Talk:Ejaculation/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Censorship, What is it really?

I have read this entire talk page and have found it to be utterly rediculous. As soon as an image that may be objectionable is put forth for deletion, the hordes of civil liberties pundits descend to defend its "educational purpose." Censorship as a negative term applies to a government or ruling body that denies its people the right to express a certain view, or set of text or images, etc. Censorship in and of itself is NOT a negative thing. Wikipedia is censored. There are a multitude of subjects which will never be written about here. They may have a policy against censorhip in most cases, but wikipedia cannot be free of all order. If, for example, I were to post extensive instructions detailing the synthesis of VX or Tabun nerve agents, and give the names of manufacturers who could provide the materials, I would be "doing a service to wikipedia" according to the majority here. But what service am I doing to society? Some things must be kept from the general populus, no matter what the cost, because some people quite simply do not have the means to deal with all information. Censoring individual beliefs to protect a flawed government is WRONG, censoring dangerous or harmful information to protect the people BY a just government is noble. Having now defined censorhip as a neutral term, I would like to proceed. This page has become nothing more than a test case for what will be allowed on this "encyclopeadia." Luckily for us, the majority of the english speaking world has clearly defined obscenity laws. I would suggest that we find out where the server containing this article is located, and having done so defer to the common law of that sovereignty. For example, if the server is in the United States, the image and videos would fall under the scrutiny of the Miller test. (This has yet to be cleared from the supreme court; I am merely stating that we SHOULD apply the law of the land in this case.) Referencing my first point, synthetic methods of nerve agents should not be exactly portrayed on wikipedia because of the inherant dangers they pose. Following this logic, we must eliminate all information from this encyclopedia which will invariably cause harm to a majority of people. There is a big distinction here. Knowing what VX and Tabun are may save lives; at the very least this information serves general intellectual curiosity. Knowing exactly how to synthesize them from anywhere in the world with internet access is, on the other hand, asenine. Likewise, knowing what ejaculation is is crucial to sexual education, however knowing the exact visual detail of the process is unecessary and possibly harmful to some audiences. Bringing this all back to the ejaculation video, I think we must determine if it will cause harm (like synthetic methods of nerve gasses) or if it will be generally informative. Material involving the specific portrayal of genitals and fluidic emissions has long been considered obscene in the US and abroad. Aroused genital portrayal and fluidic emission are also two of the credentials for determining if something is pornographic. The Venus de Milo would never be construed as blatant pornography because genitals are not shown in detail. However, if it were painted with a clearly engorged vulva spewing forth a given vaginal discharge, it would be cast in a different light. I will concede room for argument on the previous points, but not the following. The assertion that wikipedia is censorship free does not mean lack of censorship here is just or warranted. If this policy was found to be illegal, and in conflict with the common law of most nations, wikipedia would be forced to ammend it. This video is in fact in violation of United States regulation 2257 (a subset of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988) , stating that all sexually explicit materials must be labeled as such, and all models in such materials must be verifiably of age (18 in the case of the bill.) The ejaculation video is sexually explicit; it contains vivid portrayal of aroused genitals and fluidic emission. Therefore, if the material was produced in the United States, or if the server that contains this article is in the United States, it is in violation of federal law and should be removed to save the foundation a lengthy legal battle that will cost it more than it is worth. This needs to be looked at form a legal standpoint, not a moral one. If I seem to be against the images and video , it is only because I believe them to be in violation of the law as unlabled, unverified sexually explicit materials. If these issues are resolved, I have no legal case against their use.**note, I have discovered that Wikipedia's servers are hosted in Florida, meaning that the site in general does fall unde r the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988. I would like to see further investigation of state law in this case, as I am not familiar with the specific laws of the state of Florida** Whiteknight521 (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. There's that famous quote by a high-ranking judge (supreme court?) who said something like "I know porn when I see it." This is clearly not pornography in that the ejaculation videos are free of any external stimulus or any sex act for that matter. They are very clinical and only demonstrate the pelvic region - the one guy even has a shirt on. I'm not a lawyer, but I would wager that this does not fall under the child protection law, and, hasn't that been successfully challenged in court? Anyway, regardless of that, if a natural bodily function is offensive to some people, said people should not be doing a search for "ejaculation" because the topic itself is likely to offend them. The rhetoric in the preceding post would be laughed at in an educational setting, such as a medical school. To my knowledge they don't "censor" (or whatever) this kind of info at U.S. medical schools. And, isn't that the purpose of encyclopedia, to provide thorough information on a topic? If one can't view the real-life process of an ejaculation, words probably can't do justice to this process if one has never viewed it in person. Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the rhetoric in the preceding statement is often used in educational settings. Anatomical textbooks have long used illustrations over photographs for such things. Medical doctors don't need photographs of anatomy in a textbook because they are readily available elsewhere, and anatomy lab courses preclude their necessity. Protection of sensitive information is different than censorship. Obscenity laws do not require that something be pornographic in nature, only that it be sexual in nature and offensive to the majority of people. I see the video as unecessary to understanding the process of ejaculation, furthermore having video captures in addition to a motion film is pointless and clutters the article, one of them at the very least should be deleted. Again, I can't view uranium isotope separation, or vx gas synthetic methods, and no amount of thought-policing rhetoric will ever change that. Encyclopeadias are not meant to provide as much information that exists about any topic, but whether wikipedia is an actual encyclopeadia or not is debatable. I believe the cry of censorship allows rediculous articles to be posted and defended that are educationally unnecessary. Medical doctors see what they are entitled to see because they must know far more than the average person about anatomy and physiology in order to properly do their job. Gynecologists can perform pelvic exams on unfamiliar women with no social recourse because they are doing a service to society that protects the public from disease. It is all perspective; information of that nature has always been on a need to know basis. At the very least there needs to be some sort of disclaimer that this article contains graphic depictions of sexual function, or the results thereof.The viewer is given no choice as to whether they want to view the graphic process of ejaculation. There are many people, to be sure, that are interested in the academic and intellectual aspect of ejaculation but have no desire to watch a video of someone ejaculating. I do not think it violates wikipedia's policies to add a disclaimer, and at the very least this should be done. Even health network shows are subject to those laws, and they use nothing but clinical footage. Whiteknight521 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sad to see Wikipedia has been condemned to be ruled by stupid and ignorant puritans and/or nazi-fascistoid obscurantists. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

One would think that ignorant would be a term best applied to those who resort to personal attacks without appealing to logic. Whiteknight521 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The video

Since its acceptable to have this guy ejaculating, what will be next? A video of someone taking a dump for the "defecation" page?

This article is sexist. I believe it must also include a video of a woman demonstrating how to ejaculate. As of now, the article is unbalanced. 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh please. Give it a break, you know exacly what the subject here is. If you want to bitch about it, why not suggest a male / female section division? WiccaWeb 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the video was pretty gratuitous. I didn't really mind it because I'm not a prude. Most people know that most guys over the age of 14 ejaculate on a regular basis. But if we're going to have videos, does that mean a nice graphic porn clip of guys and girls, girls and girls, guys and guys "getting it on" for the copulation article? WiccaWeb 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
i wouldn't mind that 22:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia was not intended to sate the fetishes of people, it's an encyclopedia not some user-run porn site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobertrxa (talkcontribs) 04:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How does the guy orgasm with seemingly no stimulation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That video does appear to be 100% "SPFX". KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the redundancy?

I apologize if this issue has already been directly brought up, I've read through most of the discussion and didn't find very much on it.
While I fully understand that wikipedia is not censored, I've never seen any guideline state that wikipedia should be redundant. So why is there a need for two different videos on this page demonstrating the exact same thing? Any idiot should get the idea with just one video. Most of the arguments I've seen over these videos follow along the lines of either "These are offensive and should both be removed" or "wikipedia isn't censored, so they should both stay." I've seen nothing that gives a logical reason why the page needs multiple examples, while just one would convey the idea perfectly.
So would somebody please give a logical, rational, educational reason (preferably from a reliable source) why there needs to be more than one visual demonstration of the article's subject? Keep in mind I'm not interested in neither the morality of these videos nor the fact that wikipedia isn't censored, as that has already been most adequately covered in this discussion. Simply why any article should need to be so redundant. Shdwninja8 (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here, the second video is only wikilinked (I presume because that video is an animated gif, and thus would play automagically when viewing the page which some might find offensive). Anyway, having more than one image is common practice (see kitten for an example) and I don't see why it would be a problem. Showing more than one example of the same thing helps get a better idea of the differences from person to person.
– Apis (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I nominate this Article for the Article of the Day feature.

All those with me; say 'Yay". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay. Wikipedia is highly entertaining :). I love these formal discussions24.141.33.231 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sperm in Pre-Ejaculate

This article says that there is sperm in pre-ejaculate. However, there are studies (linked to in the pre-ejaculate page) that say otherwise. Can someone fix this? And maybe add links to the studies/the other article?Trexosaurus (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What I have, so far, as a relatively immediate solution is to add a "See also:" link to the Pre-ejaculate article here in Wikipedia. If there are more appropriate ones other than this band-aid solution, feel free to do so. Thanks. --Animeronin (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is why I'm taking the image off...

Yes, we all know Wikipedia is not censored. Yes, I know of this ridiculous edit war (that's why it is listed as lamest edit wars) However, when an article does the job of explaining what the topic is, there is not need for an image. Images are there to help people know what it is. I highly doubt a person browsing this page knows nothing of what ejaculation is. Secondly, Wikipedos DOES state that Inappropriate pictures can be taken off. Also remember to use Common Sense when editing, where it says: "Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." I think there's a good enough reason to ignore this rule. Remember that the spirit of the rule is much more important than instilling it. There is NO REASON to have the picture up. You're only retaliation to that is "Wikipedia is Not Censored." And? Does that mean I have the right to post up pictures of decapitated people or a video of an animal being decapitaded to illustrate a decapitation? No. Yes I know, some images are going to frighten or offend some people, such as a Cross may offend a Satanist or Nazi imagry may offend those of Jewish heritage. Simply putting an image on to a page because "Wikipedia is not censored" is not a good enough reason. It's just gaming the system and is not needed. The diagram explains enough. Finally: I only removed the image of the guy ejaculationg off - nothing else. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 02:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC) EDIT: And no, the iamge is not part of the explaination. It's simply there. You describe it acurately enough in words to not need the iamge. if you can't do that, then another editor can do it. It's as simple as that. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

However, when an article does the job of explaining what the topic is, there is not need for an image. is possibly the silliest thing I've heard all day. In that case there'd be no need for almost any image. The image is part of explaining what the topic is. The Wednesday Island (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No it's not. You did not read my paragraph completely, I can tell. Please be civil. This is about the need for an offensive image, NOT about all images. I wouldn't have qualms if the image wasn't "offensive to some poeple." The image is a guy ejaculating. Isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia? It's not some place to put an image "because we want it there" or "because it can." That doesn't pass well in high schools and colleges so I do not think it would pass well here. I think that's obvious. I think people reading this article have at least that down, the ejaculating part, I mean. They get the idea of it, the readers aren't idiots (well, not all of them anyways). Is there any NEED for the image? No, there isn't. If it was ofensive and there was a NEED for it, then it would be okay, but since there is no need for it and it is offensive, there's absolutly no point in having the picture up there aside from "we want it there" and "we aren't censored." WP:Common - use it please (no offense intended). ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 15:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I did read your paragraph through (and I don't see why calling an argument "silly" is uncivil, but I'll avoid the word if you prefer); I merely addressed only one point of it. Very well. You have two arguments here and you are conflating them. Your first argument is that a photo is unnecessary, and your second argument is that a photo is offensive. To the first argument, the answer is that all articles may be illustrated with a photo of that article-- and to gain "good article" status they need to be-- and that is itself the need for the image. To the second, that is the exact meaning of the "Wikipedia is not censored" line that people keep throwing around here. What else could it mean but that some people would like to restrict the content based on political, sexual, or other taboos, and that there is a policy to prevent this? As a counterexample to both your arguments, you should note that Wikipedia actually contains a provision such that certain photos (such as the photo of autofellatio) can only be placed on the page discussing that subject, since people kept placing them on other places as vandalism. The fact that the administrators would go to this much trouble rather than just banning the images shows that they are not averse to showing photographs to people who explicitly look up a photograph of a taboo subject. (Well, I suppose in your world ejaculation might be more taboo than autofellatio.) The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The image looks like it is a pretty good image of someone ejaculating. In many places it would not be appropriate. It seems that the ejaculation article is the appropriate place. Removing an image because someone may find it offensive, or because you find it offensive is not sufficient. Indeed, we do not desire to intentionally offend anyone. But, I'm not really sure why anyone would find ejaculation to be offensive. Regardless, it makes the article more understandable, is on topic, and should remain unlss a better quality image or image that better describes the topic becomes available. Atom (talk)

Could you explain why you find the image to be offensive? Thanks Atom (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said "I" was offended. Read my paragraph again. None of that makes any sense. This is all simply gaming the system. You are still saying the image can be there simply because "it can be." If there is no reason for the image, if it is offensive AND because it does not contain anything of use, or whatever reason, then why the heck is the image there? Just to be there? That's not logical. And "The image looks like it is a pretty good image of someone ejaculating" sums up what I'm saying. It doesn't make the article more understandable, you know this, it's an image of a penis ejaculating. It's decribed enough within the article to have no need for such an image. You guys are basically saying "Hey, we can put the image here, even though it isn't really needed, so let's do it! Lets jsut say it helps people to understand it" That makes no sense. The words decribe it well enough, infact, it's a good article, good enough to not need that image. I could swear that this fails the Miller test, though you can still bypass that by reforming the third placement (or number) to your own words. It does nothing to improve the article, it's completely understandable without an image. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, your comment had "This is about the need for an offensive image..." which brought me to thinking that you felt that it was offensive. I agree that an image does not have to be in an article just because if is related to the topic on some way. An image should, at a glance, help a reader to understand the topic better. So, I think you are saying that from an editorial perspective, it is your opinion that it does not enhance or add to the understanding of the topic? That seems to be good reasoning to me. For mine own opinion, there is a pre-existing video clip of ejaculation that has done a good job of illustrating what the article content says. My first thought/question was whether this still image was complementary, or redundant in that context. After some thought, my opinion currently is that it does cover the same subject, but as a still image, gives the article reader an immediate understanding of the topic without a detailed read of the article, information that is not immediatly apparent by glancing at the video thumbnail. Clearly the content is not pronographic, and passes the Miller Test for a number of reasons. It does not appear that the work (the article) taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest. It does not seem to depict or describe sexual conduct or excretory function in an patently offensive way. And most importantly, it clearly is an article that has scientific value. So it does not fails the SLAPS test.

I agree that the depiction is not completely necessary, and the article is understandable without that image. But -- these are not criteria an editor uses. As editors we don't usually try to use the minimal amout of visual imagery in order to make the article understandable -- we often do the opposite. More images makes an article richer and easier to understand. If we had five images of different men or women ejaculating, then we as editors would need to determine if each one addes omething of value to the article. In this case we have one still image and one video image. Consider that the breast article has something like ten images in the main article, and another 70-80 images in the gallery.

Perhaps your concern is that as an Encyclopedia, we will be used less frequently at a University, school or library if we have images that some people mistake as sexual in nature. This is a topic that has been discussed over and over within Wikipedia. Of course, this is a scientific article that has nothing to do with pornography. Also, there are a number of other Wikipedia articles that are similar, such as breast, semen, anus, penis, erection and vagina. People who read Wikipedia must abide by the disclaimers, such as Content Disclaimer which includes "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) 22:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is why it's on the lamest edit wars page. I give up. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 19:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, having an short video of ejaculation on the ejaculation page should come as no surprise to anyone wishing to access the entry, just as a swastika image or video of Hitler in the Nazi entry should be expected. Those who are possibly offended by such things should know well enough to steer clear of the entries. I'd advocate for the restoration of the video sequence. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2008 (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)

yes. BananaFiend (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Lets keep the image! Yeah! Wikipedia anti-censorship!" etc. Silliness. The fact of the matter is, with a bit of digging, the first image on the Ejaculation page is of a voyeur. This is not opinion, this is fact, look up "spritzing" on; there is no blurred line between sexual and educational; this is all sex. Having this kind of imagery up only degrades Wikipedia's legitimacy, and for what? the sake of a minority looking to maintain an anti-censorship rule? Last I checked, most adults in the world understand the basics of ejaculation, imagery and all; they don't need a picture to help them figure out a natural body process, much less a picture uploaded by either a) a man known for posting the results of his masturbatory adventures online, or b) a troll aware of said man, looking to exploit Wikipedia's tendency to infight by introducing a bit of volatile subject matter. Insinuating that it can be mistaken, when armed with such knowledge, is rather silly. There is already a video, which I feel is in poor taste, but is far better than that of a pornographer figuratively wanking on a page of this encyclopedia. There has been no counter-argument to "The text is enough" - only complaints of censorship, erroneous accusations of misinterpretation of the subject matter (the picture), and allegations of what I can only assume to be 'voyeurs guilt.' Ultimately, it seems that logical arguments have failed to have an impact, so I pose to you this question, if the pictures were to be replaced with, say, an image of a sperm whale going about his business, would that not be considered far more clinically/educationally acceptable to the general public than the image of a man blowing his load from here to kingdom come? Forgive the frank language, but considering the obvious original purpose of the image, and the baseness of the image itself, I feel the language is more than acceptable. So then, what of it? Sperm whale? Anyone? In before "please find a picture of a sperm whale to replace the throbbing voyeur penis." 27 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Okay. Some minor points: 1) Your argument would be slightly more convincing if you knew the difference between "voyeur" and "exhibitionist". 2) Your argument is framed around the point that everyone understands the basics of ejaculation. But if everyone understands ejaculation, I'd like to know why we're bothering to write an encyclopedia article about it. 3) I don't know who the man in the video is. I don't know how you claim to know. I don't know what he's well-known in some circles for. I don't see why it's important.
And now the major point: Wikipedia has a policy that articles should be illustrated, and that images and videos which might be considered offensive are acceptable if they concern the subject of the article. Either you believe that policy does not mean that if we have this image we should include it, or you believe that the policy is a bad policy. If you believe that the policy is a bad policy, there are places to advocate changes, but this talk page is not one of them. If you think this image is not covered by the policy, then that discussion belongs on this talk page, but please keep the matter to discussions of policy. I don't care about whether you or I find it offensive or what else the model does in his spare time. The Wednesday Island (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion about pre-cum

Yami's suggestion that a picture of pre-cum might have additional educational value is worth considering. There are several photos one could add for this purpose: Image:Precum1.JPG, Image:Precum.JPG, Image:Precum.jpg and Image:Penis with pre-ejaculate.jpg.--Bhuck (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I also did not find a direct link in the article to the article Pre-ejaculate, which in turn has two of the above four images already in it.--Bhuck (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, there is a direct link, as a "See also" under the heading "Fertilization", which is not the first or most obvious place one might look for it. Furthermore, perhaps it would be better if we could write a complete sentence explaining the difference between pre-ejaculate and ejaculation.--Bhuck (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel we should redirect pre ejaculate to that article after a brief discussion. This article should stick to the topic of ejaculation. Of course pre-ejaculate is a closely related topic, but the ejaculation is more than the physical process. The three images suggested, although appropriate I think for the pre-ejaculation article, don't seem to offer any useful information for this topic. The Fertilization article, again, only marginally related. Because of the sensitivity of the topic (the large number of people who try to censor images) we have to stay directly on topic I think. Atom (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncited Claims

Perhaps it's me, but there's a section, "Pleasure" which reads:

"Each contraction is associated with a wave of sexual pleasure, especially in the penis and loins. The first and second convulsions are usually the most intense in sensation, and produce the greatest quantity of semen. Thereafter, each contraction is associated with a diminishing volume of semen and a milder wave of pleasure."

While this might be true for some, it's uncited, and hardly a scientific appraisal, at best I'd say it's speculation based on some man's personal experience.

Removal? Thoughts? -∆-Neurosynapse-∆- talk 06:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems totally acccurate. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Often true, but not a rule by any means. Particlarly if the male is multiorgasmic or partially multiorgasmic, the opposite could be true. In the case of premature ejaculation, it could follow the normal pattern or the first shot could be most of the ejaculate. (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Something that was misplaced at the top

I see that the Wiki article on Pornography has utterly no pornographic images, perhaps the raciest one is captioned "Oil lamp artifact depicting coitus."

How special that this pervert managed to get his pornographic video posted on Wikipedia. If you liberals need an image, and I can't imagine why since we're all adults here (perhaps you are looking for an excuse to give your 7-year-old daughters a little sex-education since this site is open to all), why don't you try posting something racy from ancient Chinese art instead of that Youporn freak? Itemsdaily (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As I and others have said over and over, it doesn't matter where else the contributor posts content. I don't go looking for what other websites editors post their text on, so why should I care where else they post their images, as long as they're properly licensed? If you have pictures of ejaculation which you think will illustrate this article well, please provide them. The "but think of the children" argument is a red herring, because Wikipedia (which is not called Wiki) is not censored for children or anyone else. And don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal. The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it ironic, Wednesday, how that seems to be the weekly argument? "My poor daughter might see a penis! This is the work of corrupt liberals! Down with Wikipedia's lack of censorship!" Heh, Ignoratio Elenchi indeed. NeuroLogic 04:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The video

I see from the discussion that "Wednesday Island" only has to sit back and reject arguments against the videos as inadequate, and then add more of the same videos to the article in order to incite more arguments that he can simply nay-say. Such trolling should not be allowed in a serious discussion forum. Also, Wikipedia is not a porn site for you to vandalize at your leisure based loosely on the anti-censorship rule. Itemsdaily (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2008 (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) 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Why, do you have one? If it's licensed correctly, please upload it! The Wednesday Island (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

the video does not belong and your tone is not appreciated Yami (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems I added my previous comment too far up. "The video does not belong" is a pretty bold statement given the widely differing perspectives. The tone of the previous comment is not appreciated by you. I agree completely with it. I also would have a video of two people actively engaged in sexual intercourse - it is much more informative than a simple textual description. BananaFiend (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You will have to come up with a better argument than merely stating your opinion. For what it's worth, this argument comes up every few months. The Wednesday Island (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the argument does come up often. I think it is because people are culturally conditioned to think that anything explicit, and sexually related is inherently objectionable. In this case, this is an encylopedia, the article is about a science related topic, the video is directly related to that topic, the video does not show anything beyond the topic. If you were to look at it from a scientific perspective, instead of assuming the role of voyeur (for instance) it seems very matter of fact and descriptive of the topic. Atom (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

there is already a image and thats good enough. A good 99% of the articles on Wikipedia do not have videos, why does this one need one? It's just taking up server space.

Also there is a policy on having images and such only when it can't be described fully by words and the picture already does that so the video isn't needed.Yami (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We strive to have a lede image on all articles. As time goes by we try to add and replace images with better ones. Your comment regarding a policy about having images only when it can't be described is not correct. All of the articles on Wikipedia take up server space. There seems to be plenty of space left. Thanks for your opinion that the video is not needed. Atom (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The server thing is from a admin i talked to about this so it the 99% thing. There is a policy that states images should be used sparingly. A video shouldn't be used if there is already a picture that shows the exact same thingYami (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, show me where an admin said this. If they ever did say it, I think you were misunderstanding them. Also, please read WP:ADMIN and note that administrators do not have any special say in the running of this site. The Wednesday Island (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It was Useight and it was by e-mail via yahoo. If he feels the video is a little much then it is. Yami (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As i read on the images and media for deletion page Images and media that are unencyclopedic should be removed. since there is already an image and because the video add nothing more to the article that the image hasn't already it should be deleted.Yami (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You have failed to demonstrate that the video is unencyclopedic. The Wednesday Island (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

encyclopædias don't have videos of guys getting off. The image is enough to illustrate the subject of the article and a video is not needed. Yami (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, books don't have the ability to display, and illustrate video. I was in support of the original video, which was much more encyclopædic in my opinion. But the point is, Wikipedia is NOT censored. You might not find it appropriate, others would disagree, but I fail to see where this is grounds for removal. I do concede the video is oddly placed, so much so that it seems...added on, and serving no purpose, it should be moved to a more appropriate area. NeuroLogic 06:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to censor the article but there is no need for the video if a image already exists of the very same topic the video covers. The video is overkill and how much does this add educationally to the article? it's a video of a guy who put himself getting off on a web encyclopedia. There's already an image so a video of the exact same thing is not needed. Would you put two of the same image on a article? of 15 pictures of Britney spears at the same age with the same hair style? I doubt the answer is yes. Yami (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the points you make are valid for discussion. Does the video offer more than the image? Are they distinct, or, are they "the same hairstyle?" Do they offer different information or perspective? In my view, one is an image, and so immediately offers a visual idea of what the article covers. Ideally one can, at a glance, look at a lede image and know pretty much what the article says, at least at a high level. The video, on the other hand, does not do that at a glance. It does offer a "real-time" idea, rather than a static idea. People who are not interested in it need not click on it. People who do click on it get a clearer idea about the topic. Additional information that is not apparent in the lede image is available. As such, it is unique and offers value to ther article. At least, that is my opinion. Atom (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Second point: If you look at the articles breast or penis or a variety of other articles, you will see many images of the same topic, many of them quite similar but offering different perspective or information on the topic. This article only has one image, and one video. Atom (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you Atom, for that clarification of the point of the video. NeuroLogic 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1. a static image is enough. if a person really wants a real time video they can google it. The article doesn't need a video.

2. many of the pictures on the breast article are miscellaneous namely the Gallery images. Many of those are not needed and don't provide for the article. The very first image more or less is not appropriate for the article. An illustrated pair of breast, or a medical type photograph front view would be more appropriate. Every image except the first and most of the images in the gallery are acceptable, but an image of a woman's breast at a angle with her shirt lifted up outside isn't something that should be there. Not to speculate but that most likely just some guy's girlfriend he got to show him the goods.

3. much like the breast an illustrated penis is more appropriate at the top instead of a black and white image of an uncircumcised penis. The second image could use a better version. its a little pixelated and it displays the same information that the first image and illustrated anatomy image does. the third image i see no problems with. Yami (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yami, I'm sure you know this discussion comes up almost on a weekly basis, we as editors I think really need to Put down the stick, and step slowly back from the horse carcass. Don't you? While I do concede your argument on the breast image, is unencyclopædic...If the basis for your point is "They can google it." well then Wikipedia as a whole serves no purpose, one of the fantastic things about Wikipedia, is when you google a specific subject, it's often one of the first on the list in Google. But I seriously think, we should take a second to look back, see how often this discussion has come up "Such and such content is unnecessary for <insert sexuality article here>, remove it!" and how often it has been shot down, and think: Why are we persisting on this topic? NeuroLogic 04:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A Video on a woman giving herself a breast exam would be educational and something I'd like to see it on the article on breast. A video man giving himself a testicle exam would be something would be educational and something I'd like to see it on the article on the penis and/or testicles.Images alone are not enough for those processes, But a video of a man ejaculating when there is a a image that shows it stage by stage is not needed.

Do i find the image a little objectable? yes, but it serves its purpose. I dislike seeing it every time I come to this article but I'm not going movie it. If i could find it i'd replace the image with something different if it could illustrate the process. The video however, even if it only plays when you want it to, is not needed it doesn't add an educational value to the article like a breast or testicle exam videos would on their respectable article.

Why overkill the process with both a stage by stage image and a video? If you want to add more educational value then add an image of a penis with Pre-cum, not some user's video of himself cumming for the entire world. Yami (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the video on the main page instead of a link or something is overkill, personally I think the original video link in the caption of the picture was better. Point being, I don't think the page will ever be devoid of a video, just because this is brought up every week. NeuroLogic 06:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article can easily be without a video by removing it. There is no video on the articles about the penis, breast, testicles,vagina, oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, pornography or any other sex related articles. Why does this article need a video anyway. 99% of the wikipedia article don't have videos. There isn't a video that shows a man pulling back his foreskin in the uncircumcised article.

If the only reason for having the video is because it was put up in the first place then that is not reason enough to keep it. The article isn't going to decay and die without a video. Having an image and a video is like i said over kill. What makes this article any more special that it deserves a video?

yeah its public domain, free of copy right but is it really article worthy. A video of a guy ejaculating a unbelievable amount might or would be more educational and worthy of the article then the current video. This video is maybe 5-10 second long of a slightly out of shaped user with a 4-5 inch penis covered with unsightly veins, with a long drop of ejaculate that is only visible with the poorly laid fabric or paper background.

Just because the image/video says educational demostration doesn't mean that it is educational Yami (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The original video is located, [1]. It as a link as part of the caption under the diagram, and as you can see: Is the same person. I saw this as MUCH more encyclopædic, considering it was with black background, and made to look educational. Perhaps it should be reinstated mainly as a link in the picture caption, as it was before? NeuroLogic 19:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, this image is in a loop, playing over and over, I don't think it can be useful in that fashion. I'm open to having another video if it offers new information, or replacing the current video if there is a consensus that it is better than other one. Atom (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The video should just be removed. To many cooks spoil the broth. Web encyclopedia or not no encyclopedia has a video much less a image of the act of ejaculating. Since every article should have at least on image the image can stay but a video is like i said over kill.

How did you guys let the video be added in the first place? somewhere someone had to of added it. How is it controversial and in need of consensus to remove the video when no one has said anything about when it was added.

I'd think with Wikipedia having so many editors trying to keep articles on topic and pure of un encyclopedic material the video would have been sacked the first day.

also if the video wasn't controversial enough to keep out of the article then it shouldn't be just as if not more controversial to take out of the article. Yami (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering there is support for the video, and Yami believes it's overkill, the picture of the ejaculation sequence, can be replaced with the gif video, which the sequence images were derived from? That way we can satisfy both parties? =) NeuroLogic 04:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The video is in the article by consensus. It is better than a string of GIF images. There is still the issue of it repeating. I an for leaving the article as it is, and has been for a while. If moving the video into a different section is effective (as that was the consensus, and lasted for quite some time) then we could go back to that. If you want to add the other gif sequence, I don't see a problem with giving that a try. But, removing a well established video would be a mistake. It illustrates the topic very well. Atom (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of removing the video, and adding a link to the gif sequence in the caption, if memory serves, it was there for much longer than the current state. I believe doing that, would also satisfy everyone here, there is a video available, and it isn't redundant, and taking up space. I'm not trying to remove parts of the article, but find a solution that would satisfy everyone, and end this Repetitive, weekly debate. NeuroLogic 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would object. First, we should be adding more material to the article, not removing material. Second, the video has been her for a long time with consensus, the image that you suggest added doe snot have that history. Thirdly, many people, including myself are against linking to images. If the image is worthwhile, add it to the article, don't link to it.

If you want a solution, leave the article the way it is. Trying to satisfy the last editor that came along and complained is doomed to failure. The video has worked, no reason to change it. If you want to see if adding the gif image to the article (not a link) will fly, that might end up getting consensus. Atom (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh I'm removing myself from the debate, it's a weekly thing, and as expected: No one will ever come to a resolution with it, since neither side will move an inch. I do feel the need to mention: Adding material to an article, doesn't make it better in every case. Removing non-encyclopaedic material, which that video falls under, being an 'amaturish' video of some guy in his house, with a sheet over a shelf to make a "Background". I'm for replacing it, but I wont discuss it any further, it's a pointless debate that will never see an end until both parties agree to actually give an inch. NeuroLogic 00:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate your interest and concern. I invite you to join the Sexology and Sexuality project. The debate is not about two editors with different perspectives. I have monitored this article for several years (see diff from 2006, (this and 578 other sexology and sexuality articles). I'm trying to suggest that many people in the past ended up with a consensus that stood. And that changing things will upset that, and as those editors check into the article in the next year, randomly, some of them will complain about the image that they were okay with being removed. It may seem like just me right now, and then as other editors run into the change, you'd be trying to satisfy them. The editor who is trying to remove the material (HI Yami, I am not being critical here -- you are cool) is less experienced with this kind of thing. He has a good heart and the best of intentions. But, I am of the opinion that he wants to go through the articles with "objectionable" images trimming images, and sees that as a way to improve Wikipedia. (I know, he does have a sincere concern about the quality of the article.) I agree that more images does not necessarily make a good article. But, still, more images is better than less images. If we were trying to make the article a GA article, that would be different. I don't see this article getting to FA status soon.

Regarding your comments. I respect your view that the image seems amatuerish to you. I see your point, but then, I am looking at it from an encyclopedic view. This isn't a work of art, it is meant to impart useful information on the topic. I am of the opinion that generally, more pictures are often better. The more people see sexuality a normal light, they less they are likely to eroticize images.

The image you want to add, you want to put a link to -- that hides it. Also, it has the problem of being a looping image. And, although it offers something new and unique, you want to remove the other video, which is quite informative. I don't follow. Atom (talk)

I'm a graphic artist and I hold ethics to the highest i can. I'm trained to do what is necessary despite any personal feelings towards the subject. I'm straight and don't like looking at other

penises to much but if i got to draw on i got to draw one. I am not trying remove objectable images, only images that are not what i'd find in a book. A girls gone wild shot of two tits is not encyclopedic. That is why I seek the replacement of that image with a more medical tone image. Though i do enjoy the current lead image because they're a nice pair of tits, the image is not encyclopedic.

If we removed the video no one would care that it was even there. Also in terms of the Gif I can and have made a non loop version and should it come down to it I can easily upload that version. The ease of it was childs play for me. a little save target as and opening it up in windows gif maker and bam we have a new version.

But as the previous editor said this is a long and exhausting debate. How did you guy allow the video to be put up in the first place.

If you'd just allow the video to be removed then that could please all sides sooner or later because no one would complain about the video being removed if its not there. I really think this article is fine with just one image but if you want the video just because it adds content then i can draw a dick shooting cum and upload it. or we could use a non-free image of a Hentai manga of a guy doing the same. I mean the oral sex article has drawings so i'm sure it wouldn't hurt the article but a video is just overkill.

One real image and one drawing would be more then enough and how much content can you add to this process without combining it or overlapping with the sperm article.

Its so cut and dry. Fluid that makes babies shot out of you not much more can be said.

Keep the image, maybe link it to a non-loop gif and remopve the video its so simple. Why does this have to be so controversial. I mean you make it sound like it was so easy to add the video. Why was no one there to block it from the article. but there is people here to protect it in the article? Yami (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing stopping me from uploading the non loop gif is i am confused as hell as to how to go about uploading it and putting a license on it. Should i upload it to wikipedia or wikipedia commons. I have a fair idea but everytime i upload a image and it's not used in a article it gets deleted. I think if its uploaded to wikicommons it stays no matter if its used.Yami (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to answer all of the points you talked about Yami, but this isn't the appropriate place. Maybe we can talk about some of that on your or my talk page, but the way you talk about sexuality (for instance classifying a picture of the lede on the breast article as a girls gone wild photo, or your aversion to drawing penis, etc.) But, stricking to this, I am not sure how to fix the non-looping. You could edit it, and add it as a new image to the commons site rather than changing the existing image. You could try to contact the original contributor, and see if they would add a non looping version.

The existing video was added some time ago, and it was allowed because at the time it was viewed that it contributed useful information to the article. I still feel that this is the case. It offers a real-time view of the topic. In a few seconds, someone unfamiliar with the topic can immediately have a pretty full understanding of the process.

You said: "One real image and one drawing would be more then enough and how much content can you add to this process without combining it or overlapping with the sperm article. Its so cut and dry. Fluid that makes babies shot out of you not much more can be said."

It sounds like you are offended by the image of semen in the article. I have respect for you and your view, but I have to say that you seem to express an aversion to something completely normal and natural. Perhaps, like some, you are taking a medical or human physiology or human sexuality image and sexualizing or eroticising it. It is not from a pornographic movie, it is en encylopedic image of a medical topic. Trying to remove this, and other images in other articles because you choose to view them from a sexual, erotic or pornographic perspective when they are not is not a problem with the image or the article. If you find it offensive, or if it squicks you, again that is not a problem with the article or image. If someone downloads a vido cut from a pornographic movie of a person ejaculating onto someone face and tries to add it to the ejaculation article -- that is a reason to object and remove it from the article. Although it is possible such an image would be appropriate for the bukkake article, it would not belong here. Objecting that a video of a man ejaculating, and that the image includes semen, on the ejaculation article, doesn't seem reasonable.

Anyway, if you can figure out how to unloop the image you like, let's add it to the article. Atom (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I have the edit of that gif but it won't do no good if it can't be used in the article right away because wikipedia deletes articles not in use.

Well, add it to the article. If you don;t want to do that, add it to the talk page so that we can discuss if we sould put it in, whatever works for you. Atom (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

2. its public domain so i can use and do with it as i please just about.

I mean;t that you could ask the originator because they could probably reformat it quickly. Yes, as it is public domain, you can reformat it yourself. You had said you were having a problem and did not know where to save the image. Atom (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Can't add it because either you or someone else would want consensus so it'd take weeks to get it up. Also you keep complaining that we shouldn't link it in the caption which i would be a little more in favor of then the current video, but we already have an image. The video adds nothing more then the image already does. the gif would more or less be an extension of the image itself so its the lesser of two evils and don't take that out of context.

Why would you want to link it? We almost never link image son Wikipedia. Put it in there unlinked, or add it to the talk page if you want to gain consensus for an add. Why not just put a new section here, show it, talk about how you want to put it in the article, and then after getting a few peoples feedback, try it out in the article. If you discuss first, and then act, people usually don't have issues. Atom (talk) 22
44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

4. I do not have a problem with seeing semen, its just the article already has a image that illustrates the point enough. You don't need 15 pictures of kenny on the southpark article or his to illustrate he wares a orange parka that hides most of his face. Overkill is the unencyclopedic side of the article.

Well, sorry I misunderstood you. "Its so cut and dry. Fluid that makes babies shot out of you not much more can be said." I thought you meant something else apparently. Well, this is the ejaculation article. Pretty much any image we add will likely show semen. I mean, unless we put in an image titled "just prior to ejaculation". Which, I think would be kind of lame. Atom (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

5. You keep on acting like you respect my opinions and view yet you talk down to me each time making accusations and speculatious comments.

I apologize. I do have that problem. My own wife sometimes says I am condescending when I am just making conversation. I guess one of the bad habits learned from ten years at University. Let me try to be clear. I think you are cool, and an interesting fellow. I respect your opinion. But, I have to say that when you remove 16 images from the gallery without having said anything about it first, kind of disrupting the discussion about the images, it is irritating and I may come off showing some of that right afterward. I don't have to agree with you to understand and respect your opinion. If I speculate, it is because we have a breakdown in communication and I don;t understand. Just like your previous comment about semen. You say one thing, and I make a statement based on what I thought you said. Atom (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

6. I am not eroticsising anything! I look at porn like a lot of people on a semi regular basis a minute here a hour there depending on mood and how much time i wish to spend. If there is an image that illustrates the point you don't need a video to do the same its overkill. It i wanted to censor or erotictize the article i would vote for both the image and video to be 86ed but That is not the case here though you seem to be trying to discredit me and make it seem so.

Well, I don't watch porn, mostly because I don't enjoy it, and it does not seem real, it seems manufactured. Reality is better than porn, I think. The issue is that people who do see alot of porn and hentai, without realizing it, begin to see that in the real world. This article is has a medical image of a penis, and ejaculation. It would be hard to show the ejaculation in a meaningful way without the penis. I mean, there is no one giving the person oral sex. He isn's masturbating. There is no sound track with moaning. It does not show his face or reactions. It is very clinical, about as non objectionable and non-pornographic as one could want. But, you object to it anyway. Your words, I quote "I really think this article is fine with just one image but if you want the video just because it adds content then i can draw a dick shooting cum and upload it. or we could use a non-free image of a Hentai manga of a guy doing the same."
I mean, why would we want a drawing, when we have a great video of the real thing? It makes me think (and I seem to misunderstand you alot, so please don't take offense whis is no accusation, just a view) that you are offended by the video, but if you drew a graphic, or if we used Hentai, that this would make it OK. It is like you find the image offensive, or pornographic in some way. Even the words you use, "i can draw a dick shooting cum" Well, that is sexualized. The article is not about pornography, Hentai, or dick's shooting cum, it is about human sexuality, and the physiological mechanism that allows semen to be delivered in all Mammals, and some form of it in most animals. I'm not trying to be condescending here. I am trying to relate that the images and thoughts that come to mind when you see that clinical image are very different from what I see and thing when I see it. Based on your perception, and that imagery, you want to remove the image, and all images but one image, from the article because you don't want to offend anyone. Your motive is pure, you are, as you say, ethically driven. The problem is, that the images aren't porn, they are clinical, natural, normal, healthy and non-offensive. The problems lies in how you perceive the image, and how some other people pwrceive the image. The more people who see images like this in a normal, non eroticized and clinical setting, the more they change their conditioning formed from watching porn and Hentai, and the more they see it as the natural and normal image that it is. It is just the human body, not some guy with a 'dick' inviting the reader ' shoot cum' in your vicinity. Atom (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

1 image is good, image and an gif extension of it is decent, two images are ok i guess sure why not, 1 image of a real person and 1 illustration would be something i'd like to see on the article but having a image and video is out of the question.

The more clinical and appropriate images, the better. As long as they offer additional information. Maybe a horse ejaculation, or other animals than humans and horses.

7. If i was so against seeing semen and if i was erotictizing it why would i offer to make a illustration of it or even make a edit of the gift you are against adding a link to in the caption. You're trying to govern this article and the other article I'm currently trying to help make more Encyclopedic. I use the term Girl gone wild because that is the tone of that picture on the breast article. Why would a encyclopedia have a image that looks like some guy takes of his Girl friend flashing him the goods? A encyclopedia would have a frontal view of the breast either illustrated or a medical photograph of a volunteer who contributed to medical science. Yami (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

My point, I hope that I express it well, is that many other people do not see the lede image on the breast article as a "Girl gone wild" image. That is your perception. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. My point is, if you take a simple image of a girls breasts, for the breast article, and then you are offended and want to remove it because of your perspective that it is a "girls gone wild" video, that will cause conflict with other editors who do not see it that way. (who see it as a normal, healthy image of a womens breasts. Not as something erotic, wild, pornographic.
I am not trying to govern you. I do have a different opinion, and act to try and block you from harming the article and acting on your own against a standing consensus. Any of the other editors involve din the consens would have done the same -- it just happened to be me who is standing up for it at the moment. I am trying to protect the breast article and the ejaculation article because you are trying to remove legitimate images, often without discussion with other editors first. You perceive the image differently than other people, as a sexual image, and then try to remove it because you want to improve Wikipedia. Well, the breast article has been there awhile. These discussions have come up before with editors who have viewed any nudity as obscene. We have addresses that before, and had a consensus of editors make decisions on keeping the gallery in the breast article. Then you come in and remove the Gallery. That is perceived as acting against an existing consensus. Sure, asking for, and gaining a new consensus, different from the last one, is appropriate. But you have to work to gain consensus, not just walk in and do as you please. Why not try to move slowly on the issue, rather than making sudden changes? There is no race, no time limit, no urgent issue that must be dealt with. Discuss as long as it takes for a consensus to arise and THEN make changes. Atom (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That is how i describe that image because it is unencyclopedic in image that would fit better would be the first image in the gallery or this image here

I don't know how many times you want me to explain the simple concept that the image is not appropriate for the article. I am not offended i like the image but as a editor i can't allow it to be there in place of a more encyclopedic text book example of what should be there. You need to stop trying to make it seem like i'm out to get the article and that i'm some kind of conservative censorer. Now back to the subject at hand.

Trying not to govern me yet you control my action yeah that makes a lot of sense.I'm not trying to harm the article and i have only made one attempt to remove the video my self. When i stumbled upon it i thought it must have just got there so don't act like i've tried to remove it manually on a daily basis.

There you go again trying to make it seem like i see sexual stuff in these images and want them gone. I'm just cleaning up the article of Miscellaneous items that don't add to the article or are overloading it.

I don't view nudity as Obscene i just see that there should be a medical tone to a lead image and that you shouldn't over illustrate something.

If you want to prove your point then stop making accusation and start being a team player or hand the torch over to some new blood. What hurts the article is keeping info that isn't needed for to long. Slow and steady is not always the answer. Yami (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What point are you talking about? We discussed this on your talk page already. I don't think you are out to get the article, or that you are consciously censoring the article. I think you want to remove the video, and your reason is because you don;t think it is appropriate. You expressed that the reason you don't think it is appropriate, is because, "Its so cut and dry. Fluid that makes babies shot out of you not much more can be said." then I find your reasoning to be insufficient for removing the video. Atom (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does the video have to be of a human why not use some other animal? That should make it less objectional (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if the video is in there or not, I just want to know how the heck he does it without any touching??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey on the Video

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I suggest the video to be removed from the article.

I am starting this survey on behalf of myself and other who wish to discuss opinions on the video and why or why not it should or shouldn't be removed.

Please clearly state your position on removal of the video with *'''Support''' to remove itor *'''Oppose''' to keep it, then sign your comment with ~~~~.

because polling is no substitute for talking about it, please explain your reasons. Comment period to end September 4 2008.

Results of the survey: There was no consensus found for removal of the video. Atom (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support
1. there is a image that illustrates the same point. Having both an image and video of the same thing is unnecessary.
2. The video does not add educational value to the article.
3. 99% of all other articles don't have videos so this article should not be any special condition.Yami (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: An argument that other articles don't have videos, so this article should not have a video seems specious to me. Especially considering that this is an online encylopedia. I see this as nothing more than a veiled attempt at censoring the video. Atom (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The video offers additional information that the lede image can not offer. What could be better than a real time view in order to understand the topic? As this is not an article on a static topic, like a brick, the real time process offered by the video is very useful information. Someone who had not been familiar with the topic has a fairly good understanding after viewing the video. Also, the viewer needs to click on the video to view it, it is not forced upon them. Atom (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ejaculation is process, not a static object or event. If we had videos for other subjects, I don't doubt we'd use them in those articles.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 14:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The video adds informative, educational content that is not easily communicated via text or static image. It surely fits Many articles do not have videos, agreed - but that is not a policy decision, and it is a shame that there hasn't been a mnore concerted effort to include videos. As an online encyclopedia capable of multiple forms of media it is certainly valid to include videos where appropriate. Given that viewing is optional, any attempt to remove it seems like no more than censorship. --Cooper-42 (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support for the same reason Yami stated above. A flow diagram would be more useful in illustrating a physiological process than a video. There is no moral stand to this decision.--Animeronin (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The image and the video are basically the same thing, making the entries both redundant and unnecessary. The only thing the video is doing right now is cluttering the article. The reader knows that ejaculation is a process because it is already depicted in the frames of the image, and I fail to see what else the reader can learn on the topic by viewing the video. Artichoker[talk] 18:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As for the other article, and its survey, again I'm not going to be posting directly on its talk page, but feel free to move my comment there or add a link there to it. I Support the removal of the video. This is not any attempt to censor the article, I'm fully aware of the no-censoring policy and I'm taking an amoral stand. Instead, my reasoning is this: 1) The video does not add any encyclopedic content that an image could not convey; 2) An overwhelming majority of articles do not have videos, I see no reason as to why this one needs to be an exception (yes, I'm aware it's a process, so are many of our other articles); and 3) Why don't all the other articles have videos? Because it would be a drain on server resources. There's no need to have videos taking up bandwith and server capacity, they're not exactly space savers. We don't have a video of a bowler tossing a strike at Strike (bowling) or a golfer putting the ball into the cup at Golf. Again, I am not censoring, but going for standardization, ease-of-use, and fast load times. Useight (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Preceding comment copied from here. Artichoker[talk] 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1)Then perhaps the image should be removed, not the video; 2) the inclusion or exclusion of media from other articles is not necessarily an indication of whether or not we should include or exclude that media. 3) Or because no one has through to include video footage of such, and some articles like Pi include animate gifs which doubtlessly take up a bit of space themselves. Plus, the video doesn't seem load unless you click on it.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1) Who's to say which one should go then? Sounds like you'd be up for either one. In that case, I say remove the video because it's more strain on the server; 2) You refute my argument by saying other articles aren't evidence, yet in 3) You use another article as your evidence. Also, is the video from a legitimate source, like a medical journal? Or did some Wikipedian record it themselves? If so, that could be original research or a conflict of interest if that individual is trying to keep the video up. Talk page stalkers, feel free to move this comment to the article's talk page. Useight (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Preceeding comment added from here. (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1) That's sort of the point of this whole thing, isn't it? The Strain on the servers is probably very, very small, unless you're going to offer up some sort of concert evidence of videos destroying the servers, I'm simply not inclined to believe you; YouTube should be exploded daily according to your theory, but they're not. 2) Other articles are not evidence in the sense that an argument cannot be made such as '99% of other articles don't include this media, why should this one', because that's not really an argument, and in point three you make an argument to the effect that we don't include such media because increases server loads in other articles, which my point was; that is false. I'm not, however, saying, Pi has an animated gif, thus this article should also have such media. As for claiming it's violating WP:OR, that's complete bullshit, that's like saying we can't upload screenshots of video games, or add our own user generated images like me uploading this image for the Double helix page, or a user taking a picture of a tree. Further more, I fail to see how all users opposing the removal of this image could possibly have a conflict in interest when it comes to this video, we're not the ones in it, nor did we have anything to do with the making of it. Maybe you should visit the article's talk page itself, rather then have other people move your comments form their talk pages to this article, so you can see it's not a single person or so opposed to this.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 16:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
"Maybe you should vist the article's talk page itself". I've been reading the discussion here, I'm just not going to edit it with my account. Please comment only the content and not on me. I've seen the arguments from those who want to keep the video. They're pretty much all just attacking the points that are brought up by those who want to remove the video instead of bringing up points as to why it should be kept. The only point I see towards the keeping of the video is that it is more informative than an image. Also, please refrain from calling other people's arguments "bullshit", there's no need for ad hominem attacks. Also, I'm not sure about images or videos (my specialty is in blocking and deleting), but I think we also can't upload screenshots of video games because the games are copyrighted. But again, not my area. My point is the "opposers" are pretty much only refuting the "supporters" instead of bringing their own reasoning to the table. Also, of course I'm aware that YouTube isn't exploding, don't patronize me. I'm aware that the bandwidth and server space taken up by the video is minimal, however, it is still more than would be required without the video. Now, I would rather spend my volunteer time working on articles that I find interesting, so I'm going back to NFL-related articles. I'm not going to defend my opinion over and over again, when stating it once was sufficient. (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Point of order: I actually agree with most of what you say, but calling someone's arguments bullshit is the very opposite of an ad hominem attack, because it's attacking a person's arguments and not their person. The Wednesday Island (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I'll give you that. What the heck was I thinking? Struck. (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose*Bandwidth and server space seems to have been brought up as a reason against the video. Unless someone who is maintaining the wikipedia servers decides that there is clearly an issue with the size of videos and amount of videos (beyond the stipulations of Wikipedia:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files#Limitations_and_Implementation_Issues) on wikipedia and makes an official statement in general or for this video specifically, than surely 'won't someone think of the servers' arguments are without weight? As for the golfing / bowling etc. arguments - I think they would be good examples of pages that could do with a short video clip.--Cooper-42 (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose If something is to go because of redundancy, then it should be the image. An image does not convey a full process, even if they are stop-motion. I'm adding some notes here about previous comments as several of the reasons given here seem to me to be flimsy - and it leads me to wonder if they are simply justifications (I am absolutely prepared to be wrong on that). In any case, here are why I think these reasons for removing are flimsy:
  • The fact that "99%" of other articles constitute a "standard" (both terms based on conjecture) is irrelevant - this is not only not a democracy, but different standards apply to different pages. A golf ball? A bowler? What have these to do with ejaculation? They are sports, and if the pages included a strike occurring in bowling, I for one would be pleased, as it might help me improve my awful game.
  • Bandwidth and server capacity? How many videos are you removing? This is not 100 megs
  • Fast load times? the video does not load if you do not click on it. — BananaFiend 14:51, August 5, 2008
  • Oppose I can't believe this is still going on. Keep. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per BananaFiend and because Wikipedia is not censored. KeepOwenBlacker (Talk) 10:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the removal - video is gratuitous. Seethaki (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the removal of the video
    - I think that it is so funny that Image:Ejaculation educational seq 4.png that is currently being used as the lead photo on the Ejaculation article and the looped animated gif from which it was taken, is from the youporncocks website. HAHAHAHA !!!! And to make it even more hilarious, the poster of the videos on youporncocks explained on the website blog how he had used a catheter and a hand pump to backfill his bladder with a mixture of egg whites and watered down yogurt to give this massive ejaculation ( Streaming / Spritzing as he calls it ) effect. It's not even a real ejaculation !!!! Also, one of the videos is watermark copyrighted with "Spritzing 2008". My name here is Infofreak for one simple reason. I am an avid researcher. Some of you need to do a little research before you act too. Infofreak (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but I find the chief argument against this to be weak. It does add to the educational value in my opinion. I prefer the video still over that monstrous 4-panel image currently at the top of the page. And so what if 99% of other articles lack video? This is a number that will change as more such material becomes available, Wikipedia is even pushing for native Theora support for Mozilla Firefox's next release. Rich content is clearly desired on Wikipedia. Keep -- JSAtkinson 06:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose of course. Adding to JSAtkinson's comment: If 99% of other articles lack video, it's an argument to supply more videos to Wikipedia, not remove those few we have... SoWhy 20:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The video is redundant and gratuitous. So is the picture, quite frankly. They only make it easier for brats to secretly try and look up "naughty" words on the internet in hopes they'll also find pics and vids to go along with itso they can tell all their friends at school about it ... They have no real educational value; they're just inappropriate. This is one reason (among many) why no one takes Wikipedia serious. Nor should they. At any rate, my vote is to get rid of the video.--Vico (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Note this is above user's very first post. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and this is my second post! So what exactly is your point, Exploding Boy, aside from proving to everyone that you know how to count? Oh, I know! You're trying to say that because it was my first post that I'm a dolt, and my opinion doesn't matter. Get over yourself, sir. No one likes a troll.--Vico (talk) 06:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't hear him say that. If you are new to Wikipedia, then please review wp:civ. If not, then you would know that the primary interest in mentioning it is that you give the appearance of being a Sock Puppet. Atom (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point, Atom. Thank you. I got a little too defensive, I guess. At any rate, I still stand by my opinion to Support.--Vico (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
And what is your argument, apart from those brats whom you prefer to search elsewhere? (They will succeed somewhere else, certainly). Please explain. Glatisant (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The argument is that the video isn't necessary; there's already a picture. And also that the video is just plain wanton. The same could be said for the picture, too, but this is not a survey about the picture--it's a survey on the video. Anyway, this whole so-called censorship argument goes way beyond this mere ejaculation article, and so it's useless to argue it here in the first place. It is simply my opinion that while the video certainly is "relevant to the content", it is definitely not a crucial addition to the article, and so if people find it lewd, or redundant, or gross, or noneducational, etc., then there is absolutely no harm whatsoever in removing it. That's all.--Vico (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose That brats (...) secretly try and look up "naughty" words on the internet as Vico states, is no argument against those words or their illustrations. If these brats should look up those words in a dictionary, should the dictionary be censored? They seek education in their own bratty way, and find it. Probably you and I once did the same. I like the clinical, unemotional, neutral video. There's no steamy sex about, only a depiction of a body process. It really should stay. Glatisant (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED, but I'm sure this has already been stressed several times with articles bearing "controversial" images or depictions of human genitalia. For anyone researching these matters, images (and even videos) can be valuable resources. Onto another note, I really don't understand claims about redundancy here. The article only features one image and one video. (not to mention, the video itself is extremely lightweight in its overall file size) It's not as if the page is boggled down with media content. I'm sure this could be viewed as a case where a single image is enough to illustrate the subject, but then, we would be having this same argument regardless of whether the video were there or not. As long as the page features depictions of genitalia, I doubt there will ever be a mature compromise about the article's content; which is really sad, because I hate to see Wikipedia editors trying to impose "moral" exceptions like this. So to sum up my feelings on the subject,I see nothing wrong with articles having rich, illustrative content; images, videos and other media files can say so much more than words. There is a point where it can become redundant, yes, but controversy or censorship should never have a bearing on consideration for inclusion. And that's really what this boils down to, whether some editors are willing to concede it or not. (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support This borders on the pornographic and adds no information to the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a dirty magazine. Take it down. - Schrandit (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Am I right in supposing that to your opinion, all photographic or video depictions of sexual mechanisms are dirty? Glatisant (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
What would that matter? - Schrandit (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
If they are, I think the problem is more in your psychological make-up, so to say, than in this article. You are looking into ejaculation not to be enlightened about the subject, but just to vent a negative judgment undislodgeably settled in your mind. Glatisant (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That is an interesting theory. - Schrandit (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments (on survey)

Do a Google Search for the words "spritzing" and "ejaculation" together in the search box and see for yourself. The top six results is this guy's videos. Infofreak (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Your comments are confusing. The survery is about the video, lower in the article, not the lede image. People reading this (me for example) will think you are talking about the topic being discussed (the video) which is *NOT* the topic you are speaking of. Atom (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, would you consider editing your comment to take out the postshot at editor Yami, as well as the plug for the porn site? And the description of this method you talk about would work better in another section discussing the image you are talking about, instead of the video. Just a friendly request. Atom (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Clarification for Atomaton and others. I OPPOSE THE REMOVAL of the video
and I SUPPORT THE REMOVAL of Image:Ejaculation educational seq 4.png

that is being used as the lead image of the article because it was created with still capture images from a video series obtained from a porn website where the poster admitted that it is not a real ejaculation. And by the way, the poster's main nick is "Krooga". Do a Google Search with the words "krooga" and "cumshot" together in the search box and click on the second result that says "Hi Krooga - just thought I'd let you know (if you didn't already) that Wikipedia has pics ... dude, did u know that a video of your cumshot is on wikepedia? ..." Infofreak (talk) 04:27, 8 August 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)

Doesn't the Encyclopedia Britannia have a video for their article on Breast? I don't think videos are that out of place in online encyclopedias.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well i wouldn't know if they do, but the fact isn't if a any video on an online encyclopedia is encyclopedic, but if having both a image and a video (that show the exact same thing) is encyclopedic. Also if the video on this article (how it is filmed, its tone and the original intent of the creator and/or poster) is encyclopedic.

At first glance you would think someone just put the video there to show the world "hey look no hands." i don't know what the creator or the editors who allowed the video to get here was thinking, but the video is here somehow and the question is if it should stay or not.

This isn't about censorship, this isn't about "OH MY GOD THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!" this is about keeping the articles encyclopedic. Yami (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I second Yami's opinion. Having both the video and image explaining the same thing/topic is bordering on redundancy. I say we eliminate one and retain the other. --Animeronin (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My opininon is that the video is instructive and indicates the process of ejaculation in real time. It is in an encyclopedia, and therefore, encyclopedic, as that is the definition of the word. If one means medical or clinical then I agree looking more clinical would be beneficial. However, given a choice of having a less clinical image that displays the topic well versus having no video, I would choose having the less clinical video for the time being until a more clinical video emerges. Atom (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Demonstrations or instructions in real time does not equal encyclopedic. Also an Encyclopedia is a static yet non static source of info. A paper based Encyclopedia would have static info, but its following update/volume would be an example of it being non static.

Because this is a web encyclopedia the info can change fast and more efficiently then its paper based ancestor.

However just because its a web based encyclopedia and thus allows different forms of info to be added does not mean that they are educational or encyclopedic because they were added. The pronunciations of the words Ejaculate and/or Ejaculation would be an educational media to apply to the article, but a video showing what a image already shows is not a educational media.

There isn't a video showing a fish being cleaned on the fishing article. There isn't a video of someone casting a reel. There is no video of someone making fire with two sticks on the fire article. No video of how a tire is being made or rotated. no video of how a fan works by spinning a set of fan blades. There is no video of how cars are raced on Nascar, or how they do the pitstop.

Some of those things might be educational but half are not worth adding to their articles. Also many of them are "processes" which was one of your earlier arguments. Process or no process if it can be illustrated with a picture a video is just overkill.

All this video does is illustrate the same thing already illustrated by a image. Also if one or the other was to be removed the video would be the best choice since encyclopedias need images and the article is nicely illustrated with the current image.

I mean a video on doing a self breast exam might help that article but in no way does this video help this article except in causing edit warring, controversy and the endless squabbling between editors who accuses each other of this and that.

Removing it based on it being non encyclopedia would not be censorship like many of you editors on here have been falsely preaching. Removing it based on the fact it has a penis in it would be censorship but not for the reasons i and many before me have brought up.

Over illustrating a point is not encyclopedic. A Real encyclopedia might have one or two images for any given subject. You don't need 100 pictures of hieroglyphs after showing a chart of them. You only need one illustration to show what Anubis looked like and maybe a picture of a statue that was worshiped.

The Jesus article doesn't show 100 images of him. They show different depictions of him from different times but they don't over illustrate the points.

The Son Goku article only has three images of him. 1 of him and his child form, one using the sprite bomb and the last image of him as a super saiyan. They don't have 10 images of him in 4-6 different levels and variations of super saiyan forms. They have a cut and dry to the point illustration of what he looks like in one 3 forms (child, adult, super saiyan).

The point is there is no need to add useless or already illustrated info, and that info that was added that over illustrates should be removed.

Also to touch upon some of the arguments. Just because you have to click it to load it doesn't mean it doesn't cause server stress. Clicking it makes the server have to work. keeping it on the article makes the server have to keep it in its place. loading the page makes the server have to send you the info that "hey this is a video that you can play"

with out the video the article would load faster just because it wouldn't have to compile the data that this article has a video.

Also just because this argument/discussion has gone on for a long time does not mean the video should or shouldn't stay. Any editor who would oppose or support the removal or keeping the video based on that should not be counted. Unless the editor voicing their choice has a general good reason for doing so anything else should not be counted.

The removal of the video should be because its not educational and/or encyclopedic.

Keeping the video should be done if its educational and/or encyclopedic.

Not because "this is still going on? oppose keep" If a editor is not going vote for the better of the article and not just because they're tired of the argument or because they want it censored then they should not be counted. The same goes for the people who simply said oppose because of Useights original stance of the server thing. If they want to believe or not believe it causes server load and what not that is their own problem but voting oppose simply because a user or two believes that isn't the way to do things.

People can have their opinion but if they're going vote against others opinions and not for the reasons stated then they should not be counted as a true vote.

Notice what i did there. I over illustrated my points on purpose to illustrate the bigger point. Over illustration is boring, redundant and completely unneeded. Yami (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I wrote, in disbelief and exasperation, that I can't believe this is still going on is because it has been going on for months now, if not years. That videos are lacking in some articles is not a good argument for removing them from others. In fact, the very fact that this encyclopedia is capable of supporting various types of media is a good argument for including them. All the better to illustrate concepts with. The claim that the article is over-illustrated is pure hyperbole. There are exactly two illustrations: one image, and one video. Both are useful. And in fact, the preference is for more rather than less illustration: you'll notice that every featured article contains at least a handful of images. Today's featured article, Parapsychology, contains six. Antarctic krill, a previous FA, contains twelve, including one animation. The fact is that some people just cannot bear any explicit depiction of anything related to sex and human genitalia; that's fair enough, but those people's feelings cannot be considered as a basis for removing useful, encyclopedic media from articles on Wikipedia. This is not pornographic, it's not gratuitous, and it's not excessive. It should stay, and this ridiculous argument, which is really just pandering to the relentless agitation of those who would like Wikipedia wiped "clean," needs to end once and for all. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to over illustrate, and if its gone on this long then that would indicate that the video is not helping the article. all it does is cause conflict. Many people have their own reasons for keeping or axing the video but the bottom line is that if it is really worth keeping then no one would be fighting over it staying but changing.
If the video was really that important 10 other different replacements would have came about by now, but so far to my knowledge no video has replaced this one.
Some articles do have lots and lots of images and/or media, but just because other articles have less images and/or media then others, does not mean that they should try to raise the number of images and/or media if it keeps illustrating the same point. There is no need for 15 images of ejaculation on this article, and more or less this article should go with the Sperm and Semen article. I don't see what can be said on this article that can't be fitted in the other article. Yami (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This reminds me of a dilbert comic, where one guy says "I will oppose you to the end of the world!" (or something pretty similar).
"if it is really worth keeping then no one would be fighting over it staying but changing". Wow, I'm not sure how to respond to this one. How about this equally valid statement:
If it is really worth removing then no one would be fighting over it changing but staying. BananaFiend (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yami defends an image created from media from a porn site that is not even a real ejaculation, and wants to remove a legal non-pornographic realtime video example of ejaculation created exclusively for Wikipedia ... go figure.

Anyway, Yami said "The removal of the video should be because its not educational and/or encyclopedic. Keeping the video should be done if its educational and/or encyclopedic".

Ok, lets look at this. Click on this link from the talk page of a Deletion Request of the video

from April 2007.[[2]] By Yami's own words, the video should stay on the article because this link proves that the video is educational and has been used by visitors to Wikipedia for educational purposes. Infofreak (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

True, it is not desirable to clutter articles with too many images of exactly the same thing. On the other hand, it is also not desirable to provide insufficient illustration. (You will notice, for example, that images are a requirement for Featured Article status. Similarly, ithe Perfect Article "includes informative, relevant images . . . that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text, but not so many as to detract from it"). However, the claim that two different media relating to the same thing is "over-illustration" is just silly. Nobody is arguing that because other articles have more images, the number of images in every article should be raised. Articles should be thoroughly illustrated with relevant images. Certainly, as Yami says, "there is no need for 15 images of ejaculation on this article." But nobody has tried to add or proposed adding that many, and currently we have only one image, in addition to the one video. No reasonable claim can be made that this is excessive. As a point of reference, please see the following articles which have multiple illustrations of their subjects: Albert, Prince Consort (4, plus 3 additional); Bestiality (5); Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (16, plus 4 additional); Testicle (6); Coho salmon (3); Semen (4).
As I stated above, the argument over the video is precisely linked to the desire of some editors to remove explicit imagery from Wikipedia. The problem is that certain people simply refuse to accept Wikipedia's no censorship policy. This is unacceptable. (Similar arguments are ongoing regarding images in a variety of human sexuality-related articles.)
As far as Yami's argument that this article should be merged with Sperm and Semen (not sure how, since they are two separate articles), feel free to propose merging if you feel that strongly about it. I don't think the proposal will be successful, however, and if it were that still would not solve the issue of the video, which would still be relevant and encyclopedic.
Let's be very clear on this point: one image and one video does not constitute over-illustration. Can we put that nonsense to rest and move on to any other objections to the video?
Finally, a request to Yami: please place your signature next to the last sentence of your post rather than on a separate line. It makes for a much less cluttered and much easier to read talk page. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
BananaFiend that video is only named that. You can upload anything and call it educational, but it doesn't mean it is. You're comments seem to be more trollish then constructive converstation. You also seem to be more interested in trying to humiliate or belittle other editors.
I don't know where the image came from, and if the image is on a porn site but if you are that concerned about the image change it.
I mean if it being on a porn site or that it was created for that purpose annoys you or something, then why don't you change it out instead of trying to argue about me wanting to remove the video and not the porn site picture. Yami (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Exlopding Boy The fact of the matter is that there is no reason in having a image and then a video. Both illustrate the same point so that is over illustration. The cut and dry fact is that Ejaculation is when semen shoots out of the tip of a penis, nothing that can't be said by text or the image.There isn't to many ways to illustrate it any different then what the image already does.
Though this doesn't apply to normal images and i'm not sure about videos there is a ruling on non-free images where the should only be used if the text can't explain it well.
The image on here and the text seems to explain the process well enough without some guy's video of him getting off. I mean can you truly defend this guy's video based on a educational factor? I mean we don't know what he was thinking. He might have uploaded the video for education or he might have just uploaded it for a non educational purpose. If the video's intent wasn't educational, but as a form of vandalism or showing off then it shouldn't be included.
People are arguing for the video because ejaculation is a process but you can't see the whole process with just seeing the outside of the penis shooting semen. If the video could show the semen from start to finish I (from being formed to traveling and being released) then it would be educational. Showing a video of some guy ejaculating, when a image showed the exact same thing is not educational.Yami (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I've already explained why there is a reason to have both an image and a video. Here's another reason (also explained above, by some other editors): ejaculation is a process; a video illustrates this process much better than a series of still images. For example, see the article Horse gait, which has both still images and animated images of the various gaits. And I think I've explained well enough why this is clearly, indisputably not over-illustration. Let's move onto whatever other objections you have, please.
Your main objection seems to be that the subject might have enjoyed the orgasm that presumably accompanied his ejaculation in the video, and/or that he might have uploaded the video with the motive of getting his jollies by having it displayed publicly. These are not good reasons to exclude this clearly relevant and useful video from this article. We have users who have uploaded photographs of their genitalia, breasts and various bodily fluids as well; we don't question their motives, only whether the images/videos are useful. As to the claim that the creator may have intended to use the video for vandalism, that's entirely possible. However, we have ways of preventing that, and there's no evidence I've seen that indicates that the creator has used the video that way. Again, not a reason to exclude the video from use in this article.
You're right that the video doesn't show the entire process of ejaculation, only the externally visible portion. I believe there was an animation that did show the internal process; I don't know what's happened to it, but if we can find it or a similar one, it should be added to the article as well. Your claim that the video is not educational is, I think, utterly unfounded. It illustrates the process clearly in a way that neither the text nor the still image can possibly match. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If the photo sequence has been manipulated in such a way as InfoFreak suggests, as not being a realistic ejaculation, it should be replaced by another illustration that is entirely realistic.
As for the question of over-illustration: first you search for 'ejaculation' because you probably are curious in some way. You could also search for 2008 Summer Olympics, Nematomorpha, or Cleopatra Jones, but no, ejaculation it is. Then you click on the video button. You know what may happen: you will see an ejaculation. If you don't want to see it, don't click. Very simple. Glatisant (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sequence of Ejaculation

It should be noted that the "spurts" of an ejaculate are not homogenous: in the first 1/3 of ejaculate (2-3 spurts) most sperm and prostatic secretion are expelled, and the last 2/3 of the ejaculates contain very few sperm, and their motility, survival and protection of the genetic material (DNA) is not as good as in sperm ejaculated together with the zinc rich prostatic fluid. It is the seminal vesicular fluid in the last part of the ejaculate that causes the formation of a gel that is seen in ejaculates collected in laboratory containers for investigation. Seminal vesicular fluid is rich in fructose, but this is hardly a source of energy for sperm "in vivo" since sperm are not likely be in contact with seminal vesicular fluid: ejaculation in the vagina means that the first ejaculate frations are expelled onto the cervical mucus which usually hangs out from the cervical os. That means that the rapidly moving sperm expelled in prostatic fluid can transfer into the cervical mucus before contact with the seminal vesicular fluid.Androlog (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research? If not, then please cite your sources. And if possible, include the facts you've stated in the article, if it would benefit clarifying the "quality of semen" --Animeronin (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

I have removed the only citation-needed tag. I did this by removing un-cited factors affecting sperm count, and adding in citations for factors left in. I have also removed the original-research tag on the article. If there are any more reasons for the citation-needed tag, it can be added back in. BananaFiend (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Explicit content complaint

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Drawn images are OK because they explain a topic. This website IS AVAILABLE TO CHILDREN! Am I the only one to see the problem here? You need some kind of confirmation of mature age before showing this kind of content!

If this isn't rectified it wont be long time until Wikipedia is either closed down or gets censorship on specific articles from DNS servers. Maybe even worse, a lawsuit or something worse that may shut Wikipedia down! You are ruining the beautiful and wonderful creation of Wikipedia by showing this inappropriate content! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's not illegal. You should probably be screaming about illegal content on Penis, Vagina, and Semen if you're that convinced that having a video of ejaculation, on a page about ejaculation, is illegal.
Also, I hate to shatter your view of the Internet, but most porn sites (of which Wikipedia is not one) do not bother to verify the age of the viewer. Sure, there's a "click here if over 18/21" button, but clicking that button is no guarantee that the viewer is actually over 18. Are you suggesting that all Internet pornography is also illegal? (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended by this article. As stated in our disclaimers, Wikipedia contains content that some may find offensive. Our goal is to provide full and accurate information for the education of all. This means that we have text and images that some may feel overly explicit and are not suitable for children.

The inclusion of explicit content has been one of the hottest debates in the Wikipedia community (as is evident in the poll above). Some feel that the encyclopedia should be "work safe"; others feel equally strongly that we should present full information. The general advice given by many organisations is to closely monitor /any/ access to the Internet by children. The Internet as a whole is not very child friendly.

The relevant disclaimer can be read at

--chaser - t 04:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This article in the news

Sort of. Wikipedia users divided over sexual material. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite speechless... lol. We have a "fight" on our hands. :3 --Animeronin (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


It would be really great to see information related to male health and ejeculation in this article. Im pretty surprised there is nothing here about it. A good place to start would be books by Mantak Chia such as The Multi_Orgasmic man.

Shamless self-promotion of image submitter is to blame here!

Isn't this really about the shameless self-glorification of the submitter of this content?! Forget the purposes of education, I will bet anyone dollars to donuts that this submitter only posted this for the thrill of people around the world watching him shoot off a load. In short this content totally undermines the attempt at a serious and sedate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read your comments I just read your comments and wondered how long they've been here. Looks like just today. I fully agree with you. This is totally disgusting. There should be a scientific photograph or diagram showing this, rather than the poster of this image. It's not even professionally done. It's a shame on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just been reading an essay concerning criticisms of Wikipedia which mentioned video content which showed masturbation and ejaculation. I decided to follow the hyperlink to see for myself and as an incredibly open-minded individual am surprised that such videos on this site. The content is inappropriate in an encyclopedia - if Wikipedia can rightfully even claim such status - personally I find it quite disgusting to see the video and think the person featured in the footage may have done it to "get off" on knowing that people watch the video everyday. If such content is to be featured it should be a scientific diagram but such content is totally irrelevant anyway. All that should be featured in my opinion is a scientific diagram of the male reproductive system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Bawwwwwwwww. Stop crying. You going to start the Parents Wikipedia Resource Center? Pffft. (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editrequest}} The image at the top of the page should be moved under the "Phases" section. (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not done. It is standard for articles to have images in the top right-hand corner. Huntster (t@c) 06:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, the photography only shows the second phase. The "Phases" section doesn't need a photography, it needs an internal diagram showing all the internal conducts carrying the sperm and seminal fluid. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Found typo, Paged Locked?

However, a recent Australian study has suggested a positive correlation between prostate cancer and infrequent ejaculation and/or prostate milking, which performs essentially the same function. This is not illegal and is studied by many in the subject of Physiology. That is, frequent ejaculation appears to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. Frequent ejaculation is more easily obtained and sustained over time with the aid of masturbation and it is these ejaculations which are important, not the mechanism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

hum, there is no typo there. It's actually saying that frequent ejaculation reduces risk of prostate cancer, it's just saying it on a convoluted way. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So Much Focus On Images

Hi all, why is there so much topicality on the images whether it be ejaculation, deep throat, titty *** or other terms that deal with sex. The text which basically describes what the pics show don't get the same attention. I thought we were living in the 21st century. I remember sex education in the 8th grade in 1978. No problem, everyone handled it decently. More or less young people should be educated nevertheless the fuss is always over the pics. Well thanks, look forward to responses. Koplimek (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. "

WP:NOTFORUM --Enric Naval (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hence the power of the Wiki.

The whole point is NOT to have censorship but rather, access to knowledge.

To place this point at it's most potent state, let's challenge a person who's an ultimate naysayer... One who one, agrees with the purpose of Wiki, yet two, contradicts himself and disagrees with the fundamental purpose making the point of "ill-thought" or "illegal" or "disagreeable" subjects like the normal male mammalian function of ejaculation.

ARE there any "illegal" subjects?? ANY illegal topics??? ILLEGAL knowledge???

No. The constitution states that.

Can a person use LEGAL knowledge to commit ILLEGAL acts? Absolutely! Is it WRONG detailing the making of poison? Bombs? Killing?

In and of themselves, no!

If someone decides to ACT ON said knowledge, is it the fault of the Wiki? No, it's all on the person ABUSING valid information to which most normally adjusted people is just that... knowledge. I can hand you a legal knife, one which I cut meat with, but another may use the same knife and kill with it. Does that make knives wrong? Does that make detailing the uses of the same knife available on Wiki wrong? No... or perhaps only to deranged individuals who lacking control, decide to murder with my steak knife.

Guns... Can we detail the detailed functioning of them, and uses thereof on Wiki? Of course. Can someone read that and then go and shoot someone to death? Of course! Is it the gun's fault or the person's?? Obvious answer...

Thus I hereby negate the arguments of ( and further remind said prophet that "rediculous" is spelled ridiculous! I'm sure many other errors in basic spelling exist in such a long rant.

In any "controversial" discussion, controversial for the same reason some persons vehemently disagree, will go to great lengths to A) dispute the topic while B) force their beliefs on the rest of us.

Read the subject again.... Wikipedia is Not, nor should it be, "censored"! What one may find inappropriate or even immoral, risks jeopardizing the rights of the rest of us to LEARN, clarify MISUNDERSTANDING, and/or otherwise better OUR knowledge at the supposed expense of THEIR morals.

This fully violates the spirit of Wikipedia, attempts to invalidate others' beliefs and/or right to learn, and frankly these moralistic diatribes have no right to exist on Wikipedia...

Just like a TV, or radio.... If you don't like what you are hearing/seeing.... change channel, or move that special switch to the OFF position and keep your opinions OUT of educational sources. Being public, this Wiki is inherently self policing WITHOUT NEEDING SELF PROCLAIMED POLICE!

In the meantime, do not tell ME nor anyone else what YOU think one may, or MAY NOT see! I will decide for MYSELF and NOBODY else! (Parental guidance to young children excepted)as WE (parents) make decisions for them until which time they are able to do so on their own and in a responsible manner.... Something many adults cannot even do!

I hereby end THIS diatribe!


Sneighke (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC) aka -=dlc=-

Please keep in mind, Wikipedia IS censored!

WP:NOTFORUM --Enric Naval (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia is censored. I notice that in the "sexual intercourse" article, there are photos of animals mating. But when it comes to humans, there's just a painting. Why isn't there a VIDEO of humans having sex? There should be a video showing every common position. It would be far more educational than what is there. After all, this is about accessing knowledge, isn't it? 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)

No replies? How interesting. Can we expect to see an informative video of the missionary position soon? How about doggy style? We need more knowledge! Seriously, another look at the "sequence" photo makes me laugh with embarrassment at being involved with WP. Sequence of ejaculation? Semen comes out of the penis. How do these photos add knowledge to that statement? The defecation article is less graphic, yet ejaculation requires both pictures and videos. This is not about knowledge. It is about enjoying the power of controlling knowledge. Grow up. I have no objection to porn. But this is not scientific. It's childish. So although Sneighke thinks others may want censorship, it's really about presenting facts in a mature manner. Using CAPITALS doesn't form an argument Sneighke. Nor does claiming to "end this diatribe". I have comprehensively destroyed your position. Answer? Denizen of Reality (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as we all remember that a picture says a thousand words (or something like that) (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Way too explicit content

WP:NOTFORUM --Enric Naval (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just that. Wikipedia is of public use. Many children look up information in the Wikipedia. Paintings and graphics are much better than this pornographic multimedia. I think it's pretty obvious that vulgar content must be deleted without arguing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekangaroorat (talkcontribs) 05:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Define "Vulgar" and define "Explicit"

WP:NOTFORUM --Enric Naval (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The hypocrisy of this site is amazing. I guess it all depends on which Admin gives the first word that the content is ok or not and every other person with any lick of authority falls in line like an obedient dog. If the Admin is fine, the argument goes "Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED." If the Admin deletes it because he/she doesn't like it, the argument is now "It's too explicit/non-educational." I like how Wikipedia says anyone is free to edit and contribute, but it's up to a handful of people to censor it or not depending on who got a boner from it. I doubt I'm exaggerating any more than "a tiny bit." Pick one Wikipedia: Are you censored or are you not? Define the terms in objective ways. And for the VERY hypocritical "children" part of the argument, if you care so much, where is the warning for parents that Wikipedia contains extremely graphic phallic imagery, displayed in a way that anyone who doesn't stay on this site their entire waking life could find before giving Susie 10 year old access?--Mattbrown04 (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Natural Processes Are Not "Pornographic"

WP:NOTFORUM --Enric Naval (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ejaculation in and of itself is not pornographic. It is a biological process. Pornography is commerce; this article explains the facts of a natural function in male creatures--and there is a big difference between the two. Ejaculation, erections, penises and testicles are absolutely vital if any species wants to continue itself. How ejaculation, which is nothing more or less than a reflex, is perceived cannot be the reason to ban information about it--even visual information. Most male children will eventually ejaculate; that is one of among many things that male bodies do and is made to do. How can anybody, on any subject, make a fully-informed decision unless they have all the facts? A visual representation of ejaculation only confirms what the article says, and anybody will tell you that a picture is worth a 1000 words. And personally, I will make my own decisions about what I will and will not see or watch or read; if I disagree with it, I will say so, and avoid it in the future. No one else will make that choice for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

People are talking about having no censorship on Wikipedia

WP:NOTFORUM --Enric Naval (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to say that keeping that animated GIF is to keep Wikipedia uncensored, even though it could be considered illegal without a warning (it's basically pornography) then why not show actual child porn on the child porn article? Oh yeah, because it's illegal. (And it should be obviously) This exhibitionist GIF needs to be replaced with an animated illustration, which is more than adequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Anthrocentric focus

Just as an aside, I'd like to add that this article focuses entirely on human ejaculation, when it is, in fact, a function of many species, and all mammals. If the sex could be put aside for just a minute, maybe someone could add a biological focus? I understand this is the most likely destination for someone reading about ejaculation, but there should be some info about it. Glacialfury (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing is that I was coming here [forgive the pun] to make exactly the same point. Humans are not the only animal to ejaculate any more than being the only animal carrying out reproduction through sex. Sexual_reproduction#Mammals has details. Added a template to the article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Other types of videos

Please tell me why when I post a video of female ejaculation, oral sex, plain sex, tampon insertion and removal, or female masturbation, they are always deleted as non-educational. They say a drawing would do fine. However, any images that appeal to homosexuals such as autofellatio, ejaculation, male masturbation, penis pics, erection pics are left for children to view at school. My children's school currently allows anyone to view Wikipedia files openly and my daughter has reported seeing these masturbation vids at school. This has been brought up at a recent school board meeting and they said that since Wikipedia cannot filter pornographic content it will no longer be allowed. They are in the process of an IT specialist setting up a permanent block on Wikipedia. Way to go Wikipedia, we now must block all useful information to a large group to please a very small group of deviants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:19, 22 January 2009

Can you point us to the deleted files so we can see why they were deleted, or point us to the deletion discussions? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
In which page do you post the video? I've looked at the Female_ejaculation article, and there are no videos in the recent edits.--Juancdg (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
one reason why you don't see pics of female ejaculation is because of the very nature of a woman's orgasm which for the most part takes place internally rather than externally as with males. For the Female Ejaculation section a diagram or schematic would actually be more appropriate as it could clearly illustrate a female ejaculation within the womans' body. The pics showing men ejaculating clearly illustrates the physical perspective of a male ejaculation which is in line with the educational text of the article ilregard of the reason or cause. Diagrams or schematics would also serve the point but as others have said Wikipedia is not censored. I don't see the homosexual referance that is referring to just because of photos. Wikipedia covers the big blue marble and many different people view these articles for many different reasons. Educationally I think the article is superb and educates like it's supposed to. It's not fair to Wikipedia to assuage a homosexual connotation to an article that technically serves it's subject matter. Koplimek (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, what the fuck does homosexuality have to do with anything? Are you seriously that homophobic? Ejaculation appeals to women too, but you don't mention women, that was highly fucking bizarre. Secondly, Wikipedia is not censored, and shouldn't be. If your school cannot realize that Wiki serves as an encyclopedia (of sorts) on the web, then that's too bad. I'm sure if you added some pictures that served as a purpose, and backed them up, there would be no problem. And I highly doubt you've done such things; it just seems like you came here to rant about gay people, and THEN make it seem like it all went together. (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh please. Act however you want, if anyone uploaded any of the mentioned content, no matter how relevant it wouldn't be left up. Wikipedia seems to be fine with videos of male ejaculation and penises but lacks a lot of female anatomy content left up after upload. I don't know why there are even videos when still pics are just as effective and infinitely less pornographic. Wikipedia needs to let people know what porn is OK to upload and what porn isn't.--Mattbrown04 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think that those videos of female ejaculation were deleted because of being copyright violations (aka copied from some porn site without permission).
As for "[lacking] a lot of female anatomy content left up after upload", I just can't let this pass without commenting. I think that you should visit our sister project Wikimedia Commons, starting by commons:Category:Female nude in photography and commons:Category:Shaved genitalia (female) (NSFW links, of course) and exploring its associated categories, and see for yourself how wrong you are. There was even one user, a couple of months ago, unsuccessfully trying to limit the number of this sort of photos in Common. I can assure that wikipedia (well, the sister project of wikipedia) has no bias against naked women.
Finally, as a comment for everybody, the english wikipedia (enwiki) is not the only wikipedia in the world. There are wikipedias in other languages, and those have their own standards for many things, including images. The french wikipedia (frwiki) voted to remove the animation but left the photographic sequence in the article. The Spanish wikipedia (eswiki) article has no image, with no serious discussion of matter, editors regularly reverting it in and out, and comments pro and against on the talk page. And, no, I don't think that we should follow their example, it should be enwiki that sets an example for the other wikipedias, showing that we dont abide to moral censorhip here. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Call it sister all you want, fact is Wikipedia is the parent of the project, not the older sister. Ironically, it is not as hypocritical as its parent. And moral censorship? That's what nearly every edit on this Wiki that isn't fixing a typo is about, on any subject. Why do you think so many big articles are locked? What is called 'vandalism' is almost always people editing on both sides of an issue and do it for their own morals. Pedophilia is a prime example.--Mattbrown04 (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(Sorry, not going to enter discussions about editing wikipedia in general, that's out of scope for this talk page, which should be only to discuss changes to the Ejaculation article) I'll just point out that, although enwiki was the original project, the parent project is currently meta, and that wikipedia's long term goals are marked by the mission statement at meta, which was worded by the Wikimedia Foundation, with this Foundation being the owner of all wikipedia projects and having executive power in all of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

perhaps a way to resolve the video dispute

What do you guys think of putting up a template like this:


at the top of the page. Offended people can stay away, but are given reason the material will stay. People who don't care can just ignore it.--Loodog (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Awful idea; which is why that template has already been deleted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This sort of content tagging was proposed and rejected here at wikipedia and also at commons --Enric Naval (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
One would think that if someone was going to a wiki entry for "ejaculation" that it would be about sex or about something sexual. Odds are that if a kid is on this page, it's because they typed in ejaculation. Better for them to read about it in an academic setting rather than troll the internet & end up on some seedy porno page or get solicited by some pedophile. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

-The odds are even greater that the kid typed in "erection" after seeing a Cialis/Viagra commercial, then followed all the blue links, ending up on "ejaculation".

-If the idea of pornography is bad, the idea of educational explicit depiction of sexual acts is more damaging, because it normalizes it without the social taboo that pornography holds. This taboo would be inherent not only in pornography but also in the search on Wiki, but the search on Wiki would deteriorate that taboo with the proir establishment of credibility as a "good page" because the child most likely accessed it before for more child-like topics. The graphic depictions of this article go beyond education and goes into sexualization of a child. The sexualization process is used by pedophiles to groom their victim. Exposing them to the male orgasm in a mundane and neutral setting like a scientific article aids in this process of grooming, because the male orgasm is the very act the pedophile most wants to accustom the child to.

-Children do use Wikipedia for school, if they use google because the Wiki hit is usually first.

-Perhaps even the cartoon artwork used in sexuality articles is dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSct (talkcontribs) 00:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Faulty definition?

I wonder why the definition says '. . .the ejecting of semen from an erect penis', whereas it is not a requirement for the penis to be erect to ejaculate. People with erectile dysfunctions can ejaculate if properly stimulated, without having an erection. (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I rmved it from the lead, and reworded the main text to show it is usually the case (but not essential).YobMod 09:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please keep on topic

Please don't argue here about the generic concepts of "censorship in wikipedia", "what constitutes pornography" or "legality of placing explicit images in articles". This page is to discuss changes in the Ejaculation article, as per the talk page guideline. Try in the village pump. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Disproportionately explicit/questionable motivations for content submissions

-No other Sexuality article has such a graphic level of depiction. Wouldn't a cartoon representation (like in other sexuality articles)or anatomical drawing of ejaculation accomplish the same purpose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSct (talkcontribs) 23:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

--Just because all the other articles have cartoon depictions doesn't mean this one has to have one too. That's the "everyone else is doing it" argument. As for whether or not it accomplishes the same purpose, I ask you why settle for a cartoon when you can see the real thing? Do we want to see cartoons of lions on the lion page and cartoons of trains on the train page? No, we want to see real lions and real trains. The same applies here. If you are suggesting it be a cartoon due to the fact that penises are objectionable to a certain crowd, then your argument carries no weight. Wikipedia has a section that explains that such material is not prohibited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 06:30, 16 June 2009

-Don't the submissions look like an exhibitionistic type of pornography known as self-pics, where men propogate photos of themselves aroused and/or ejaculating. Should Wikipedia lend itself to be used as such a platform? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSct (talkcontribs) 23:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

--No, I do not think they look like any type of pornography. That is a stretch. It looks like an ejaculating penis, plain and simple. How would you prefer him to ejaculate? There are only so many ways to do it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 06:30, 16 June 2009
Consider this: how does the real time depiction of a male ejaculating enhance the educational experience of readers---especially middle school, elementary school or other young readers that might happen onto this article? One can argue till the cows come home that this depiction is only one of human physiology and thus ethically irreproachable. "It's just nature" might be the argument. However if that's the case, where exactly should the line be drawn? For example, should an article on defecation depict a human anus expanding and expelling excrement? That too is nature. What about persons copulating? What about vomiting? Dying? Or any natural function of the human experience, or of human nature/behavior for that matter.
The fact is, this depiction is completely unecessary and crass. Hiding behind the veil of it as 'only being a natural function' doesn't quite cut it. I move that it be removed. (Ronsword (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC))
--I'm an extremely unshockable person, and even I have wondered for a LONG time why this picture/video was included. It is extremely graphic, and, lets be honestest, not even realistic. The average male's orgasm looks NOTHING like that, and inclusion of this video is just the fulfillment of a collective male fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:37, 23 June 2009
--- I don't think it needs to be censored, but I see where the questionable content comes into play. Maybe it doesn't shock me as much to see this (for various reasons), but I can see how some people could be sensitive to it.
That said, has anyone even FOUND an alternative to the video that could suitably demonstrate ejaculation? If they can, I say that we use it. Until then...well...what can we do?
And Ronsword, those depictions you mentioned above are suitably explained already, picture or not. Everyone, I'm sure, has defecated, whether they look at their anus or not while doing so. The same cannot be said about ejaculating. Hell, I didn't even know what it looked like until I was 16. Same for copulating. Pictures are provided in that article, with LINKS to flash video available. Vomiting SHOULD have a picture, but I doubt anyone wants to go through the trouble of doing that. Dying? Well, how many pictures/video could someone procure of a human dying? Realistically?
  • Shrugs* I'm just saying. Find a suitable alternative, and everything should be fine.
(User:ItsGotChunksOfPeanutButter) 13:30, 23 June 2009

physiology of ejaculation

think the text is a little misleading. refering to "the point of no return" this is not during the emission phase, one can delay orgasm (edging) by going as far as the emmision stage. ejaculatory inevitability occurs when presure in the urethra builds to such a level that expulsion begins. expulsion is tthe motor neuron induced clonic contractions of striated muscle of the pelvic floor incuding the bulbospongiosus, largely outside concious control. emission is the sympathetically induced contractions of the non striated (smooth) muscle of the accesory sex glands. although it is under the sway of the autonomic system it can be interupted by concious control whereas expulsion generally cannot. (once it starts there is nothing you can do to stop it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clearer just to say it is an involuntary process (see my recent edit) rather than attempt to describe "point of no return". Also, any outside intervention to stop the flow is technically a voluntary action -- though not a voluntary action of sexual organ or "willpower". Martindo (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Animated *.gif AND video?

Aren't they redundant? -- Bubbachuck (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying that an article doesn't need more than one eternally-ejaculating penis?Fuzzy901 (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the video offers nothing to the article that the original image/looped gif doesn't already cover. I am not opposed to this article being illustrated with real life images, and am open to adding more as long as they improve the article. The video however does not. If no one has a reasonable cause for keeping it, I'll go ahead and delete it in a day or so. (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a Kristen Bjorn video?

The 'handsfree ejaculation' shown in the video is reminiscent of director Kirsten Bjorn's particular genre of gay pornography. Is it an example thereof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravisingh62 (talkcontribs) 02:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that the footage was edited so that the final stimulation/initial spurt was cut.
My objection to the video is the endless loop aspect, which belies the text about different volume being emitted during different spurts. Martindo (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's the video?

The ejaculation pictures and video have been a favorite (for me) for titillation and arousal to aid in masturbation. I am sure Wikipedia is not an enterprise interested in sexual titillation Yet the ejaculation videos serve(d) that purpose very well. For me at least. Under the criterion of 'need to know',,, no to ejaculation picts and vids. If WK includes info under 'desire to know' then OK. One thing I need to know---can the WK picts of ejaculation can show up in public schools?? If so WK is exposing teachers to prosecution of sex crimes against children for showing or allowing them to see sexually explicit material especially PICTURES and worse VIDEO. Pnoric (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)pnoric

Any concerns about the legality of the images here should be sent to User:Mike Godwin, who provides legal advice to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Sex-ed (in schools that provide it) shows just as explicit things, including penetration and internal ejaculation. Unless the offical legal advisor says otherwise, i find it highly unlikely there could be any legal problems here.YobMod 06:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, someone have a bit too much schizo with his Loony-Os? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

IS there a technique?

IS there a technique for multiple orgasms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Phases: Ejaculation

The text contradicts itself by referring to a total of 10-15 contractions, some of which are not spurts, and then saying in paragraph three that there are "10 or more contractions" w/o semen emitted. Do the math. Will someone familiar with the reference cited please make a correction?

Also, the inequality of number of contractions and number of spurts should be explicitly described to clarify that non-emission contractions occur before and after spurting, but not during. In other words, during the emission of semen, there are no "dry spurts" until emission ends. Martindo (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

An old yet still alive debate: The images

Let's be clear without the bureaucracy and heated debates about what's considered factual, neutral, obscene, or whatever you prefer: The images on the page are repulsive. That's the reality of the situation when considered from the perspective of the majority of people looking at the page, and no amount of debating changes that basic effect. The fact that you could leave this page up in a school computer lab and get seriously punished for it with just reason should be evidence enough of how inappropriate it is. The talk of "Wikipedia says this" is a cop-out, and they don't consist of absolute rules that say the images have to stay there. It's a matter of opinion, and mine is that they're repulsive, and they should be taken down in light of the typical effect they have on the majority of individuals who might want to safely see this page in a public place without being justly embarrassed. Rocketpop (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

*Ahem* WIKIPEDIA. IS. NOT. CENSORED. (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you read what I wrote? An absence of censorship does not necessitate repulsive pictures. If there are images, they should at least have the trait of being scientific visual aids. *Ahem* yourself. Rocketpop (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't find them repulsive, pornographic or unscientific. And "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for removing images. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, opinion is a valid reason. Using the images is purely a matter of that, as they are not by-rule necessary. Pulling the "No Censorship" card is being used as a cop-out for the use of practical images.Rocketpop (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No, opinion isn't a valid reason, only policy is, and I don't know what you mean by "practical images." That Wikipedia isn't censored is vitally important in this discussion; it means that "I don't like it" is utterly rejected as a reason for removing or not including these images. The images illustrate a human biological function in an encyclopedic, non-pornographic, non-gratuitous manner; they are directly related to the subject of the article. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to quote myself to bring the argument back to its main point: The fact that you could leave this page up in a school computer lab and get seriously punished for it with just reason should be evidence enough of how inappropriate it is. The talk of "Wikipedia says this" is a cop-out, and they don't consist of absolute rules that say the images have to stay there. It's a matter of opinion, and mine is that they're repulsive, and they should be taken down in light of the typical effect they have on the majority of individuals who might want to safely see this page in a public place without being justly embarrassed. What you've said is still based in opinion of if the images should be there, and your argument of "policy" dictating that is incorrect. The discussion is purely a matter of opinion of whether or not the images are necessary for the article. That basic fact is the primary point of it. Rocketpop (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand. Wikipedia is not censored, and may contain images which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers.. It is not a site primarily intended for children. It is not our responsibility, or with our purview, to ensure that our content is not objectionable to anyone who might access it, or that it is suitable for children, or to take the place of parents or caregivers to ensure that children are accessing age-appropriate content online. This is policy, not opinion.
As for the images, I have said that they they are directly related to the subject of the article; this is fact, not opinion. I have also said that they illustrate a human biological function in an encyclopedic, non-pornographic, non-gratuitous manner. This is my opinion, certainly, but I can back it up. The first image, File:Ejaculation educational seq 4.png, illustrates ejaculation in four stages. The image is not a pornographic scene. As little of the human body as possible is depicted, and the image is constructed, photographed and lit in as scientific a manner as possible. The video, ;File:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG, is similarly constructed. The main image (what you see in the article if you don't click the video play button) is constructed in a similar way to the actual image further up. The video itself is also constructed to be scientific rather than pornographic. You'll note that only a small part of the man's body is shown, there is no sex partner present, no toys visible, and no pornographic soundtrack or moaning. You keep saying the images are repulsive and would be found so by "most people"; that's your opinion. As I've said, I don't find them repulsive at all.
What this all boils down to is this: you've provided no policy-based reason or convincing rationale for removing these images from this article. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets start out with a history lesson. The video "Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG" [[3]] IS THE ORIGINAL video / animation added to this article in July of 2006. The continuous loop animated gif "Ejaculation educational ani short.gif" [[4]] and all of it's versions, still photos, etc. was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in October of 2007, 1 year and 3 months later. Now, lets tackle the rest of this. For those of you who are not clicking on the links that Exploding Boy has provided in his post above, let me give you some direct quotes that you can read here. [[5]]

  • (Wikipedia Content Disclaimer) "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." and ..... ** "Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral Point Of View) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted." And now this ..... [[6]]
  • (Wikipedia is not censored) "However, some articles may include text, images, or links that some people may find objectionable when they 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."

Now Rocketpop, this part is just for you. You stated above that "The discussion is purely a matter of opinion of whether or not the images are necessary for the article. That basic fact is the primary point of it." Now I present the answer to that question from a deletion request discussion from February 2007 here. [[7]] If you don't want to click on the link, here is a direct quote of what it says.

  • "Commons talk:Deletion requests/Image:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

I just used this video to help me explain to my 13 year old son that what just happened to him in the middle of the night was not weird or wrong. Also to explain why the penis does this and what the white stuff is for. seeing it in a non-sexual way enabled him to ask questions about it. This was very helpful and educational for him. P.S. your right wikipedia is not a porn sight it is however an encyclopedia website which teaches facts in a neutral way. IT IS NOT PORN!!!!!!!!"

So, the original realtime video "Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG" DOES serve an educational purpose that demonstrates the article content in a way that text or a diagram alone cannot. Thus, the realtime video is as you put it, "necessary for the article". Infofreak (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your "policy" would be considered faulty by almost everyone and is being wrongly advocated for. Saying you don't find an image of an ejaculating penis repulsive doesn't fly in any context. There is no way to suddenly stumble upon a Wikipedia article with a photo of a penis with semen dripping off it without being the slightest bit startled, especially not to the casual viewer, whether you identify yourself as one or not. Since the case is being made that the images are necessary to the article when the vast majority of people would say otherwise, maybe Wikipedia needs a sense of tact and class. "Maturity" doesn't pass as an excuse when there is--I'll emphasize--a penis with semen dripping off of it in an article that doesn't need a visual aid to begin with. It's severely detrimental to the article. If that's "policy", then it's a critically warped policy that's hurting the entire image of the site as a result of such a misled idea. Rocketpop (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not "my" policy, but "the" policy, and if you don't like it, the place to try to change it is on the policy page, not here. Additionally, you keep speaking for "almost everyone" when you clearly don't have the authority to do so; you find the images repulsive and inappropriate; "everyone" does not. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"Authority" has nothing to do with stating an obvious fact. I'm assuming Wikipedia isn't planning on taking a poll to confirm it, but I could safely bet that "almost everyone" that casually views the page feels that the images are startling and unnecessary for the subject. It's not something that should need to be seriously discussed. It's a penis with semen dripping off of it. Your repeated restating of the policy and blind bureaucracy aside, the fact doesn't change that it's very apparently a misled policy that obviously works against itself. Rocketpop (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't appear this discussion is going anywhere. You've been apprised of the policy, you've been told the rationale for using the images, and you've failed to provide any convincing reason to remove them. If you want to change the policy, you'll have to go to the policy page, but I don't think there's anything further that can be said here, unless you have something new to add. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If you're angry about that, have an ejaculation. It calms you down.--Sum (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be better and a good compromise to either just provide links to the videos without the images, or not have them at the very top of the page, together with a content notice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The image as it is now is an eyesore. It is bound to disgust enough people to lose its informative value. A simple graphic would do the trick just as well without this whole controversy. Personally, I'm appalled. (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles --NeilN talkcontribs 00:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read through the discussions on this page several times before, having found myself here because of the relative shock of the images appearing on the page. That said, while I do in general agree that though I may be mildly offended by images, or more specifically the video, I should not seek to censor Wikipedia unnecessarily. Therefore, I will limit my point of the conversation to the section of the "Wikipedia is not censored" policy that allows discussion of inappropriateness based on "whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." It goes on to explain: "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." To cite case relevance, none of the other ejaculation pages, including female ejaculation and various stages of maladaptive ejaculation, have pictures or video showing ejaculation, yet none of them have been deemed to be "less informative" than the male ejaculation page. As such, the images and video should be removed to conform with layout of the other ejaculation pages.

If, however, this page is truly believed to be less informative without the images, there are plenty of medical pictures, including drawn medical pictures, that depict this and do so better because they include labeled, bi-sectional diagramming for the various structures of the penis. I'd add them instead myself, were I not too new to upload images. Without diagramming the components involved in ejaculation, these images are little better than porn; watching a penis ejaculate is no more educational than watching an individual stimulate themselves, in that both are educational in their limited way, but not nearly as purposeful as a bi-sectional diagram, and hardly indistinguishable from pornography.

    • Oh Really PseudoSX ? Read this page and be sure to scroll down and read the comment. Click here -> [[8]] Infofreak (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, the pictures don't explain any more than the text. It's a simple bodily function, why do you need to see it in motion? The page on sweat doesn't have videos, the page on spitting doesn't have any media at all. Meanwhile, there are articles like the one on bench pressing where a video is actually fairly vital in understanding the subject correctly, yet it doesn't have one. You can put a picture on every article on here, but the basic question is: why? There are hundreds of other medical/biological pages on here that don't have pictures for the simple reason that they don't need them or the words work on their own. This page is one of them. (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the "What about article X?" argument. The point is if that this media improves this article. Other articles might benefit or not from adding media, but that's their problem. Ejaculation is a process with motion, so a video helps to see it better.
And, if you want to see an article where a video adds to the understanding of the subject, then check out an animated gif of a decomposing apple in the Decomposition article. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good straw man, Infofreak, however my point isn't whether or not this was useful to one or more individuals on a personal level, which is also not the purpose of Wikipedia any more than is an individual's personal distaste in an article. Your example's statement is easily countered by the dozens upon dozens who have come to the page and stated their opinion that, as I pointed out, to many, the video is, and note the key word here, hardly indistinguishable from pornography. My point, however, remains: I fail to see how it is necessary to the explanation, despite it being a process involving motion... which most things involve... I understand what you've pointed out Enric, however, as stated in the "What about article X?" page: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." As all of the pages referenced discuss a similar action, the argument that the action needs motion to be understood should hold through for each of those pages. If ejaculation cannot be understood without a video of it, then it needs to be a part of retrograde ejaculation as well. Female ejaculation is something few are familiar with and one would think that, because of the relative lack of common knowledge about it, surely it must need a video to fully explain it, and yet it does not. There is nothing in or about any of those examples of ejaculation that would require any less explicit direct examples of the act in motion than the male ejaculation page. Therefore, this is a very valid and cogent support behind the censorship argument that such potentially offensive material "should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSX (talkcontribs) 14:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

    • PseudoSX, you stated "however my point isn't whether or not this was useful to one or more individuals on a personal level, which is also not the purpose of Wikipedia any more than is an individual's personal distaste in an article". Are you telling us that Wikipedia articles and the media that some of them contain being useful to one or more individuals on a personal level "is also not the purpose of Wikipedia" ? Then what is the purpose of Wikipedia. I thought it was to be a culmination of all human knowledge, and be used by people to learn, be informed, and educated by the articles and their content. I thought the articles are supposed to be the most accurate and informative that they could possibly be. Your next statement "Your example's statement is easily countered by the dozens upon dozens who have come to the page and stated their opinion that, as I pointed out, to many, the video is, and note the key word here, hardly indistinguishable from pornography". Evidently you have never seen any pornography at all. Where in this video do you see any manual stimulation of the penis of any kind ? Where is the naked girl giving this guy oral sex ? Where are the bare breasts that are recieving the ejaculated semen ? Where is the act of masturbation or sexual intercourse in this video ? Those are the elements that would make this video clip pornographic, but those elements are not in this video clip anywhere. The only thing in this video clip is a penis ejaculating semen in a manner described in scientific detail in the Ejaculation article. How is that pornographic ? According to the laws of the United States and the State of Florida where the Wiki servers are located, it is not. This video clip does not violate the "Miller Test" which is the standard for determining whether such content is obscene, etc. by the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why this article and the video it contains can be accessed by anyone without restrictions. And speaking of being accessed, you stated that my example from the linked website I gave "could be countered by dozens upon dozens who have come to the page and stated their opinion that, as I pointed out, to many, the video is, and note the key word here, hardly indistinguishable from pornography". Well, lets see how many people have visited the Ejaculation article and viewed the video clip Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration.OGG. There is a statistical tool server for Wikipedia located at that gives you the number of people that viewed any given article, video clip, photo, etc. on Wikipedia on a day by day / month by month basis. Here is the complete statistical data on the number of people that have viewed the video file Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration.OGG on the English Wikipedia since this tool server became operational in Dec. 2007. (Note that the format for the media file names on Wikipedia / Commons were changed from "Image" to "File" on Dec. 2008. Both are listed below). The statistics are listed by month, year, and number of people that viewed the video clip for that month.

Number of people that viewed the video clip when the format was "Image". Image:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration.OGG Dec 2007-2,509 Jan 2008-15,542 Feb 2008-38,883 Mar 2008-34,751 Apr 2008-39,502 May 2008-44,082 June 2008-44,724 July2008-13,617 (stats tool problem in July '08) Aug. 2008-38,590 Sept. 2008-39,698 Oct. 2008-38,580 (minus 2 days that the tool server was down) Nov. 2008-35,851 Dec. 2008-17,621 (Format was changed from "Image" to "File") Jan. 2009-3,862 Feb. 2009-2,933 Mar. 2009-3,209 Apr. 2009-4,580 May 2009-4,973 June 2009-4,973 July 2009-4,738 Aug. 2009-4,481

Number of people that viewed the video clip after the format was changed from "Image" to "File".


Dec. 2008-23,770 Jan. 2009-39,161 Feb. 2009-38,231 Mar. 2009-39,215 Apr. 2009-37,205 May 2009-39,571 June 2009-39,708 July 2009-39,508 Aug. 2009-39,767

      • Total number of people that have viewed the video file Ejaculaton_Educational_Demonstration.OGG from Dec 2007 to Aug. 2009 is 773,835 people.

Now PseudoSX, I challenge you to go back into the archives of all the discussions, deletions request, etc. on Wikipedia and the Commons starting on 27 July 2006 when this video was placed on the Ejaculation article, and count the number of people that viewed this video clip and documentively patitioned for it to be removed from the article, said it was pornographic, illegal, immoral, etc. and post that number in the next post you place on this page. I really would like to know exactly how many people up to today's date has documentively stated anything negative about this video clip since it was placed on the Ejaculation article on 27 July 2006. Then we can compare the total number of people who have viewed the video clip that I have documented to the number of complaints and statements against this video clip that you will document. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia operates on consensus. The number of people that you document that have complained or stated anything negative about this video clip since 27 July 2006 will in turn tell us how many people viewed the video clip and did not complain or say anything negative about this video clip at all. That answer will give you a very good idea of the consensus toward this video clip and it's use on the Ejaculation article. Retrograde Ejaculation is an internal process so if you find an internal micro-cam video showing the sphincter neck of the bladder relaxing and allowing the ejaculated semen to go up into the bladder instead of exiting the urethra of the penis as it is supposed to do, post it to the Retrograde Ejaculation page and I will support it being there. And for that matter, if you can find a video clip that is documentively proven to be an actual Female Ejaculation and not some woman with a Piss / Golden Showers fetish / Incontinence problem, then post it and I'll support it as well. Infofreak (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me why there are TWO videos? Seems redundant.

Also, what exactly is the point of an "endless loop" which contradicts the text, not to mention physiological reality? A *single* stream of video makes much more sense. If someone wants to repeat it, they can just click it again to their heart's content. Martindo (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that I know for certain what the purpose of Wikipedia is, but it would seem short-sighted that its purpose was to be validated by the usefulness an article posed to one individual. Further, that's not the point. Again, you're very good at building straw men to obfuscate the point. It doesn't matter if a single person found it useful, it also doesn't mater if 700,000 people viewed the video. None of that addresses whether it is needed to make clearer the article. What matters is that it can be deemed offensive, is, to many, indistinguishable (please look this term up, it's not giving it a hard definition of porn, it's saying to many this is the same thing as porn) from porn in that the climactic event of sex is explicitly shown, and is not necessary for understanding what ejaculation is. That last point alone is all that is needed to have it removed without it being censorship. Do I think it's porn? It could be, but I don't know enough about its production. I know, however, that as educational material goes, it is woefully lacking as it does not explain any of the processes. It is, from what I can see, a home video of a man who is fortunate enough to be able induce orgasm without manual stimulation, or is a video of a man receiving prostate stimulation until orgasm; for all we know this was his version of a masturbation video. There is nothing there that can indicate what this video is, refute what it isn't, or explain what processes are occurring. Effectively, it adds nothing to the conversation except to unnecessarily visualize the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSX (talkcontribs) 07:21, 7 September 2009

    • PseudoSX, I think you are missing my point. Even though I believe this article is very useful to people that visit Wikipedia for reference, knowledge, education, etc., it's not about proving the usefulness of this article to these 2 people who have commented and I have referenced here. My point is that the comments of these 2 people prove that the video clip Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG does add a broader dimension of information and understanding to the article on a level that could not be obtained if the video clip was not included on the article and you just had the text of the article to read. I will be so bold to also speculate that since over 700,000 people have viewed this video clip, the probabilities are very high that this video clip has helped far more people to comprehend and understand human ejaculation much better than has the number of people that have complained about the video clip. For anyone that missed the links to the comments, here is their direct quotes. "Very educational and informative article, and the "realtime" video showing an ejaculation as it is happening, wihtout the sexual aspect of the act, was very helpful and central in explaining to my teenage daughter about how condoms help to prevent pregnancy. She didn't realize the force in which semen can be expelled from the penis, so viewing the video helped me to stress the importance of condom use". This comment was from a website operated by healthcare experts that research and rate websites and webpages that contain medical / health related content for "Health Literacy, Design and Presentation, Interactivity, Uniqueness, Accuracy, Accessability, and Comprehensiveness". They rated Wikipedia's Ejaculation article containing this video clip with 4 out of a possible 5 stars, and this is the Expert Summary that their healthcare expert named Amanda stated about Wikipedia's Ejaculation article. "Learn all about the phases of ejaculation in the driest prose possible. Then click on a not-so-dry graphic video that will show you just what ejaculation looks like". I understand the "What about article X" arguement, but the reason I referenced the information from this particular website is because it gives Wikipedia's Ejaculation article and this video clip that it contains expert based credibility, which is something that has always been the main topic of ridicule among the folks over at other online encyclopedias and other naysayers against the accuracy, credibility, etc. of Wikipedia. And this comment here "I just used this video to help me explain to my 13 year old son that what just happened to him in the middle of the night was not weird or wrong. Also to explain why the penis does this and what the white stuff is for. seeing it in a non-sexual way enabled him to ask questions about it. This was very helpful and educational for him. P.S. your right wikipedia is not a porn sight it is however an encyclopedia website which teaches facts in a neutral way. IT IS NOT PORN!!!!!!!!" This comment came from a Deletion Request discussion from 2007. These comments tell me that this article was more educational, understandable, and comprehensive because the realtime video of ejaculation was there, and would have been the opposite if it were not there. The only process that the video clip shows is realtime "ejaculation proper". It does not explain the processes involved because it doesn't have to ... the processes are explained in painstaking detail in the article. The video clip compliments the text of the article. Tell me this, how could the teenage girl referenced in the above comment have come to the realization of "the force in which semen can be expelled from the penis" without the aid of viewing the video clip ? The father stated that "viewing the video helped me to stress the importance of condom use". In the other comment I referenced above, I'm sure it was comforting to a scared 13 year old boy who had a nocturnal emission for the first time and didn't understand what had just happened to him, to see this video clip of an unassisted (from what the video shows) ejaculation and know that it is normal and there is nothing medically or physically wrong with him. The father basically stated just that in his comment. The Ejaculation article with the video clip of a realtime ejaculation is one of a very few Sexuality articles on Wikipedia that I know of that has documented support and approval from professional healthcare experts and people in the academic field. That is why I believed that referencing them was very important to this discussion. On a personal note PseudoSX, I want to thank you and all the others for participating in this discussion in presenting both sides of this debate. I know that I sometimes give the impression of a cantankerous old bastard at times, but I participate in the discussions here at Wikipedia knowing that through the discussions of both sides of the issues at hand, we can refine and hone these articles and their content until we create the best possible articles that can be found on the internet about literally millions of topics. That my friend, is something that I believe is indeed a worthy cause. Infofreak (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think if you go to Wikipedia and type in "ejaculation", you have to have a reasonable expectation of what you're probably going to find. If you find images of ejaculating penises disturbing or offensive, then you probably shouldn't type "ejaculation" into Wikipedia. I particularly don't like the sight of someone vomiting, and as a result I have no plans to visit the Wikipedia article on that topic. And, what I'm certainly not going to do is to visit all of the Wikipedia articles that have a high probability of containing images that are offensive to me, and flaming on their discussion pages about how the images should be removed. I have better things to do. (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this video is fairly good. (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Causes of ejaculation

The article says that first ejaculation occurs about 12 months after the onset of puberty, either by masturbation or nocturnal ejaculation, however I can say from experience that this is not true: I first ejaculated while reading an erotic story, not masturbating at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parodist (talkcontribs) 04:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I corrected this by changing "either" to "generally", thus eliminating the presumptive limitation to only two possibilities. Good point, Parodist! Martindo (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Other species

This is a great article from a human perspective. I would like to see information (here or in a separate article) about how ejaculations of other species compare with human ejaculation. Are there significant differences, aside from the obvious ones like volume, or the less well known phenomenon of canine tying? Peter Chastain (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Kinsey and Roach

I have no objection to Mary Roach as a "researcher" if she is quoted directly. The citation from Kinsey should have a primary source citation. Amazon search of Roach's book Bonk reveals no stats on ejaculation distance.

Also, quotes from Kinsey should be made cautiously -- don't just refer to "300 men" but describe their diversity -- any non-Americans in the study? any "race" other than black and white? Martindo (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that someone inserted a specific citation here, but is it correct? Kinsey's book on FEMALE sexual response? Martindo (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Fertilization risk

The article states that in early ejaculations, the semen is usually in a much smaller volume, is often clear, and when it later does have sperm, that most of them are immobile and the few that have mobility have an abnormal motion.

So, my question is, is it not, in fact, still completely possible for a male with semen that seems to be "clear" to still have active sperm, and therefore be capable of impregnating a female, in spite of extreme odds against it? That is, could a male within the first few months of puberty be capable of fathering a child? GBC (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a little old, but yes, although unlikely, it is very much possible. Semen color/consistency etc can never be used as an indication of potency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientific diagram

After reading lots about the image drama, I came to a conclusion. A medical diagram, which demonstrates the physical processes leading to ejaculation would suffice as the main image. The video should stay as it shows the act in real time, giving a time/space perspective. I think that with a scientific diagram and a video (which is a good demonstration), the existing image at the top of the article would be redundant, would it not? DDM1 (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes DDM1, I agree, and I supported that very proposition during the 2006-2007 edit war over the images on this page. The medical digram images that you linked to above was both rejected because the first one displayed a flaccid penis, which would not be the case under normal circumstances during an ejaculation. The second medical diagram image was a modified version of the first with the penis erected, but it was rejected because it did not show the entire glans (head) of the penis. On March 23, 2007, User NightFlyer inserted a modified U.S. Government medical diagram of the male reproduction system to satisfy both sides of the argument. Click here to see this diagram [[9]] . This is the medical diagram that I supported. The Ejaculation article page on March 23, 2007 looked like this [[10]] . A still frame capture from the video "Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG" (the current consensus video) was added to try to appease the ones who wanted a photo of ejaculation. Their argument was that the people that did not want to watch a video of an actual ejaculation, for whatever reason, would have the option to see a still photo instead. If you scroll down on this archived page, you will see a box that says "Template: Video Float". This is where the video "Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG" was located (the Video Float Template has since been deleted). Eventually, the still photo of ejaculation was removed on September 7, 2007 and the page looked like this [[11]] . I supported this version of the page, and thought that this was the most logical configuration : A medical diagram that displayed an erect penis with all of the reproductive elements of the organ labeled - the text of the article describing the process of ejaculation in detail that a user could reference back to the diagram - and then a realtime video to actually see what an ejaculation looked like as it happened. But remember, all this was going on at the same time people were beginning to flood Wiki Commons with photos of their penises. So, the medical diagram was removed and replaced with photos of ejaculating penises, and it has been that way ever since. I also find it ironic that in the process of researching for this response to your comment, I discovered that the medical diagram that I supported back in 2007 is currently up for deletion. I apologize for the long winded history lesson here, but I wanted to review the past of the Ejaculation article because "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana - and we have been down this path before. For whatever it is worth, I still favor the combination of a medical digram coupled with the current video that finally gained consensus as the most logical configuration of the images on the Ejaculation page. Infofreak (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. A good example is the Menstruation article. That diagram informs me more than a photograph of a female in the act would. Yes, a photograph could replace it but I can't think of a way it could be represented in photographic form which would be as adequate. So why not have both? DDM1 (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
All I can say is that this video [[12]] is the exact same video that my professor showed to me and the rest of the students in his class when I was studing human sexuality in graduate school while attending the University of Minnesota. No one had a problem with it, and I thought it looked very clinical. I had no idea that it came from Wikipedia until I started researching a paper that I am currently writing about the evolutionary and cultural aspects of the male sexual response. Just think, I wasn't allowed to reference Wikipedia in graduate school because it wasn't a scholarly source. I wonder how many more academic closet wikipedians there are ? LOL (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the captions under the sequence of ejaculation photo is getting rediculous and causing the focus of the article to stray off the path of it's original intention. This article is ejaculation. Not over abundant ejaculation, and not how many squirts ejaculation, but just ejaculation. The sequence photo is not a good realistic representation of what is agreed upon as an average ejaculation and is also redundant to the video. What we need here is something informational for the reader of the article to learn from, and then the video can be the culmination of that information as an actual realtime visual demonstration. NightFlyer (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the diagram makes the article much clearer and adds information. The sequence photo was definitely redundant to the video.Habbo42 (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll second or third that change. We only need one video. Still images don't add much.
Well done, NightFlyer. You did a real service by finding a simple diagram of path of ejaculation. The other diagram is redundant with Gray's Anatomy diagrams on the various pages for male organs (scrotum, testicles, seminal vesicles, etc.) but I suppose the simplest way to refer to it is to include it here, too. Martindo (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Link to endless loop video

The link to the endless loop video is redundant since we already have a video clip of a realtime ejaculation on this article that is a much better reference to the text. Plus, from an educational standpoint, the endless loop video clip is misleading and could be confusing to some. The photo sequence image of ejaculation is fine, but the link to the endless loop video needs to go. NightFlyer (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and said as much several weeks ago. But everybody cuts either both or none. All the screaming is about *having* a video, with no recognition of redundancy and inaccuracy. Thank you NightFlyer!. Martindo (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The video File:Typical Ejaculation.ogv should be better suited than File:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration.OGG that we currently have on this article. Penis and scrotum can be seen in more detail. Moreover, the ejaculation is typical in that it has 6 contractions with semen expelled and a total of 12 contractions (in accordance with the text). In the other video it is much harder to recognize the contractions. Habbo42 (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Habbo42 that the .ogv video suffices. Let's cut the one at top with "endless loop". It's physiologically inaccurate to run an endless loop, thereby suggesting vicarious thrills.Martindo (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the edit by "User Habbo42" on Oct.18 2009 at 17:22 because: The video "Typical Ejaculation.ovg" was made on Oct 10 2009 by Habbo Janssen, uploaded to Wiki by User Habbo on Oct. 12 2009 as his "own work", [[13]] and then added by User Habbo42 on Oct.18 2009 to the "Ejaculation" article. Looks like a clear cut case of a self promotion / vanity image to me. And by the way, you stated above that "Penis and scrotum can be seen in more detail". The topic here is Ejaculation and not Penis or Scrotum, so it doesn't matter if it is seen better, and you never gained consensus in discussion on the Talk Page first, before you removed the video "Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.ogg" (that has been on this article for years) in the first place. Just a note for Martindo - I don't know why you are still screaming about the "endless loop" video. User Nightflyer removed it on Oct.2 2009 (17 days ago) and you complimented him for doing it, remember ? Infofreak (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with self promotion. I created the video to improve the one that was present on the article page because it looks very unprofessional with part of a green blanket in the background. I think a clear view of Penis and Scrotum is important since both are essential for the process and arguably part of the process. I understand that I should have waited for consensus in this discussion.Habbo42 (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Infofreak, I remember complimenting, but I mistakenly assumed the same 4-fold image was restored as an endless loop as a revert. Now I see that it's still images, not a video. So I'll stop screaming.

As for penis and scrotum not being "part of the topic", give us a break! How are you going to show ejaculation without a penis?

As for self-promotion, I can't answer that, but it seems to me that most photos on WP don't call a lot of attention to their owner -- most users just skim or skip that info. Martindo (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martindo, I think that you didn't understand what I stated above. I said "The topic here is Ejaculation and not Penis or Scrotum, so it doesn't matter if it is seen better", meaning that the topic of this article is Ejaculation. This is not the articles for Penis or Scrotum, thus, a "clear view" or clearer view of the penis and scrotum is not needed to show ejaculation. As far as the self promotion goes, if you have a person that makes the video, stars in the video, uploads it to Wiki, and then removes the established consensus video that has been on the article for about three years with no discussion to replace it with their own video that they made and performed in, what would you call it? I call it self promotion / vanity. Infofreak (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll grant that "clearer image" is a lame excuse. But the video seemed at least as good to me as the previous one. Frankly, I don't know what to say about self-promotion. Would this be a first for WP? Would you feel better if someone else had shot the video of him? Why or why not? Martindo (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for removing the established consensus video. This was clearly a step too far, but it was not an act of self promotion. I just did not expect any resistance to the new video because in my opinion it is much better than the established video. The background is neutral black and not distracting, the essential parts can be seen better and it is more similar to the still images at the top of the page, but without those endless loop and unnatural quantity issues of the corresponding animation. If the consensus is against the new video then I am sorry for the noise. Habbo42 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Martindo, the issue of "self promotion" is not a new one and has been delt with many times before on Wiki. I have no problem with a user going to the Wiki page (can't think of the name at the moment) where you can look at requests for images, media, etc., that is needed for differents articles and creating an image themselves for that purpose and then uploading it to Wikipedia Commons and letting the Wiki editors working on the articles decide whether or not it could be used in a given article concerning the topic that the image is representing. If they decide to use it, then fine, but if they decide not to use it, then the uploader of the image they made will have to live with that decision too. I believe that the line of becoming "self promotion" is crossed when a user has done what Habbo42 did, as I described above. I also believe Martindo, that you hit on a very good point that I would like to discuss in more detail. You stated "But the video seemed at least as good to me as the previous one". Think about that for a moment. Habbo42's video, in your opinion, was "as good", but not better. Then why would we want to replace the video that has survived several deletion requests and a rather nasty edit war the first year it was placed on the Ejaculation article and has since gained consensus with the Wiki community as well as acceptance with medical experts and healthcare activists in the academic field, with a video that is, in your opinion, "as good" but not better and untested ? And, is Habbo42's video version of Ejaculation really needed in the first place? If you click here, [[14]] , you will see 16 different versions of Ejaculation videos including Habbo42's currently on Wiki Commons. These videos show everything from "Ejaculation Scatter Pattern" to a submerged penis ejaculating into a clear glass jar underwater. Some were recorded from overhead looking straight down, others recorded with the performer lying down. How many more ways does Wiki need to demonstrate Ejaculation, and are there documented requests for more representations of Ejaculation in a video / animation format ? That decision is not mine to make, but it is a valid point to consider. On the Category:Penis page [[15]] , you will see this note "English: Please note that low-quality images with no realistic educational use may be deleted". This note was placed on this page because countless people began to flood Wiki with images of their penis. Is Category:Ejaculation_(animated) headed down the same path ? Maybe. Should more controls be placed on uploads of Ejaculation videos in the future as they did with Penis images ? Maybe, but again that is not for me to decide. I just wanted to give you all these points to ponder. On a personal note, I want to sincerely thank Habbo42 for being honest and straightforward enough to join this discussion, admit the realization of his mistake, and go on the record here with an apology. It is a rare occasion that I have seen an individual do this on Wiki in such a polite and disarming way. Habbo42, your apology is accepted. Infofreak (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Infofreak. Granted that consensus can be hard-won (especially because "specs" tend not to be elucidated in advance, due to the haphazard nature of wiki), I would still point out that consensus does not mean perfection. There plenty of WP pages that have been unchanged for months or years, but could be improved. So, if Habbo42 or someone else wants to try to improve the video, go ahead. It would, however, save a lot of time for those who have spoken on this issue to describe briefly what the ideal video would show. To me, one factor is logistical -- try to keep the file size under 1 MB for those of us who have slower internet connections. Martindo (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point. File size could be important for people with slower internet connections. Therefore, I decreased the file size of my proposed video to 761,866 bytes by decreasing the video quality. I would say the difference in perceived video quality is hardly visible. I can briefly summarize the points that I had in mind for improving the video and which were not fulfilled by any of the previously available videos in [[16]]: (1) Neutral background. (2) Typical ejaculation with regard to quantity and duration. (3) Clear view of penis and scrotum. Especially the contractions which are also mentioned in the text (with and without semen) should be visible. (4) No stimulation during the ejaculation. Habbo42 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those are good "specs". I would expand or modify as follows, subject to further input:

1. Neutral background and good contrast.

2. Quantity of semen, number of spurts, duration that fall within "typical" ranges described in text.

3. PROFILE view of penis and scrotum, both clearly visible.

4. Not necessary to show hand or other stimulation during the video.

5. No impediment of movement of semen through air.

6. Ideally, file size under 1 MB.

Martindo (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea... let's not show a fucking video of a guy jizzing all over the place. The description and diagrams aren't enough to demonstrate what ejaculation is? We have to have this video of a guy blowing his load? Martindo, I know you spent time in Asia, notably Thailand, yet I'm to believe you support a video of a guy ejaculating because you're concerned with the educational value of the article... like... "we just didn't describe it well enough. The pictures, the article itself... Here, I'll just take a video of me blowing my load all over the place and post that to make it clear." (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)