telling you - which is the way the wiki is supposed to work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep the image on the left. More image trolling in Wikipedia by overly prudish persons. Now, I'm a bit riled up after having made the same argument at U-Haul lesbian. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, glad to see new blood. My, Tijfo098 is certainly fond of of the term "trolling"! It does roll of the tongue quite nicely. Tijfo098, I understand your frustration in having to deal with other human beings. If it will help, it's OK with me if you put a picture of a U-Haul truck in this article.

Anyway, per the above discussion: OK, sorry if I have offended. How's this: I will henceforth undertake to show proper gravitas and respect for the matter at hand by not referring to the image as "so wretchedly bad that it brings shame to the entire Internet" or ascribe its creation to a "deranged ungulate on an Oxycontin binge" and so forth. Which I haven't done! Instead, I will henceforth refer to the image as The Sublime Image, The Veronica, or The Apotheosis of Human Art. Hopefully this will improve matters.

Well, anyway, if we are having trouble reaching consensus, how about compromise? However, I'm at a loss to figure out what would make a good compromise. All I can come up with is:

• 
  The "Solomon compromise". However, this could be seen as a desecration of The Sublime Image, so I'm not suggesting it.
• 
  Here we get the basic point across, but with a little judicious editing. However, this could be seen as a desecration of The Apotheosis of Human Art, so I'm not suggesting it.
• 
  If we must have a photo, can it at least be a photo of some kittens? CON: Does not illustrate subject very well. PRO: Kittens!

Herostratus (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not on any of those three. The current image is fine unless people want to discuss the other two images actually showing the act. Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well? It's November now. Can someone get a Fair Witness to close the RfC and remove the image, please? Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would the image be removed?Cptnono (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, I think that's explained above... Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

what about

• 
  this one

Aisha9152 (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good! Or then again, to capture the general overall reaction to the Divine Image as expressed above, there's

• 
  this one

Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, I think why it should be kept is explained above. Cptnono (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• This RFC is Closed. Keep the current image until a higher quality image that a consensus agrees upon is found. WP:CENSOR carries the strongest weight. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Proposed move to internal ejaculation

If there are no objections, I will shortly move the article to internal ejaculation, with redirects from breeding (sexual act), creampie (sexual act) and internal cum shot. Given the differences in terminology in gay and straight pornography, and the linkages explored in the most detailed and reputable source I have found on this, this will allow comprehensive coverage of the topic in one place. --JN466 15:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I object. Creampie in the pornography industry might warrant an article on its own (with some specific sources) while internal ejaculation has tons of sources that could be use to expand an article with some other info. A split might be acceptable over a rename.Cptnono (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Internal ejaculation is a synonym for internal cum shot used in reliable sources. The article will remain restricted to the semantic field covered by internal cum shot. --JN466 04:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have is that its relation to the adult film industry receives coverage and could be notable enough for a stand alone article on its own. It might be best to open up a broader and more centralized discussion with more input on this rename, though. Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. "Internal cum shot" is a term only used with reference to the adult industry. It is supposed to remain a standalone article for internal ejaculations as featured in pornography. It is just that I would prefer not to use the porn slang term in the title, but a more neutral term that is used in reputable sources. (Just to be clear here, in case that is the reason for your confusion, the "shot" in "internal cum shot" refers to photography, in the sense of "shooting a video" or "shooting a photograph".) --JN466 06:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dammit. I misread it and was looking at "internal ejaculation" instead of "internal cum shot" as the directed to page for cream[ie and breeding. Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you read it correctly. I want to re-name the article "internal ejaculation" per sources like these, where it is used as a synonym for "internal cum shot". However, I accept that "internal ejaculation" could also refer to ejaculation in ordinary intercourse, which I don't mean to cover here. If that is your concern, I could agree to name the article "internal cum shot", if you prefer. --JN466 06:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion on my end. Internal ejaculation has plenty of sources in a Google Book search not related to porn. So an article on that act as well as an article on it in the industry would be a split I could see being appropriate since sources cover them both independently. Creampie and Breeding could be one article. Both porn and not porn could also be a single article with with porn as a section. We could also keep it as is since the sources cover it being an internal ejaculation that in pornography that features dripiness (see the lead) that is a prevalent slang term as a slang that transcends just being a neologism.Cptnono (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

But since there is an objection (for what I feel is at least OK reasoning but still may not be completely justified) I again think opening up a formal request with all of the bells and whistles of a template that marks it for discussion by the wider community would be a good idea. SPlit v redirects v no change are all viable options. Cptnono (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You have convinced me that internal ejaculation is too ambiguous. I do think this should remain an article about the pornographic practice though. I need to rethink about whether a title change is necessary in that case, or not. "Internal cum shot" has worryingly few RS references, fewer than creampie. --JN466 06:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, I have thought it over -- let's stay with creampie as the article title. Research shows that compared to "internal cum shot", it is by far the more common term in google, both in gay and straight contexts. --JN466 14:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

An editor, Mike Cline, closed the RfC above. However, his close was, in my opinion, an incorrect reading of the strength of the opposing arguments.

Also, his only explanation was "WP:CENSOR carries the strongest weight", but this is basically a non sequitur since WP:CENSOR was not even cited during the RfC and preceding discussions, which were mainly about the quality of the graphic. (Or if it was cited, it was only peripherally). So I don't find this particularly edifying.

At any rate I am seeing basically two dug-in sides and certainly no consensus. The next step would be to go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and I propose to do this. I'm not sure how helpful it will be in this particular case, but you never know; they have some pretty clever people on the Mediation Committee. I lament the further spending of man-hours, but what can one do?

I haven't done this before, and my understanding is that the Mediation Committee doesn't hand down a "ruling" but rather helps to facilitate the reaching of consensus. How this would actually play out in this case I don't know. There is also always the distinct possibility that they will turn down the mediation request; they're busy and they do that fairly often.

Since mediation is voluntary, we have to have the agreement of all interested parties that they will fully participate in the mediation process, so after filing the mediation request I'll notify each person who expressed an opinion on the issue, on their talk page, per the mediation guidelines. The mediation request will be at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Herostratus (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait, I think the notification is done by a bot. Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation isn't needed You don't like something and consensus is against you. The end.Cptnono (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus, at all. Herostratus (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Because you don't want to see it. Your request for mediation is ridicolous. --Cyclopia^talk 16:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus, please quit being deliberately disingenuous. The longstanding consensus is not just found on this page. It's found at a policy that's almost as old as Wikipedia is—that Wikipedia is not censored for content, including content people may find offensive. That consensus has been here since I started editing here, and probably since any of us discussing here did. That's why it carries a significant amount of weight, and why it didn't have to be hammered on during the discussion—it's the way things are done. Now, if as you said originally, you want to improve the image? I'm right with you. We've got the very best right there on Commons—far better than a drawing, we've got a photo. You wouldn't replace the photos of wolves with drawings of them in the wolf article, or anything similar anywhere else. Since we don't censor for content, let's not censor for content, and do the same here as we would in any other article—use the freely licensed photos that are right there available to us. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

She has made it clear in her essay (that will be going to MfD) that she objects to any such images regardless of consensus.

I still thing the drawing is fine and it cuts some of the potential red tape. However, I might be in the minority there. Here are m y previous thoughts on the 2 images at commons: [4]. ((commons link)Cptnono (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, well, that went over like a lead zeppelin (the mediation request). I don't see what you folks have against mediation, but whatever, can't make the horse drink.

OK, as I said elsewhere, I don't see any consensus. However, it is true that there is no consensus to delete the image, if that is what you mean. The rule is, I believe, that failing consensus, the default is to retain the status quo. However, that is not a high principle but just an acknowledgement that you have to have some rule to cover no-consensus situations, else edit warring would ensue.

(As to the contention above that WP:CENSOR automatically creates consensus, even if that were true it doesn't really apply in this particular case since the dispute is mainly over the quality of the image.)

So the image remains, for now. Fair enough. That doesn't mean that we can't continue to work together to find a more satisfactory solution, and I look forward to pursuing this further in future. Herostratus (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So far the only other option which has any chance of consensus is using one of the images at commons. Do you have a preference?Cptnono (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no. Your best bet, I think, would be to pick one and start a new thread here discussing and garnering support. I'm not recommending or supporting this, just saying it'd be the way to go, I guess. I don't think it'd be successful. Herostratus (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah no, do you have a preference or do you not wish to participate?Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just... nooooo [bangs forehead repeatedly on table, froths at mouth, falls over dead] Herostratus (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Creampie (sexual act) → Creampie (pornography) — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Judging by article text, only notable as a term of art in pornography. (Obviously anal sex is a notable entity, and the event described in this article - that, following anal sex, semen will be discharged from the anus - is true, but 1) nothing is said about this in the article, and I wouldn't think that there would be much to say, and 2) there's no indication that the term "creampie" is notable as a term for this in everyday life.) Herostratus (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The act is not just limited to pornography. Mhiji (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The act is not just limited to pornography. Atom (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with the above user the act isn't limited in pornography Scorpio95 (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. #Proposed move to internal ejaculation covers my reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Clarification per request and sorry for again not being clear. See my comments at 06:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC) and 06:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC). I would be OK with an article about it in simply pornography but another for the sex act would need to be created as well. So only changing the title of this article is something I would oppose. We could also just keep it as one article with the appropriate sections since that seems to be the easiest way. Cptnono (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • But do we have any sources discussing it as a sex act? We don't discuss creampies as a sex act here in the article. Of course internal ejaculations and semen oozing out of orifices after sex are a part of normal sexual practice, but a creampie is something different; it's a voyeuristic pursuit, usually engaged in by someone who hasn't just come, and I haven't seen that described as something that people engage in as part of normal sex, at least not as a sexual practice named creampie (though there is such a thing as buttered bun (sexual practice). --JN466 22:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sounded to me like a couple other subject in this topic area (sources give its origin in porn but does not mean it is strictly porn) during the discussion just a little bit ago. If you go through the article and can say that you do not see any sufficient sources I will be happy do do a search. Again. Also, this probably isn't the best place to discuss my or others intimacy but I can say with confidence that many of the subjects the nominator is trying to assert are only in porn have some use by normal folks in the real world. Now if you want to change the option to one that does not assert that ti is only in porn then you might have my support. Alternatively, we could expand Bareback (sex) but that doesn't really get into the fetish off feeling it or watching it that is not monopolized by porn. The way I see it, this is getting needlessly complicated since there is no doubt that it is a "sex act" and the need to call it "pornography" is causing too much effort. The necessity of ambiguity on Wikipedia sometimes, heh?Cptnono (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I just don't see that the term creampie is notable, covered in reliable sources, or even in popular use for any sexual behaviour outside pornography. I would change my mind if shown some RS evidence of that. --JN466 09:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I researched and wrote most of the article, and the sources I found and used only discussed it in the context of pornography. I am not aware of its being discussed as a sexual practice in sex manuals and the like. --JN466 19:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment, particularly in response to Mhiji and Scorpio95: No one is disputing that, in real life, following anal sex, semen is discharged from the anus. But the article doesn't say anything about that. If you want to edit the article to include information on this real life event, that'd be different. But it might not be so easy to that, I guess, because 1) what would there to be say, and 2) there's no evidence that the term "creampie" is used in normal conversation to describe this event. (Is there any reliable source indicating that phrases like "Just a sec, honey, while I go and wash off my creampie" or whatever are a notable part of discourse?) So, you know, just voting without addressing the actual contents of the article is basically not useful, and I request that the person doing the move disregard these unadorned "votes" for head-counting purposes, absent the addition of a reasonably cogent argument. Herostratus (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:VOTE. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Decisions are made by consensus and administrators take into account arguments not votes anyway, so I don't think there's any need to try to persuade the admin doing this to disregard what other users are saying and that their opinions aren't as valuable as yours... Mhiji (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• It seems that cuckolds use the term "creampie" all the time. That is the only example of real-life usage I can think of. Also, Routledge's dictionary only gives mentions of US pornography, and all examples are about pornography videos. Partridge's dictionary says the same, and adds that they use artificial semen to exaggerate the real life internal ejaculation. The university of chicago press book says that it's the name of a "popular subgenre of straight porn". And all reliable sources in google books are about pornography. Sooo, I am going to go ahead and Support this move. The sexual act of "Internal ejaculation" needs a separate article. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Wait, I was in 4chan's /b/ and I just saw someone saying he liked ejaculating deep and unprotected, and someone replied "so you like creampies", and the other said "yes", and then the other one posted a RL photo of a creampie he had made himself once. So, oppose since I just saw by myself that the term is used in RL and the practice happens naturally outside of pornography. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, 4chan then. Now there's a reliable source. Herostratus (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to say that 4chan is RS but you have to admit that it is not restricted to porn, HS. Common sense. Since actual RS does not restrict it to porn there is no reason for us to. This is becoming silly.Cptnono (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, fine, if there are actual reliable sources, then it should be in the article. The article name should reflect what's in the article is all I am saying. Right? If it's used on 4chan and other venues with any regularity, there should be some material in some reliable source reflecting this, and then the article text can be changed based on these reliable sources. If it's neologism (in non-porn circles) so recent that there are no reliable sources, then we just have to lag until reliable sources catch up. See WP:TRUTH regarding the appeal to "common sense" or "what is obvious" or "what everyone knows" or whatever. We don't allow material on the basis of "Well, no reliable source exists, but it's just obviously true" I don't think. I'm not just being contentious. The 4chan use referenced above is in fact just one person. Maybe his use of term was one example of a quite rare usage. We don't know, which is one reason we can't and don't use primary sources. Herostratus (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support, agreeing that "the sexual act of internal ejaculation needs a separate article." (There's a fair amount of sexual health research which should establish notability.) The new article can summarize this one, which will be about visual representations (= porn). --Pnm (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at this one[5] and it is clear that the fetish grew from adult movies. It does not say that the fetish is confined to it. Maybe if internal ejaculation was created then we could have an easy fix but it isn't and this article should not have its scope changed before such action is taken. So since we have sources I don't see the problem at this time.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the wording is, "Creampie noun semen seeping from a vagina, anus or mouth. A fetish that oozed from US Internet pornography in the early 2000s; the semen is as often as not an artificially concocted lookalike.". Does this imply creampies exist as a fetish outside pornography? The wording "fetish that oozed from US Internet pornography" could be read that way, but the reference to an artificial semen substitute militates against that interpretation; it strikes me more as a witty double entendre. --JN466 13:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I read it as described above. Popular in porn but not limited to it. There is absolutely no question that it is a "sex act" while it being confined to adult films is questioned by more than one editor Wouldn't it be simplest to keep it as "sex act" since there is absolutely no way that that can be disputed?Cptnono (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any appreciable number of people outside the porn industry would use fake semen in a genuine sexual act. I simply have not seen this described as a paraphilia, or as part of any sexual behaviour outside the production of pornography. If we describe it as a sex act in the title, then this creates the impression it is a sex act like cunnilingus or fellatio, and I have seen no sources discussing it as such. Creampie (pornography) better describes what the article is about -- a pornographic genre. YMMV. --JN466 20:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• There's been quite a bit of debate about whether the act is limited to pornography or is not. I agree with Cptnono's point - no-one can argue that it's not a sexual act. I don't know whether the term is only used in pornography or is used elsewhere - to be honest I don't think it matters. Using "(pornography)" is restrictive to editing - it implies the article should only be about the sex act in pornography. If an editor finds an additional source which states that the term is used outside pornography (or if in the future the usage of the term changes) they might not add it because the title suggests that the article should only about the use of the term in pornography. However using "(sexual act)" means that if the act is used outside pornography, or is in the future, that this information can be freely added without having to change the title. "Pornography" is restrictive to editing, "sexual act" is not. Mhiji (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "'Pornography' is restrictive to editing"... well of course. That is another way of saying that it is more precise and accurate. Jim Davis (actor) is restrictive to editing - it describes what the article is about (it doesn't and shouldn't contain material on the cartoonist Jim Davis, for instance). Article titles are for readers. The titles describe what the article is about. We are not so concerned with making things for convenient for writers. If more material is added (I doubt that there is any) then that can go in a separate article with a disambig page, or the article title can then be changed. Herostratus (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

But you don't seem interested in doing any of that so please do not make it seem that you are willing to create another article unless you are. There is a big difference between being inaccurate and being restrictive. I actually find the assertion that it would be inaccurate to keep the scope potentially broader laughable. Are you actually arguing that it is not a sex act and is only in porn? By the way, I found another reference that makes note of it gaining prominence in porn and its relation to real life.[6] I wouldn't call it an academic source but this isn't exactly a mainstream topic. And if such a moves takes place (doesn't look like it will) please remember that we are not bound by your essay and te image has consensus to be in.Cptnono (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Jim Davis example is completely different - that article clearly should only be about that one person. The reason the "(actor)" is there is to describe what the article is about and purposely restrict editors from adding irrelevant content (in that case, information about other people of the same name). I don't see any reason to start a new article about non-pornography when one article can cover both. The only reason I can think of to having to separate articles is if having them in one article would make it to long per WP:SIZE! Then it would be sensible to split them. The fact that the article contains pretty much only information about pornography is not a reason to rename it. This article, 999 (emergency telephone number), at one point contained virtually only information about the UK use of the number (it still is very skewed towards the UK), but it wasn't renamed "999 (UK emergency telephone number)" or "999 in the UK". Over time, other editors have added to it and there is now information about other countries. If it was renamed, I doubt editors would have started an article about the use of 999 in Saudi Arabia (there's currently only one line about this), they just wouldn't have added the information to the site at all. If a section about one country gets too big, then it could be split into another article. We should be persuading editors to contribute, not persuading them not to. After all isn't that the point of Wikipedia? And as you've said, there will be little more that can be written about internal ejaculation, but you think it should have it's own article?! What benefit is there from restricting this article to only be about pornography? Mhiji (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article is rough to be shown to a family audience

imagine a child typing "cream pie" and getting to this page, with all family sitting around, watching as he navigates through the web? Could we raise the level of Wikipedia to family standards? or should it be rated or otherwise displaying a warning before the actual page pops out with such content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.118.85.239 (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use disclaimers. The guideline found at WP:NODISCLAIMERS touches directly on your concern. We do attempt to make sure to not go overboard but Wikipedia is not censored. Pleas see: WP:NOTCENSORED. However, you can configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. See: Help:Options to not see an image. I hope that helps.Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)