Talk:Ejaculation/Archive 5

Sequence of ejaculation image
This sequence is not a representation of typical semen volume. If it is to be used as the main picture, this should be illuminated. See cite, which solidly supports my point. Jeffrey Nilsen (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed in an edit to the Ejaculation article on October 23, 2009 that a lady named "SusanHaughey" changed the text under the photo of the sequence of ejaculation to say : "Sequence of an unusual male ejaculation. In this clip the man ejaculates 10 huge spurts of semen, with a delay of 13 seconds between the 6th and 7th spurt. This is totally abnormal and not consistent with with normal male ejaculation. The uploader is simply trying to immortalize himself as a superior ejaculator, possibly due to lenghty masturbation abstinence and/or mammoth semen capacity". The clip she is talking about is this video clip here : [] which was uploaded by User Shadowhead on October 11, 2007, that the sequence of still photos was captured from to make the current lead image on the Ejaculation page. User SusanHaughey stated "The uploader is simply trying to immortalize himself as a superior ejaculator, possibly due to lenghty masturbation abstinence and/or mammoth semen capacity". She is right !!!! The "continuous loop" video file "Ejaculation_educational_ani.gif" was put up for deletion on November 20, 2008. The Deletion Request discussion is here : []. I did my usual research of the video file and it's uploader and discovered that the person who actually made and performed in the video goes by the nickname of "Krooga" on several porn sites featuring uploaded videos of masturbation / ejaculation. To verify this for yourself, just go to the Google search engine and type in the words "krooga" and "ejaculation" and start clicking the links to those websites. You will find 6 pages of website links to the "Krooga" videos with comments like “Not only do you have a beautiful cock, but your cumshots are amazing.  You have a new fan!  :)” ….. “impressive boy. i love the way you just keep spurting. i can usually do 3 good high flying spurts my first cum, the rest as i go through the night just pour out like most guys. i am good for multiple orgasms but i would love to cum like you.... such thick incredible volume” …… and “tried to email you amigo im straigh male 33 and I have like many  of your fans a few questions....but the captcha code to submit does not work... any chance you can send me a PM so Ican email you? of course  I will make my donation with pleasure for your help and knowledge thanks MAster of Cum!”  The link to view these comments for yourself is here : [] . Note that the last commenter stated “I will make my donation with pleasure for your help and knowledge”  This guy “Krooga” has a pay website where people go and pay money to be a member and watch his ejaculation videos and get advise from him ….. the “Master of Cum”, and Wikipedia is giving him free advertisement. If you click this link, [] you will see this video of “Krooga” in the same photo shoot as the version uploaded to Wikipedia 2 years ago. Same angle, same t-shirt, same penis. When the video starts you will see a copyright watermark that appears in the lower left hand corner of the video with the words “© 2007 Spritzing” that goes away in about 2 or 3 seconds. The video plays a realtime version first, and then goes into a slow motion version like the one uploaded to Wikipedia 2 years ago. Hmmm … now let me see. This is October 2009 so 2 years ago would be October 2007. The version of the video uploaded to Wikipedia [] was created on October 10 2007 and uploaded to Wikipedia October 11 2007 …. what a coincidence !!!! The uploader of this video to Wikipedia simply edited it to show the slow motion portion of the video that doesn’t display the copyright watermark. “Krooga” even explains to a commenter here [] how he created the still photos for the video that we now use for the LEAD IMAGE ON THIS ARTICLE !!!! …. “wow, great quality! What are you capturing those images with?”  and then the answer from “Krooga” …. “The videos have been made with a digital camera (640x480 pix @ 30fps). For extracting the pics I use the mplayer package (windows and linux). Enter the command mplayer.exe -vo jpeg myvid.avi in a DOS window. –Spritzing”  My conclusion ? I presented this evidence at the deletion request of the video that this sequence of ejaculation was made from on December 18 – 20, 2008 [] to no avail. I believe that I have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is clearly a “self promotion / vanity” image that is gaining the uploader worldwide notoriety for monetary gain, and a copyright violation. Why was the video and all still photos made from it not deleted from Wikipedia ? The reason to KEEP located at the bottom of the deletion request was this : “Kept. First of all, clearly in scope . Then, on the account of copyvio, all I can say is that it is not the same as [3] and unlike most of those similar videos, it is not watermarked. –Tryphon 19:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)” The video he linked to is the same one I linked to that shows the copyright watermark “© 2007 Spritzing” for about 2 or 3 seconds and then goes away before the slow motion part starts, which is like the one uploaded to Wikipedia. What an idiot !!!! Sometimes is does seem like the lunatics are running the asylum !!!! Infofreak (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing us with a wealth of information from your surfing sessions on several porn sites. A couple of conclusions you draw from your discoveries are wrong. As the creator of the pictures and animated gifs I'm able to provide some facts in order to correct your statements.
 * The pictures and videos which I uploaded to commons are my donation to the public domain. They are not copyrighted in any way! I've never published them elsewhere and they are all different from those you refer to. If you look at the long version of the animated gif you'll see that the stuff on commons is different from all the stuff you found. However there is one video which is similar to the commons video but it's not the same. Again, my donations are all in accordance to the rules at commons and wikipedia.
 * Believe it or not I made this contribution simply to improve wikipedia (IMHO) since I didn't like the video sequence I saw when I first read the ejaculation article back in 2007 (no neutral background, no closeup, etc.).
 * How can you say "Wikipedia is giving him free advertisement"? How the heck should someone be able to find the vids on the porn sites you mentioned if one simply reads the ejaculation article and looks at the picture or at the animated gif? There is not a single link, hint or advertisment to any external source in the article. How can this be an advertisment? It's people like you who link the readers to those sites not me. Just look at the links you presented above. Should I say thank you for contributing to my "imortality"?
 * Sad to say but I never got any money for my "work" and I don't have a "pay web site" as you stated above. It's no evidence if someone writes in a comment to one of my vids that he will make a donation.
 * --Shadowhead69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Well Shadowhead69, I am very glad that you have decided to join the discussion here. You stated "Thanks for providing us with a wealth of information from your surfing sessions on several porn sites" to which I say "Thanks for uploading your ejaculation videos to all those porn sites AND Wikipedia (the largest online encyclopedia IN THE WORLD) in 2007 and creating all this shit for me to have to research and try to figure out your true motives behind it all in the first place". I have several questions for you. You stated that "The pictures and videos which I uploaded to commons are my donation to the public domain" and "I made this contribution simply to improve wikipedia (IMHO) since I didn't like the video sequence I saw when I first read the ejaculation article back in 2007". What was your reason then, for uploading your ejaculation videos to all those porn sites about the same time as you uploaded the ones to Wiki Commons in 2007 in the first place ?, and where did you upload your videos to first ... Wiki Commons or the porn sites ? The reason I am asking this is because I am researching this matter from the standpoint that I believe that these videos and their still photo sequences that you made fall under "self promotion" / "vanity" images, but I wanted to be fair and give you the chance to give us your answers to these questions first. You stated that the videos that you uploaded to Wiki Commons "are not copyrighted in any way!" As you know, I have watched your ejaculation videos that you uploaded to the porn sites, and they follow a set format .... they start with a realtime version of the ejaculation that has your personal copyright watermark on it (either "Krooga" or "Spritzing") that stays there for about 2 or 3 seconds at the very beginning and then disappears, and then shows the same video clip again in slow motion with your copyright watermark NOT showing (referenced by me above). Why did you just upload the slow motion segment of the video clips to Wiki Commons ? Where is the realtime versions of the slow motion ejaculation videos that you uploaded to Wiki Commons and why didn't you upload those? Is it because the realtime ejaculation segment of the video clip that you uploaded to Wiki Commons had your copyright watermark on it ? Or maybe you're not really "Krooga aka Spritzing" after all, and you don't have access to the originals, so you had to edit the realtime segment wth the copyright watermark out and just show the slow motion part? And since we are talking about that, why the slow motion anyway ? .... why the continuous loop ? Is it because you think it looks more impressive, and "i love the way you just keep spurting" like your "fans" over at the porn sites say when they comment on your ejaculation videos ? You stated "How can you say "Wikipedia is giving him free advertisement"? How the heck should someone be able to find the vids on the porn sites you mentioned if one simply reads the ejaculation article and looks at the picture or at the animated gif?" My answer to that is .... I DID !!!! You stated "It's people like you who link the readers to those sites not me. Just look at the links you presented above. Should I say thank you for contributing to my "imortality"?" My answer to that is .... your very statement there screams CLICK MY LINKS / LOOK AT ME !!!! which in turn, screams to me SELF PROMOTION / VANITY !!!!, and no, I figure that you were pissed when I did my research and tracked all this down, and then brought it to the attention of everyone here at Wiki, or maybe I'm wrong and you really do enjoy the added attention. If I were going to get a "thank you" from anyone for my efforts in researching this matter, it should be from the Wiki community for caring about the project enough to try to figure out why a person uploading ejaculation videos with his own copyright watermarks on them to porn sites where his "fans" can then write comments after viewing them like .... "DAMN! Right on, man!! What a champion!!! You're a living miracle!!!" .... "Hmmmmm. owww wow that`s just so yummy !! Love the slow motion and sounds ! Cool vid !" ..... "Just amazing. Great cum!" ..... "you are INCREDIBLE and your vids keep getting better and better i get bone hard everytime i see you shoot" .... "What a fucking perfect cock and man juice shooter!!!" ..... and ..... "may i ask, it takes you how many days to save, having such quantity? In any case, its GREAT!" to which you answered this "fan" by saying .....  "A couple of days w/o jerking increases the amount of cum a bit. The cumshot in this video is the result of saving for a week. Spritzing" [], and then uploading his ejaculation videos and still photo sequence shots to Wikipedia on October 11 and 19, 2007 []  (again, which just happens to be the largest and most used online encyclopedia IN THE WORLD), placing them on the Ejaculation article on October 19, 2007 HIMSELF [], and then stating here that "I made this contribution simply to improve wikipedia (IMHO) since I didn't like the video sequence I saw when I first read the ejaculation article back in 2007" (probably because it wasn't your own, oh great "MAster of Cum!”) to which I say .... yeah ..... whatever. I think you did all of this to inflate your own ego /"MAster of Cum!" power trip and promote yourself for your own, as well as your "fans" gratification. Did you really do this with purely educational purposes in mind to better Wikipedia? I don't think so, and the evidence I have submitted definately leans in the direction of "I don't think so". If I am wrong about all of this, give us your answers to my questions above with proper and genuinely verifiable documention and PROVE IT TO US !!!!" If I am indeed verifiably proven wrong, then so be it and good for you, this matter is finally over, but if not ....
 * P.S. What did your "fan" in that one comment that you referenced above, and I referenced also ... "“tried to email you amigo im straigh male 33 and I have like many of your fans a few questions....but the captcha code to submit does not work... any chance you can send me a PM so Ican email you? of course I will make my donation with pleasure for your help and knowledge thanks MAster of Cum!” mean ? What was he going to donate to you for your "help and knowledge" ? (which leads us back to "your ejaculation image on the Ejaculation article of Wikipedia possibly being used for advertisement / gain (?)" question). Also Shadowhead69, as the uploader to Wikipedia of these Ejaculation videos and still images back in 2007, just for records sake, can you documentively prove that you are indeed "Krooga aka Spritzing" ? If not, I'll add "copyright violation" to this too. Infofreak (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * @Infofreak, this is derivating into making personal attacks on Shadow and attacking his motivations. If the discussion keeps going this way, I'll just archive it; if you continue then I'll report you for violating WP:NPA. @Shadow, you don't have to answer to any of his questions. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is getting a little frantic, I agree. However, my first impulse is to say to Enric "Don't kill the messenger". Why make a threat when a simple rebuke will do? And why not answer a question if you're innocent? This isn't a trial, but a forum to participate in with good will (even if insulted).
 * My second thought is: "Didn't Shadowhead69 already answer the question?" Namely, a clear statement in bullet 1 that he is not Krooga. Well, I thought so, but...
 * Bullet 4 seems to contradict bullet 1. Can someone explain how "It's no evidence if someone writes in a comment to one of my vids that he will make a donation"of bullet 4 fits with "I've never published them elsewhere" of bullet 1? I'm not accusing, just wondering how one could possibly get a comment on a vid that he has "never published" outside of WP?
 * I really hope we can calm this discussion and focus on key points, so it doesn't have such huge volleys from each side.
 * To me, the larger issue is the accuracy of the imagery at the top of the page. I've tweaked the POV "correction" of its caption at least twice already. Maybe that image should just be deleted? I mean, do we REALLY need more than one video to demonstrate what the article is about? Martindo (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Attacking the motivations of other editors is plain not acceptable, and it only creates bad ambient.


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


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


 * OK, but you can always freeze a video, so I don't buy the "statically in detail" argument. Seems like too much controversy for too little value added to the page.
 * Also, I STRONGLY disagree with citing "comment on similar video" which is basically an opinion and verges on advertising because the link that was in the reference list went to the Krooga page rather than the non-commercial page of the author of the WP Commons video.
 * Let's keep captions short and to the point, and avoid comments that can be (or already are) explained in the text. Martindo (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've clicked through all the links that User:Infofreak has listed above and carefully looked at the videos and comments. I believe that the video that the sequence of ejaculation photo was made from is a copyvio too, so I am going to replace it with the medical diagram I used for this article back in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NightFlyer (talk • contribs) 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was me. NightFlyer (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that it's a copyvio then please nominate it for deletion in Commons, and explain there your reasons. Don't just remove it from the article saying "it's a copyvio" without some hard proof. That last deletion discussion already explained why it wasn't a copyvio. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.D.:(after reading all pages in depth) First, this video is not the same one as the sequence at commons because the folds of the t-shirt are in a different position. Also, the video has a watermark on the left-bottom position that doesn't appear in the image in commons, and which remains during all the duration of the video. Also, as commented by someone who identifies as the uploader, the image has higher resolution and quality than the video, and this can only be done by getting the images from the higher-quality video that was used to produce the lower-quality video that appears in that link. There this another video another video depicting the same thing with a different t-shirt with the copyright notice saying this time "(C) 2009 Krooga aka Spritzing", so he's most probably filming himself, and not copying videos made by someone else. So, again, if you think this is a copyvio then go to commons and nominate it. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, please take out the video, it doesn't add any value now that diagrams have been placed in, this is a place where everyone should be able to come, we don't want parents not letting their kids use wikipedia. If it were absolutely necessary to add value fine, but it's not, so what point are we trying to make here with that video? why not have an article with all the info and leave the video to the rest of the Internet? is there any encyclopedia out there that includes such a video? c´mon, some common sence here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.211.75 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not written for children. Parents should not be letting their kids roam about the web unintended. WP:NOTCENSOR. The video depicts the subject of the article (by your logic, no articles would have pictures as they're not "absolutely necessary"). WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid reason for removal - a perusal of the Talk:Muhammad/images archives might prove instructive. -- Neil N   talk to me  00:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous. If you look in the article "Traffic Collision", there are lots of pictures of car crashes, but no videos.  That's because the article is descriptive enough, and there are tons of pictures.  There is no need for a video of a guy blowing his load to explain what ejaculation is.  I would think Wikipedia thrives to be a place where people can do research, particularly to those who would be looking to do research or learn new things.  If a 10-year-old hears "ejaculate" on TV, and he turns to Wikipedia to find out what that is, is it appropriate for him to see a video of an ejaculating penis?  And as far as "not being written for children", do you want to make Wikipedia a blacklisted website that parents have to block?  I mean, we want to brand a potential goldmine for inquisitive minds as inappropriate and blacklisted because we just HAVE to show a video of an ejaculating penis?  This is ridiculous.  This video is on this page because the perverts who run this page get off on blowing their load in a public setting.  It's fucking disgusting, serves no educational purpose, and should go.  And, I don't really give a shit how "uneducated" or "childish" I sound.  If someone uploaded a guy beating off on YouTube, it would get taken down.  It's a shame that the so-called Wikipedia community can't have the same respect.68.50.114.44 (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Attacking other editors wil get you blocked. Again, it's up to parents to supervise their children. Also, if you have a public domain video of a car crash, it might be useful to add it to Traffic collision. -- Neil N   talk to me  01:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Volume section does address the issue in general terms:

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

But then it goes on to discuss disease conditions.

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

Here's something from the page on seminal vesicle:

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

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

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


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

The videos are gone - what a relief
The page is currently better than it has been in ages, not that I am checking it daily! Oh and remarkably even with them gone - Wikipedia is still not censored - look it even says it at the top of the discussion page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was recently readded because Wikipedia is not censored. - Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits) 03:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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


 * How does removal "improve" the article? -- Neil N   talk to me  22:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Some content can be unnecessary, and result in an article looking sleazy. The discussion page covers the reasons for removal, and I concur with most of what has been written in support of the removal.DMSBel (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, censorship. -- Neil N   talk to me  22:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I believe the page should be left for a period of time (one month perhaps) without the video, to see what comments are made. It would therefore be possible to see if there really is any case for it being part of the article.DMSBel (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) But you didn't say how the removal improved the article except for the "it won't look sleazy" comment which is pretty much what WP:NOTCENSORED covers. The last request for wide community input resulted in no consensus to remove the video.  If you want to see if consensus has changed, I suggest you start an RfC. -- Neil N    talk to me  22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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


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

In my view it is sleazy. That is my view. If you disagree that is up to you. Like everyone I come to edit with my own sensibilities. Censorship is not the issue here.DMSBel (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "I consider this sleaze so I'm going to remove it" is not censorship. -- Neil N   talk to me  23:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to make article as good as possible and as encyclopedic as possible is not censorship. The video does not add anything to the article that is not present in the static photos IMO. DMSBel (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What static photos? -- Neil N   talk to me  22:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored - of course we know that, some people wish to improve the page. You need to check what censorship is. As wikipedia is open to users to edit article, changes may be made that you do not agree with and content removed that you think should stay. No further case had been made for keeping the video, in the article. Therefore the change should be reverted.DMSBel (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you even check the link? "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Content disclaimer)." -- Neil N   talk to me  22:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No you are kneejerk about censorship. Photos refer to the two static images - sorry not technically photos, but i thought it was clear what I meant.DMSBel (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely not photos and definitely can't be considered as replacements for the video. If they were, the photos in articles like penis, vagina, and breast would be removed. -- Neil N   talk to me  23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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


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

As I said two static images, please dont be pedantic - As there are obviously only two other images, though I technically was incorrect to call them photos.DMSBel (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not being pedantic. A series of still photo shots showing the action could be considered a replacement for the video. -- Neil N   talk to me  23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The main information people seek from an encyclopedia concerning ejaculation is the origin and path the semen takes internally before leaving the penis. After that what is there to know - how far it travels!?, seriously.DMSBel (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're assuming you can read the minds of other readers. Again, if you want the video gone, start a RfC. -- Neil N   talk to me  23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The video is not an improvement because it only shows the external emission of semen, and adds nothing in my view to the static illustrations.DMSBel (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, this is getting surreal. From the opening sentence, "Ejaculation is the ejecting of semen from the penis..." -- Neil N   talk to me  23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that is not all there is to ejaculation, it is only the final stage.- please re-read the complete article. That is a very inadequate description, if taken as total. Don't get caught in a loop of using this article as the sole authority.DMSBel (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So the video illustrates the final stage. Ergo, it does not "add nothing". -- Neil N   talk to me  23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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


 * This doesn't make sense to me. Videos/photos don't have to cover the entirety of a subject. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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


 * I don't think we'll be able to convince each other but at least we had a civil conversation :-) The last RfC resulted in no consensus to remove. If you start a new one and consensus changes, I'll remove the video myself. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the need for consensus, however the video had been removed - I don't know how long the page had been without it, but it was not there yesterday, yet it was back today. Who reverted it?DMSBel (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not long, take a look at the history. What usually happens is that the video gets removed (often by a new editor or a single purpose account) and then gets put back by someone who watches the article. The only way it's going to stay off is to convince the wider community. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

By the way there is no record of who made this video, other than an anonymous individual saying in effect "I made this, this is me." I think for that reason also it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMSBel (talk • contribs) 01:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who made the video. Why would it? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Neil, please see[]

''Duty to maintain records

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

Uploader to provide all documents

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


 * Interesting but irrelevant. You're quoting from a project guideline, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline - big difference. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  07:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Correction: it's not even a project guideline, it's a proposed project guideline. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  07:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


 * That would depict an illegal act. Wikipedia does not host such material. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


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


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

I highly highly doubt that you could find a majority of Wiki USERS (not editors) who think this video is the most appropriate option.Cdtew (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) We don't care who took the video (why would we?) as long it meets our licensing agreements. 2) As per Eric, ejaculation is an action and the video shows the action, making it relevant. 3) No one is forcing anyone to press the Play button... -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Aside from that, consider the fact that this video has no sourcing, no description beyond a bare tagline, and no explanation to provide any sort of scientific or cultural viewpoint of what's going on. If there's not some sort of guide as to HOW this sort of image is used, any random pervert could post a video of him/herself taking a shit or peeing on a person's face as an "illustrative" exhibit.Cdtew (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the guideline yourself. What do you propose as a suitable alternative to the video? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An animated anatomical diagram would be perfect; I am new and don't do these sorts of things, but there are literally hundreds of them on this site. Find someone, and they could do it in less than an hour.  That would be 100% more informative and 100% more appropriate than this voyeuristic sham of an "illustration".Cdtew (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you want the video replaced, it's up to you to find or come up with a better alternative, not anyone else. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought Wiki was a "community" full of "cooperation" to achieve the best results. You're full of it.  Find me a guideline that says that, and I'll eat my hat, but otherwise, stop pushing your viewpoint on everyone else.  Hell, if I didn't know better, I'd bet that you took that video of yourself -- it looks like the ultimate vanity shot.Cdtew (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a community but you can't say, "I want this changed and I want you to do the work to change it" (well, you can, but basically you're hoping that other editors who share the same viewpoint as you will do the work). Come up with a better example the community can look at and other editors will comment on it. If you wish, you can follow the instructions here and see what responses you get: Requested pictures. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  15:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump into the middle of the discussion, but I agree with those who oppose this video. It's just repulsive, it's very, very very, reasonable to assume that many viewers, of both sexes, would find it to be exaggeratly realistic, to say the less. In the same line with those who support the video, one can add to the article on excrement a video of himself shitting. Whats the difference? do you realy find any fundamental difference aside for these you can made out of nothing with play of words? More, it seems that this video is the only disputed point in the article, and as there is no good consensus on it, I stongly suggest to remove it.--Gilisa (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That assumes your supposition that the "play on words" is "nothing". Obviously people disagree.  And being repulsive is your personal opinion. If we went by opinions, half the pictures in articles dealing with body parts involved in sex would be removed or, dealing with another topic, any representation of Muhammad.  Lastly, no user is forced to play the video. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You see, that's what I ment with play of words, because obviously the vast majority of the articles on body parts don't include a video that was uploaded by one the users of Wikipedia. They mostly, if not all times, include photographs or illustrations instead. I don't have any intention to blame you for exhibitionism, but this movie can easily look as such to the average article reader. So, I plead you to consider it again. --Gilisa (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The video is unnecessary as well as inappropriate. The text along with the two diagrams at the top of the page are all that is needed to describe this topic. Postoak (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it exceeds the most forgiving standards of any Encyclopedia, including Wiki ones. Also, I truely believe that it wouldn't be too far reaching to describe this video as 18+ one, but we know that Wiki is not age limited and that, for example, children attending to sex education classes could get to this video by accident. It add nothing to the quality of the article and it's in bad taste, I suggest we remove it a.s.a.p.--Gilisa (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * You seem to ignore thse: . There is no need for further illustration, the photos we already have are more than enough ( they describe the issue fully, and are not offensive). More, as I wrote, there is no consensus on the video here, and it's also the only disputable issue in this article. So,again, I remove it.--Gilisa (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is not censored. Here's your past discussion Talk:Ejaculation/Archive_14 which resulted in no consensus to remove the video. Start an RFC if you want to change consensus. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  07:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are both repeatedly ignore these ones . As for the RfC, I have no intention to open new one now (even you can't predict the results from one vote to another) as WP consensus is no stronger than WP guidelines. It may take some time, but I'm pretty much optimistic about the chances that this movie will go down, eventualy. For now I don't have much time to deal with it-but hopefully soon I will take this issue for decision.--Gilisa (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring Wikipedia is not censored, which is a policy, and you are citing a proposed guideline from a wikiproject to support your position. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If WP:NOTCENSORED is an argument for the inclusion of the video, then what would happen if someone were to upload a video of decapitation or the like? It's simply not necessary and not appropriate. The reason we are discussing is so that we can come to a consensus, and blindly hiding behind policy links isn't furthering discussion whatsoever. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't say anything in regard to everything imaginable that could be censored should be displayed. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 20:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

more thoughts on videos without altering the page, just thinking outloud
Regarding the presence of videos of ejaculation. 1. Why not have them be available but only after both a disclaimer and hidden away so they are not available to minors and as soon as you open the first page? 2. As for "objectionable", well, that's debatable and probably will not be resolved as there will be as many fans as haters. 3. Nobody seems to have brought up the free speech argument? It's not entirely unimportant. 4. Regarding "child pornography", etc, well, certain things are not LEGAL and the LAWS prohibit us from having on here, not the laws of morality which would very between people. 5. Regarding other body functions such as vomiting and childbirth. There really isn't a whole lot offensive about either one of those, again, those can probably be placed behind a secondary screen and a warning, child protection system but are hardly "inflammatory" in nature. Same for defecation, it might be "gross" to think about but ultimately is a universal human experience. Similar to trying to prohibit breast feeding in public, the less you "think" about it, the more normal it actually becomes. 6. It's interesting to note how "inflamed" the passions have become, almost similar to debating the appropriateness of sex ed in school in junior grades. Might we learn something from those debates? 7. It's going to be hard to decide whether the video is educations, self promotional, gratuitous, excessive, etc. Why not have a number of different videos, all with neutral unemotional captions? That would remove the "self promotion" effect, as the "offender's" video will be one of 6 available to be clicked, again, all available only after appropriate warnings/precautions? There could be one with "average" and "diminished" and "apparently excessive" appearing ejaculations available, so that the viewer could actually be educated about the range of this human experience. Just my two cents? Don't even know if it helps, or just clutters the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albicor (talk • contribs) 04:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. You may want to read the No disclaimers in articles guideline. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  04:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Free speech - wikipedia is not a platform to test its limits - please see WP:ANARCHY .DMSBel (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? What does WP:ANARCHY have to do with no disclaimers? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to the first post from Albicor, not yours NeilN.DMSBel (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

'''Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.''' from WP:ANARCHY  DMSBel (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Was there ever a consensus to include it?

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


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


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


 * And other contributors are opposed to removing the video. Thus, the need to have an RfC. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  04:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * on what grounds are they opposed? - quoting wikipedia is not censored is not a rationale for keeping it. It is bringing the entire article into disrepute, and preventing edits being made that could improve the article.DMSBel (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Try again. WP:NOTCENSORED IS WIKIPEDIA POLICY, all your arguments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  20:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Votes for Video Inclusion (or Not)
Is there any place we can vote concerning inclusion (or not) of the video? Twipley (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:VOTE says no. The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks, you're right. I've just fell on WP:DEMOCRACY Twipley (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't vote here and see WP:RFC. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect, votes can be taken, there should be discussion first though. That is what that page means. There has been plenty of discussion.DMSBel (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please show me the voting mechanism on Wikipedia. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  17:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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


 * It'd be useless in determining the outcome: "Content issues are almost never subject to polling. Out of our 3,188,733 articles, less than 0.1% were ever polled upon." -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Because I (among other editors) will not accept the result of a poll where a "Yes" vote with no rationale given would equal a "No" vote which cites policies, guidelines, etc. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Sigh, I'm trying to explain established Wikipedia practices to you. Read NOTAVOTE. Content changes are determined by consensus which is facilitated through an RfC, not a vote. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  20:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * For what it's worth, I am against the inclusion of the video. I think that as we are operating under the moniker of an encyclopedia, we need to have at least a smidgen of professional conduct. A video of someone ejaculating, especially when the video is just some arbitrary and amateur clip, is disturbing on many levels. Do we have videos of decapitations at the decapitation article? No? Why not? Even though we are Wikipedia and we are not censored, you need to draw the line somewhere. As an established editor since 2004, I venture to suggest we remove this video, it is simply not necessary; the photos are enough. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 20:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, I wanted to point out that NeilN is correct, a vote is not appropriate in this situation. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The appropriateness of having a vote is subjective, I mean editors have different views on the usefulness of polls. Once again, one editor cannot just say "we are not voting"DMSBel (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you want to follow established Wikipedia practices and have a RfC? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  20:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


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


 * The video offers additional information that an image can not offer. It is a real-time illustration of part of the process. No one is forced to view the video. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  20:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments CIS, yes I agree that editing should be done profesionally, unfortunately one editor as locked the page completely unneccarily IMO and the protection has been described as improper by another. I have not any intention of removing the video, someone else can do that if they wish. Your comments add to the growing number of requests that the video be removed.DMSBel (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The page was locked my an uninvolved third party editor who had no biases in the matter. As stated in the protection template, it is not an endorsement of the current revision of the page. The page was protected, appropriately, to stop the revert wars and allow us to migrate to the talk page for civil discussion. A vote is not appropriate at this time, and I would agree with NeilN in that perhaps you should pursue requesting for further comment through RFC. We need more organized and civil discussion from established editors. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 20:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out there was no revert war - only one deleltion then one revert - that is not a war. After that the page was semi-protected and discussion took place. look at the history.DMSBel (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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


 * For a new editor, you're awfully quick to dismiss policy. Could it be perhaps you feel it's not on your side? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  20:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Neil, WP:NOTCENSORED is being called out far too often here, and simply citing a policy is not presenting an argument. Yes, it is a policy, but that policy states clearly that "". My argument is that it is not appropriate because it is both amateurish and unnecessary. We already have enough pictures to represent ejaculation; some articles have no pictures at all and get by just fine. I've yet to see an argument in favor of why it is needed at all. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't advocate including offensive material just because it's offensive; the video is simply not needed here. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I gave my reasons upthread and browsing through the archives gives more. I simply don't understand why DMSBel doesn't start an RfC as per established community practices. I've said if consensus is for removing the video, I'll be the first one to remove it. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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


 * CIS has also said you should pursue a RfC, there are three editors alone on this page which have disagreed with removal in the last 24 hours so obviously there's no consensus, and I offered to help you with the RfC process on your talk page. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  21:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * Question: Is the photo in this version more acceptable to you? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


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

a video is absolutely appropriate
anyone who has never seen an ejaculation has the right to look it up and wikipedia is the place to do so. no explanation, however detailed, and no drawing, however accurate, can give you an idea of an ejaculation if you never saw one before. reading through all the arguments i find none taking this into account. what i do see is people trying to force their moral values on sexuality on wikipedia. these values are reflected in comments and comparisons, that make my head spin. unless it is explained, what harm it does to a child seeing this video and why, or to anyone else for that matter, removing such a video is outright censorship. i suggest these people take their crusade somewhere else.Sundar1 (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * what harm can this video do to a kid looking at it? he or she might be surprised, especially if parents kept sexual matters in the twilight or hidden. i would have been most grateful in my youth to have been able to see a video like this and i would have felt a lot better and much more secure about myself. my three kids would laugh their heads off at this discussion.
 * comparing ejaculation to defecation, urination, child molestation and whatever, shows me exactly, to what department sexuality belongs for these people. the same applies to the comparisons with violent or negative acts. sadly, most objectors would not mind their kids seeing violence and bloodshed on tv.
 * a reason for not showing defecation or urination on wikipedia would be, that everyone without exception can observe this any time he or she choses to look.

I strongly object to the use of the word "absolutely" you are not speaking for everyone in this discussion, and even less for everyone on wikipedia - the lengthy dispute indicates many others disagree.DMSBel (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * neither are you. i never wrote that all people think like me.


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

Sundar wrote: sadly, most objectors would not mind their kids seeing violence and bloodshed on tv.
 * as i said, there are more objectors than the ones participating in this discussion. it is a safe assumption that many of them have kids.


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


 * which of the objectors do you know has kids? How do you know what they let their kids (if they have any) watch? DMSBel (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sundar1 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not wikipedia's responsability that a parent is letting his/her 4 year old child browse the internet unsupervised. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Please add new sections to the bottom of this talk page. How is male reproductive tract more accurate than penis? Semen is actually ejaculated from the urethra which travels through the penis. Also, regarding your other change, intercourse is not the only sexual cause of ejaculation. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I won't object to male reproductive tract but changing sexual stimulation to sexual intercourse is needlessly restrictive. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  03:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

Something that would never be used in schools
Some have claimed this video has educational merit, can anyone reference a sex education course that uses a video to depict ejaculation, I very much doubt it (in fact I would go as far as to say that I am almost absolutely certain that none would use a video like this), the subject would be handled much more discreetly than this. In fact if shown in sex ed lessons at all it is shown as it takes place during penetration.DMSBel (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're associating "education" to what is taught is schools which is irrelevant for our purposes. There are many sexually themed articles on Wikipedia whose contents would never be taught in schools. Doesn't mean they're not educational. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  08:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Please use Support, Oppose, Strongly Support, Strongly Oppose (in bold text). Those taking part here should be familiar with the discussion, new contributors here should scan through this page and the last couple of archived pages (13 and 14) before registering their views here. DO NOT register support or opposition WITHOUT explaining why one or the other. Remember this is aimed at reaching a compromise. Please keep comments short (a few lines) and to the point, DO NOT REPEAT yourself and do not drag out your arguments - and don't abuse this RfC by using it to cite policy in place of reasoned argument.DMSBel (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC) This is designed to find a compromise if possible not to debate the suitability of the video or whether it is offensive ,neither is it the place to air your opinions, thoughts on what censorship is, there has been plenty of that in the discussion. It is specifically for registering your support or opposition to the proposed compromise. Do not try and influence others who have yet to comment, simply state your view and whether you support or oppose. One comment each please. Do not comment on others comments and do not insult others who have commented.DMSBel (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DMSBel, while your undertaking to start an RfC is to be applauded, your attempt to set down arbitrary rules is not. RfC's are designed to request outside input and to stimulate discussion. See Talk:Chile and Talk:Genesis_creation_myth for examples. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


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

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

Strongly Oppose -- It has long been determined that censoring articles because of objectionable content by placing them behind inline links is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not censored. The image is directly related to the topic, as it is a human ejaculation. There is nothing pornographic in nature about it. Some may feel that it is sexually explicit. There is nothing wrong with an image being explicit in describing the topic. Of course it is sexual in nature. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles and images that are sexual in nature. The use of blocking or censoring an image with an inline link is never acceptable. Either the image is appropriate for the article, or it is not appropriate. Atom (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider also please -- if someone thinks that they may be offended by the video -- can't they just decline to click on it? Is it not already, essentially inline linked in a fashion without censorship? Atom (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


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

Please continue comments at bottom of this section

Wikipedia is NOT censored

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

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

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

What censorship is not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


 * The first link only has four sections that achieved more support than opposition:
 * a user preference to remove all images for that user
 * do nothing because there is really no problem now
 * that no content should be labelled (for pornography, offensive, etc)
 * censoring only on a case-by-case basis
 * The second link was rejected in a poll here. Please read the oppose votes.
 * There was also another failed proposal Image_censorship, where the option with the most support was never censor any image that is relevant. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

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


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


 * Reasons one could possibly use:


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


 * Reasons that may not be used:


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


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


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

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


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


 * Have you just changed part of your comment to "if I simplify my wording", Ie, did you just add the word "my"? I don't recall reading it like that before.DMSBel (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok having looked through the history I see what change you have made. However the context of your remarks imply that the "verbiage" was from others not yourself, so I do not understand why you changed it to "if I simplify my wording"?? You are still refering to other peoples views. Re-read the intro to the RfC and bring your contribution in line with what was asked for please.DMSBel (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * If you consent I will delete this and restart it?DMSBel (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please disengage here. You (especially DMSBel, but also other early discussants) have said your point. Repeatedly. You have said you wanted an RfC and to get others' input. Now is the time to step back and let others wade through this becoming-repetitive back-and-forth and comment if they would like. Do not monopolize the discussion with metadiscussion about it. There's no need to hand-wring about the path it's taken yet. DMacks (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


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

Please continue comments here (below line)

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

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

Sentence makes no sense at all
Under the heading stimulation there is this sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

Ejaculatory duct
There is a better illustration on wikipedia than the current one at the top of the page IMO. The current one does not point out the ejaculatory duct very well. I suggest it is replaced with the one here DMSBel (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed and width increased to make labels somewhat clearer. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  07:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing this I have been working on the image and have an enlarged version to upload, when I figure out how. I actually prefer the illustrations the size they were (is that possible), most people will click on it to enlarge and the layout looked slightly neater in the smaller size. Have to go to bed now thoughDMSBel (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new sections to the bottom of this talk page. How is male reproductive tract more accurate than penis? Semen is actually ejaculated from the urethra which travels through the penis. Also, regarding your other change, intercourse is not the only sexual cause of ejaculation. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I won't object to male reproductive tract but changing sexual stimulation to sexual intercourse is needlessly restrictive. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  03:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Sure, I agree with you, but that's not what you have here. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  22:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is with what decision (remove or keep) the consensus supports. If there is not both a consensus and a minority in disagreement, then we either have a unaminity in favour of either removal or keeping, or a 50-50 split. Do you think it is fifty-fifty, or if not what action do you think the consensus would support? I apologise I hope I am understanding consensus correctly, please correct me if you disagree with my explanation.DMSBel (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of lost so as to where to reply; I thus choose to do so at the bottom of the page. Personally, I find the video educational, and non pornographic, that is, not arousing lust, at least not in me. It is viewed as appropriate by me. Twipley (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, I would find it quite improbable, as was put above, that a four-years old be looking at that video. If a human being is old enough to browse through an encyclopedia, and is interested in such topics (be it a four-years old genius), so be it (in my own opinion, which I realize may differ from other people's opinion). Is it especially those reasons for differing that I think are sought to be made explicit here. Twipley (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Well, I think that the video conveys some information that is difficult to convey through words only, that is, the pressure, the shooting, etc. Rhythmic contractions exemplified by video medium. It complements the description by images. It is hard to imagine both the shooting range and the consistency of the fluid without such a medium, I think.
 * However, I agree that the video is of relatively poor quality, and would hope for a better one to be included. Twipley (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not arousing lust does not mean it is not pornographic. Pornography does not arouse lust in everyone, some might feel repulsed rather than aroused.DMSBel (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think this issue springs from the definition one has of the word "pornography." "Lust arousing," or, still, designed to "stimulate sexual desire" are definitions from WordNet, which Google seems to base itself upon when one looks up for "define:pornographic." I think what I wanted to say is that it does not seem "lust arousing" to me. Twipley (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but some have said they did find it arousing, if you want to search through the archives you will see the comments (I can understand if you have better things to do, lol)DMSBel (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, lol, I've just found it through the archives. Now I'm really confused; never would have I thought possible to append the "lust arousing" label to that video. Taking a break for a while. Yours, Twipley (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


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


 * DMSBel, you seem to have a pretty strong argument there: "There are appropriate stages in child development for a child to become aware of things, and it is recognised by some developmental psychologists that giving children awareness beyond their stage of development may be in some cases harmful." However, I think it would be useful for a valid reference to that claim to be found (a reliable source).
 * Furthermore: I would like to hear more discussion on that claimed "confusion" resulting from difficulty of understanding. Maybe children have difficulty understanding such things. But, confusion? That might benefit from being sourced, too. What do you think? Twipley (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * "No good arguments" - in your opinion. Have you gone through the archives and read the various debates and RfC's? Alternatively, have you gone to a random article and argued for the removal of a random photo? I'd wager that most photos on Wikipedia are not educational by your definition. You do realize that you're using the exact same arguments as Muslims do on all 14 archives Talk:Muhammad/images right? It just seems it would be hypocritical of Wikipedia to remove the video here while the same arguments are given very short shrift at Talk:Muhammad/images. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  04:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's comparing apples to oranges. We already have images on this article showing the process of ejaculation, and nobody's arguing that we shouldn't, we're saying that the video is not necessary and is not encyclopedic. Those who objected to images of Muhammad didn't want any images, for religious reasons. Comparing the use of a picture of a historical figure to illustrate its namesake's article to a video of a random amateur man ejaculating on camera and uploading it to Wikipedia (for what ever sick reason) to illustrate ejaculation is ridiculous. How can we call trivia sections unencyclopedic yet think this video is?. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 04:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


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


 * So you're going from "sleazy" to "inappropriate" to "crude, vulgar, amateurish", hmmm? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  06:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Unencyclopedic, not necessary, offensive, no good reason to keep it - same arguments (plus it's not a "real representation"). I did suggest using the image in this version but DMSBel rejected it. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  04:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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


 * What have I written to make you think that? You're the one who seems to want to dictate what should go in the article without soliciting wider community input. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  06:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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

I think I've said all that I'm going to say on this matter right now. If no other editors support the inclusion of the video then I won't revert the removal of the video. If other editors feel it should stay, then I'll start an RfC if no one else will. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  06:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


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


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


 * comment - as i stated one section above, there is no explanation as to what harm such a video does, no matter what age a person is. assumptions, hearsay and unfounded fears of parents are not acceptable. anyone who has never seen an ejaculation has the right to look it up and wikipedia is just the place to do so. no explanation, however detailed, and no drawing, however accurate, can give you an idea of an ejaculation if you never saw one before. a video does, therefore i'm fully in favour of keeping it in. for all the worried ones and crusaders, i wouldn't mind it to be hidden, so that you have to click on it to open it, plus a warning. Sundar1 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So others that have opposite opinions are "crusaders" and "worried ones". Others have the right to voice their opinion without having a label attached. Nobody said those that support the video are perverts. Postoak (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah thats the second time Sundar's argument has ammounted to little more than an ad-hominem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


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


 * From DMSBel: "Just a crude, vulgar, amateurish, unencyclopedic cum-shot, for voyeurs to enjoy (freeze-framed as a big long drip of semen hanging from someones penis). There ya go, - that's the audience wikipedia is seemingly aiming to capture.". Pretty darn close. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * DMSBel, can you please log in when editing? I know you don't mean any harm but avoiding even the hint of sockpuppetry is good. Also, can you indent the standard way when replying? Sorry to be a nitpick but it makes the conversation easier to follow. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  03:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Something that would never be used in schools
Some have claimed this video has educational merit, can anyone reference a sex education course that uses a video to depict ejaculation, I very much doubt it (in fact I would go as far as to say that I am almost absolutely certain that none would use a video like this), the subject would be handled much more discreetly than this. In fact if shown in sex ed lessons at all it is shown as it takes place during penetration.DMSBel (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're associating "education" to what is taught is schools which is irrelevant for our purposes. There are many sexually themed articles on Wikipedia whose contents would never be taught in schools. Doesn't mean they're not educational. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  08:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Please use Support, Oppose, Strongly Support, Strongly Oppose (in bold text). Those taking part here should be familiar with the discussion, new contributors here should scan through this page and the last couple of archived pages (13 and 14) before registering their views here. DO NOT register support or opposition WITHOUT explaining why one or the other. Remember this is aimed at reaching a compromise. Please keep comments short (a few lines) and to the point, DO NOT REPEAT yourself and do not drag out your arguments - and don't abuse this RfC by using it to cite policy in place of reasoned argument.DMSBel (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC) This is designed to find a compromise if possible not to debate the suitability of the video or whether it is offensive ,neither is it the place to air your opinions, thoughts on what censorship is, there has been plenty of that in the discussion. It is specifically for registering your support or opposition to the proposed compromise. Do not try and influence others who have yet to comment, simply state your view and whether you support or oppose. One comment each please. Do not comment on others comments and do not insult others who have commented.DMSBel (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DMSBel, while your undertaking to start an RfC is to be applauded, your attempt to set down arbitrary rules is not. RfC's are designed to request outside input and to stimulate discussion. See Talk:Chile and Talk:Genesis_creation_myth for examples. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


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

Please continue comments at bottom of this section

Wikipedia is NOT censored

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

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

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

What censorship is not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


 * The first link only has four sections that achieved more support than opposition:
 * a user preference to remove all images for that user
 * do nothing because there is really no problem now
 * that no content should be labelled (for pornography, offensive, etc)
 * censoring only on a case-by-case basis
 * The second link was rejected in a poll here. Please read the oppose votes.
 * There was also another failed proposal Image_censorship, where the option with the most support was never censor any image that is relevant. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

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


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


 * Reasons one could possibly use:


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


 * Reasons that may not be used:


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


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


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

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


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


 * Have you just changed part of your comment to "if I simplify my wording", Ie, did you just add the word "my"? I don't recall reading it like that before.DMSBel (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok having looked through the history I see what change you have made. However the context of your remarks imply that the "verbiage" was from others not yourself, so I do not understand why you changed it to "if I simplify my wording"?? You are still refering to other peoples views. Re-read the intro to the RfC and bring your contribution in line with what was asked for please.DMSBel (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * If you consent I will delete this and restart it?DMSBel (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please disengage here. You (especially DMSBel, but also other early discussants) have said your point. Repeatedly. You have said you wanted an RfC and to get others' input. Now is the time to step back and let others wade through this becoming-repetitive back-and-forth and comment if they would like. Do not monopolize the discussion with metadiscussion about it. There's no need to hand-wring about the path it's taken yet. DMacks (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


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

Please continue comments here (below line)

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

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


 * Strongly oppose. The proposal is an attempt to change the format in which the media is presented because of its perceived offensiveness. Per my comments here and per WP:NOT, which clearly indicates that "discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness" (emphasis added), I oppose this proposal as long as there is not consensus to present all videos, regardless of content, in inline format. Will using an inline link as opposed to a visible link help to improve readers' understanding of the article's text? No, it will only make the media less visible and will set a precedent for separate treatment of media based on their subject matter—or, to be more accurate, subjective perceptions of and preferences regarding their subject matter. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sentence makes no sense at all
Under the heading stimulation there is this sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

Ejaculatory duct
There is a better illustration on wikipedia than the current one at the top of the page IMO. The current one does not point out the ejaculatory duct very well. I suggest it is replaced with the one here DMSBel (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed and width increased to make labels somewhat clearer. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  07:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing this I have been working on the image and have an enlarged version to upload, when I figure out how. I actually prefer the illustrations the size they were (is that possible), most people will click on it to enlarge and the layout looked slightly neater in the smaller size. Have to go to bed now thoughDMSBel (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The knowledge of the truth will set you free
Ok DMSBel, it’s your turn for a little Wikipedia history lesson. How did this video get on here in the first place ? From the Talk:Ejaculation Archives from 9 June 2006 we have this discussion exchange :


 * I hope you don't mind me breaking up your post with my comments Infofreak, but due to its length it is easier reply this way and may be easier for someone else reading it to see my replies in context of the various parts of your post. Ok, thankyou for pulling some of the history on this topic from the archive (by the way you will likely lose most people by saying things like "its your turn" - sounds a bit "know-it-all" even if you have been in the discussion for a while.) In fact I have been going through the archived discussion on this article which is rather tedious. But it is useful (even though it shows no consensus for inclusion) at least to see when first mention of a movie was made.DMSBel (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"The picture doesn't actually show ejaculation—at least, not at all clearly. It shows an erect penis covered in semen, with perhaps a hint of motion blur that is suggestive if one already knows what the process of ejaculation looks like. In other words, it's not an informative image and it therefore doesn't help the article. While Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, Wikipedia is edited mercilessly; this includes the removal of images that fail to effectively illustrate an article's subject. In general, processes are much better illustrated by movies than by still frames. TenOfAllTrades </wiki/User:TenOfAllTrades>(talk </wiki/User_talk:TenOfAllTrades>) 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC) MOVIE!!! Lol, that would be something. Do you have one in mind? Seriously, that actually isn't a bad idea--it will illustrate ejaculation much better than the current picture. The Ungovernable Force </wiki/User:The_Ungovernable_Force> 04:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC) I question the degree to which ejaculation is well illustrated by a picture, really. I mean, I'm all about illustrations on, say, cumshot </wiki/Cumshot>, but in the case of ejaculation, it seems to me that the concept is fairly banal, and also based more on motion than on still images, and thus not really well-served by a picture. Video, perhaps? Phil Sandifer </wiki/User:Phil_Sandifer> 16:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)"

A little over a month later on 26 July 2006, a user uploaded the video Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG, and it was placed on the Ejaculation article on 27 July 2006. So according to the historical archive records, this video was evidently made and uploaded to Wikipedia to fulfill a request for a video to better illustrate the Ejaculation article.


 * Ok, it is most likely that the uploader noticed these three posts (out of dozens) in the discussion and perhaps thought there seemd to be a consensus, or maybe just thought who cares I'll upload it and see what happens. We don't know what he was thinking. But in good-faith lets suppose he thought - this might be helpful, i will film myself and upload it. Now if you look at this section of the discussion the last person (phil sandifer) says "Video, perhaps?" This can be taken as nothing more than a question for further discussion. Not a request. And if you look at the archive (1) you will see that there was very little support following his suggestion of a video. The reasoning of what support there was, was based on it being better for someone to look for the video here rather than on a porn-site. Now I was actually sympathetic to this argument and stated it myself once in this discussion, but my sympathy was conditional on it being shown that the video is in fact educational - which could be demonstrated by referencing some other genuine educational resource that uses an ejaculation video. I have changed my view as if it is currently only possible to find an ejaculation video on a porn site - then the content is pornographic and not educational, whether someone uploads it to wikipedia or You Porn does not make it educational. What is even more surprising is that a couple of editors (from the archived discussion) would suggest a video in the midst of a heated discussion about the need of a photo, there was not even consensus on keeping the photo when the video was suggested. Staggering.DMSBel (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"a video of a random amateur man ejaculating on camera and uploading it to Wikipedia (for what ever sick reason) to illustrate ejaculation is ridiculous” - CIS (talk | stalk) 04:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)" Whatever CIS … next …..


 * Hold on Infofreak, you have not, and as you now hopefully see from my comment above, cannot, demonstrate with certainty what the reason of the uploader was. Your dismissal of CIS's comment here is a bit abrupt. His point is well made. The guy is random, and unverifiable.DMSBel (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

DMSBel, you stated this earlier in reference to the ejaculation video under the heading “Something that would never be used in schools” : “Can you prove to me that it is educational and that it would be likely to be used in other educational sources?” If you had truly read throught the archives of discussions here on the Talk:Ejaculation page, you would have read this comment from a Wikipedia user from Archive 14 :

“All I can say is that this video 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 67.34.63.122 (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)”

OMG !!! This video HAS been used in a sexuality class at a school !!! … next …


 * Not so fast. Completely unverifiable, but in good faith we should at least consider the possibility that it is true. However I don't understand this - the professor used a video from wikipedia, which is not allowed by students to be used because it is not a scholarly resource??? Dubious. Why is wikipedia not considered a scholarly resource, maybe the professor was demonstrating why by showing this video? If wikipedia is not a scholarly resource why did his professor use the video? Yeah they are right it is not scholarly in a lot of sections, because it can be edited by anyone, and content can be uploaded by anyone. And content is not selected by consensus and discussion but quite often (as here) by acquiring default status without consenus and then being kept by protection only, even when there is a consensus to remove. You know this.DMSBel (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And now DMSBel, here is another one of your comments :


 * Should I start calling you Hercule?:-)DMSBel (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

“And I doubt very much that most parents would want to use this video as a way of educating their child.”

From the discussion of a deletion request on this video from 17 March 2007 :

“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!!!!!!!!".


 * Ok, I read this ages ago. It did not convince me then either. I said most parents btw. Of course wikipedia is not a porn site, nobody said it was. It is possible though for content to be present that could be considered pornographic, even if this person does not think so. The description would have explained it to the kid without the video!! I can say I understood this without a video or picture, the illustrations were quite sufficient. Also when I was a teen about the only thing I needed to know about this was where the semen came from. I didn't need to see a video or semen in a dish (as in another article). If someone had shown that to me I would have thought they weere daft, in fact I would have probably have wondered if they were trying to groom me.DMSBel (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, from an independent medical / healthcare website, we have this comment about the video Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG on the english Wikipedia Ejaculation article :


 * what website?

"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".


 * link please

DMSBel, you stated this : “Although I still think this video is not appropriate, I do agree that if someone had an educational reason for needing to see an ejaculation it would be better to find it here rather than on a porn-site. I am not sure that there is any educational aspect to this video, or whether that is just a cover for wanting to upload this video and get it on the internet” - DMSBel (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)”

OMG !!! This video HAS been used by parents to educate their children about sex !!! … and it was uploaded to Wikipedia because of a request for a video to better illustrate the Ejaculation article over 3 ½ years ago !!! … next …


 * Ok so you are getting impressed with your arguments. Still impressed? As others have in this discussion I am keeping my mind open, not closed - you seem to want the video kept no matter what (correct me if I am wrong, but that is what the excited (even slightly frenzied) tone of yout post suggests. You seem to think you can just dismiss people here with "Next!" and you think you have just demolished any argument against it. You are showing only a degree of "knowitallness". We discuss thingsDMSBel (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just proven by the comments that users, NOT EDITORS, of Wikipedia have written on the past talk pages that this video IS EDUCATIONAL and has been used by parents at home, teachers in school, and professional medical / healthcare advocates to educate others, and that the video adds an extra and vital understanding to the subject of ejaculation that a still photo or diagram cannot. The reason I didn’t take the time to put all the little blue links to reference all of this for you is because I want you to get off your soapbox for a moment and actually search back through the archives (especially Archive 14) of this talk page and read these discussions for yourself. In other words, I’m not going to make it simple for you. To find these quotes that I have referenced here, you’ll have to read ALL of Archive 14 which is what you should have done in the first place like you were supposed to before you started all this shit.


 * Don't get carried away. I started nothing. You have just quoted a few comments that suit you. You have not even bothered to take part in the RfC. I have been looking through the archives and if you do not want to make it easy for me then don't. Unfortunately you make it difficult for everyone else too. Everytime I do I become more an more convinced of the lack of consensus for putting the video in.  The comments from the archive do not convey the same impression when read in context of the other comments, as I said it is so ludicrous that when people could not settle for a photo of this that someone would upload a video, and don't tell me the video illustrates it any better, the discussion was not about illustrating it better it was about the need to illustrate it at all.DMSBel (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

From the template box at the top of the Talk:Ejaculation page under the heading of “Pictures and video” it clearly states : “If you are editing this page to contest the picture and video, then please check first the archives for past discussions. There is a "recurrent topics" lists that you can consult”. Infofreak (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know, I use those links all the time.


 * So I see nothing in your post to show there was any consensus for inclusion. Perhaps "this shit" as you call it, would not happen if people talked about controversial content and sought a concensus before putting it in. Wikipedia will be stuck in this mess until that happens.DMSBel (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PLease don't get me wrong Infofreak your contributions here are welcome, I just don't agree with your views about the video being educationalDMSBel (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Further - having read your comments below Infofreak I now think I see what is going on here. I see were you are um, I'll rephrase that, lol. Ok I see what you have said about the photos both here and earlier in the archive and I am 100% with you. As you point out the photos are the bigger problem, even though they are just photos if the guy in them is an exhibionist they have no place on Wikipedia and are definetley not done for an "educational" purpose.DMSBel (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

DMSBel, the link to the medical / healthcare website is here : [] Please read about this website and what they do. Their healthcare experts rate websites that provide medical and healthcare related content for public education and information. The Wikipedia Ejaculation article was rated by their healthcare advocates with a 4 out of 5 stars. The video was endorsed by one of their healthcare experts named Amanda. As I recall, I think that you can click to get her profile and read her qualifications. Regardless of our differences in this matter, these comments I have referenced above does highlight the educational value of the video to users that visit Wikipedia. You say they are unverified. Is that because they were made by an anon ip? I wouldn’t expect a common user to have a Wikipedia username account because that usually means that they are also an editor and not just a casual user. Should I remind everyone that all of the comments in this discussion under the anon ip of 82.18.164.15 is YOU commenting without logging in ? If you had continued to comment to this talk page using your anon ip and not creating an account with a username, we could just as easily disregard your comments as “completely unverifiable”. I’m not being rude in stating this, I’m just trying to help you understand this unfortunate situation. Lots of good comments with positive potential to advance the project if seriously considered about various subjects on Wikipedia over the years have been disregarded at times by fellow editors and administrators because it was an anon ip that made the comment. Infofreak (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I apologise, I have been trying to make it clear that is my IP and clarified it a few days ago in this discussion. I just forgot to log in, and started commenting a few times. Thanks for the link. Can we get rid of the photos for now, and continue discussing the video when they are gone.DMSBel (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

DMSBel, I have already deleted the sequence of ejaculation photo from the article one time already today on the grounds that we have been presently discussing. My deletion was reverted by Atomaton. You can read his reasons for putting the photo back on the article above. My suggestion would be for you to take it up with him on his user talk page and maybe get a better idea of his paticular view on this matter. Infofreak (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I have now too, though Enric who amazingly seems to just be waiting here to put it back, though I could be mistaken, tried to undo it the deletion again. I mentioned the pic here on the talk page, I can't keep going to peoples userpages to discussion this, it means the others don't see what the reasons are. I mentioned it here and pointed out that it had not been suggested by anyone else to use it a supplemental picture. The video is overkill IMO, the photos just beggar belief, especially now we know the source. Atom did not reply to my questions about the photos. I left them to see if he would reply, but he hasn't except after you deleted them. I think he is wrong here especially in the light knowing who the uploader is. DMSBel (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The sequence of ejaculation photo added to the Ejaculation article ... again
While I’m at it, I’m going to remove the sequence of ejaculation photo from the article because it has already been established from the discussions in Archive 15 (read it for yourself) that the person who created and starred in this image ("Shadowhead69" aka "Krooga" aka "Spritzing"), and the video that the frames that make up this photo came from, is a self proclaimed ejaculation exhibitionist who has his ejaculation videos on porn sites all over the internet. As an update to the information I presented that is found in Archive 15, if you go here : [] you will see that this link takes you to this particular porno website’s "paid channels". If you then scroll to the 2nd row of videos on the left side of this page you will see the "paid channel" listing for "Krooga" where people "donate" money to have access to his channel to watch him masturbate and ejaculate. If you scroll further down to the 8th row of videos (according to my browser settings), you will find another one. Having his photo sequence of ejaculation on the Wikipedia Ejaculation article only gives this guy free advertisement for his own money making "masturbation for hire" porno business. I don’t think that it would be wise for the largest and most popular online encyclopedia in the world to be associated with this person’s self promotion for profit. You people want to replace a proven educational and academically accepted video of ejaculation with this person’s photo sequence of ejaculation that has a blatant and thoroughly documented historical origin (Archive 15) in exhibitionism and hardcore pornography. Unbelievable. Infofreak (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Infofreak, You are right about the photos, I am of course not arguing for either. But perhaps and understandibly you are favoring the video to keep these exhibistionist photos out of the article. I think despite the heat at times in this discussion we are nearly all on the same wavelength :-) None of us wants inappropriate content. I think the pics should go (on the grounds of what you say here Infofreak) but I am not by saying that considering the video better, its just that the pics went in last, while debate about the video was ongoing. It was not my intention to use this as a replacement (as I don't really think the video is neccessary). NeilN brought it up a few days ago. I said then I did not think they were suitable. Can we get a consenus here to not use the pics?DMSBel (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I don't want ot be part of any kind of edit war, and I won't. The appropriate response is to discuss removing the image with other editors. I don't see any kind of consensus now, or in Archive 15 for removing that image. The image is educational, it is in the public domain, and there is absolutely nothing on the Wikipedia dscription OR the commons description that indicates that it is a commercial image. I don't see any self promotion of any kind. How is the person in the photo promoting anything? Your description of him as an "ejaculation exhibitionist" is not useful. If he were, in fact a paid performer of pornography (which was not established) it would say nothing about the useability of the image.


 * Also, I look at the sequence of image as supplementary, not to replace the video. The four plate image offers less information, but another view of the topic.  We have not, for instance on the breast article, limited an article to only one image.


 * I must disagree with you Atom, there was no discussion of adding supplementary images to the article, especially images that have been contested in the past. Putting this back (even if well meant) does not help resolve the ongoing dispute about the video. I am grateful for Infofreaks comments here, as I am fairly new to the discussion.DMSBel (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, could you give a reason beyond your rant about who you think the person in the image may be? Is there something wrong with the image?  Is it poor quality, or off topic, or artificial?  Atom (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you really think that rejecting an image because someone has the opinion that the subject is an exhibitionist is appropriate? Shouldn't the quality of the image, or it appropriatness based on content be more important?  Are you saying that if you provided us with roughly exactly the same four images, that would be okay.  But, it is not okay because of the subject?  I don't follow that logic.  Atom (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Infofreaks reasons are valid, these pics are exhibitionist. None of us (myself, Infofreak, or you Atom) are likely to get into an edit war. Info is saying the other places (pay to view porn-sites) that these pics have been found are evidence enough to conclude they are the work of an exhibtionist. I agree. DMSBel (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just checked Info's link (feeling somewhat sick now) they are porn 100% and exhibitionist, it is definetly the same guy the t-shirt is the same. I have looked back in the archive and it is obvious what is going on with these pics. Please delete them Info if you don't mind. DMSBel (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Amazingly enough "I think it's exhibitionist content" is not usually considered a valid reason for deleting images from articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Enric you are just waiting in the wings - what else do you edit? There is no "I think" about it, Info has shown that it is from an exhibitionist. Are trying to stir things up by putting it back? Perform no more reverts. Two editors have deleted it now. And there was no consensus to put it back. What other edits have you made to this article if you don't mind me asking, you seem to just be here to defend the video and pics.DMSBel (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Enric, I know that the name of the Wikipedia Policy that addressed "self promotion" / "vanity" images has been renamed to something else (can't remember what) but I know that if an image was thought to be such, it could be deleted on those grounds. I know for a fact that I uncovered enough about the origin of this photo and the video it was captured from and the comments made by the creator of the photo / video to prove that it's addition to this article was purely exhibitionist. Wouldn't a blatantly exhibitionistic image that has been proven as such fall under the "self promotion" / "vanity" category ? Infofreak (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no further discussion needed here, you took the right action when you deleted them, Enric should have read your post, the reasons have been givenDMSBel (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can only find Image_use_policy "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace". Could any of you two please find and cite some bit of policy of guideline that supports the removal of that image, or may I assume that you simply don't like the picture and that you are determined to remove it? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:13, 18 February

2010 (UTC)
 * Try WP:SELFPROMOTE under WP:COI. Postoak (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good one, but it would apply only if the author of the image was adding it himself. ---Enric Naval (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hum, if the problem is the origin of the sequence, then we can make a similar sequence using the other video (the one currently in the article). --Enric Naval (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? You already have a video and two descriptive diagrams. Additional images are not necessary. Postoak (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion about these pics is over Enric. Reasons have been given for the removal. Please feel free to make some constructive edits to the rest of the article. All the best.DMSBel (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop telling other editors that the "discussion is over". If you think they are disruptive or incivil you can make a report to WP:WQA. Trying to shut down discussion might be considered disruptive... -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to report people unnecessarily. There is no doubt the uploader of these photos was dubious, and the presence of the video and the photos only was enflaming the discussion further. Infofreak took the correct action.DMSBel (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don’t like to stop when I’m researching something until I feel that I have covered it completely. I know that all of you are tired of seeing my rant about this matter, but if you will allow me this final post to officially enter into the talk page so it will be preserved in the archives, I would like to submit this last bit of information. If you click here [] and then click on "Show more results from" (you know the website where Krooga's videos are), Here are some of the comments you will see on the Google hits you get : "Krooga, you are the king of cumshot!! Ilike your cum! Very gooooooood! ... secound comment... i just saw some parts of your vid at wikipedia (germany). and i knew that i know this cock;)"

"Closeup of cumshot cum streaming. Spritzing. by: Krooga Runtime: 00:29. Views:54877 | Comments: 9 ...... lol this video is on wikipedia!"

"Hi Krooga - just thought I'd let you know (if you didn't already) that Wikipedia has pics of you shooting!"

If you click on the google hit named “Krooga’s Videos” the porn website page will load and one of his videos will play. To the right of the video is Krooga’s name on the user info tab. Under his name is a button to click that says “Donate Money” and beside that, another button that says “Send Gift”. Under that it has a button that says “Subscribe”. This is the proof that he is making money with this, and he is using Wikipedia as his worldwide advertisement billboard while his "fans" laugh in our faces. Krooga’s sequence of ejaculation photo is currently being used on 39 pages and 28 Wikipedia projects []

This guy manipulated Wikipedia and played all of us for a bunch of fools and got away with it, and it looks as though there is nothing we can do to stop it. A very sad day for Wikipedia. Infofreak (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. Please tell us how a reader of the article would think this is an ad and trace it back to this Krooga fellow. You're the one who's helping him promote his website. Also, are you saying that Wikipedia shouldn't accept any media files from commercial photographers/videographers? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  06:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

“Please tell us how a reader of the article would think this is an ad and trace it back to this Krooga fellow”. By “googling” his Wikipedia username like I did back in 2007. I did it, and anybody else could too. I originally started researching his uploads to Wikipedia in 2007 thinking that they were a copyright violation from a porn site. I had no idea what I was getting into. The more I researched, the worse and deeper it got. I’ve got lots more information about this matter than what I have posted to this talk page, but I didn’t post it because the proof is gone. The links to it on the web are now dead. I learned long ago not to post anything to a talk page discussion on Wikipedia without having the proof to back it up, especially if it is going to be about something very controversial like this has been.

“Also, are you saying that Wikipedia shouldn't accept any media files from commercial photographers/videographers?”

I think that it is perfectly fine for Wikipedia to accept media files from commercial photographers / videographers, BUT … if it is discovered that a media file uploaded by a photographer / videographer to NON PROFIT / NOT FOR PROFIT WIKIPEDIA is then published onto a Wikipedia article that in turn, whether intentionally or not, acts as a conduit because of information, visual recognition of a person, product, logo, etc. contained or visible in the media file, that intentionally or unintentionally promotes or advertises that photographer / videographer’s FOR PROFIT WEBSITE, etc. then Wikipedia should have a policy in place to be able to delete that media file(s) immediately upon verification of the discovery. "Krooga, you are the king of cumshot!! Ilike your cum! Very gooooooood! ... secound comment... i just saw some parts of your vid at wikipedia (germany). and i knew that i know this cock;)"

“You're the one who's helping him promote his website”.

Now this sentence really pissed me off !!!! How can I post all of this information to this talk page for other editors, administrators, and people of authority at Wikipedia to read and take seriously when trying to make an informed judgement about the material in question, without linking to the evidence that proves what I am saying about it is indeed true ? NeilN, you have no idea how much work I have put into exposing all of this thinking that I was helping to make Wikipedia better by keeping the project from being unscrupulously exploited by this guy. I am not asking, I am not requesting, I am DEMANDING AN APOLOGY FROM YOU on that one NOW !!!! Infofreak (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But there's no policy against people promoting the fact on their outside websites that they've taken for pictures/videos for Wikipedia. If anything, we want more professional photographers/videographers contributing content. There's no need to tell people how to find this guy's website - let him receive as little attention as possible. I'm sorry if my words implied that you were purposely promoting the website. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Listen, this is neither professional, nor educational. We all know its porn.DMSBel (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it is your opinion that it is porn. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the point that we want more images from professionals. And, if we have an image in the article, would not someone whose niche is the particular body part of an article be better than asking one of the editors here to contribute a similar image?  As for self promotion -- I have seen a few cases of that on Wikipedia before -- but it is rare.  In this case, someone who does not really participate in Wikipedia, and whose image was apparently chosen by some other editor from the commons based on the content, and not the model is not self promotion.  One last thing -- the ejaculation article and its contents are not that earth shattering an issue that we editors need to insult one another.  I would like to request that we all maintain civility.  One should assume good faith. Atom (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "One should assume good faith" - of course, but now we know who is uploading the photos and videos. I am taking these out again - ample explanation has been given already. And regardless of the fact that they are from an exhibitionist they should not have been put back into the article when there was already dispute about the video. If they are put back I will be reporting whoever does it. No more evidence is needed here Infofreak DMSBel (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is utterly irrelevant who uploaded the material as long as they had the rights to release the contributions under Wikipedia licenses. Not sure where you're going to report to as you have shown no consensus for removal. Wherever you decide, remember WP:PETARD. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, get over it.--Sum (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Its not irrelevant NeilN. The photo is from an exhibishionist - it is porn. If it were anything else then I would be wrong to delete without consensus. I am reporting it in 10 mins unless it is gone.DMSBel (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting a consensus for inclusion rather than consensus for deletion.
Being fairly new here I have learned an number of things from working on this page. Firstly that until article content is based on consensus for inclusion, we will continue to have these protracted discussions that exasperate those taking part. One person selecting a picture from WP Commons and inserting it into an article is not a consensus. But once that happens (as is all too easy now) the current situation is that the consensus then has to be found to delete it! What a joke. Then we have the single-issue account holders who just hover around and undo deletions, in the hope no doubt that the page will become protected in the state they prefer. This article is taking up (in fact wasting) a lot of peoples time unfortunately, due to the reasons I just mentioned. Keeping an image or any content that has not been agreed upon for inclusion is a false default. Even worse this false default can then be protected. Incredible! This is a totally ridiculous way to do things, and wastes editors and admins time, and plays into the hands of single-issue users (ie. those just here to hover over one page) who cannot tell what is pornographic, obsence or voyeuristic. Sadly such content currently is in WP Commons, and can be inserted into articles whether as vandalism (easier to spot, but still a nuisance to revert) or simply to cause controversy in other articles. Wikipedia is currently open to this sort of abuse, and will be until consensus for inclusion takes over from reaching a consensus for deletion. Consensus for inclusion should IMO be done by submitting images or videos to the discussion page and taking no action to include them until consensus is reached, a week or so should be given to allow people time to see the submission. Once its merits have been discussed, and it is seen to be in the best interests of the article to include it, the image can be then put into the article. To me this is proper process, what we have now is not.DMSBel (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Village Pump is that way. While you're at it, check out Perennial_proposals. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And why are you pointing me to this please, what is the village pump? What has censorship got to do with this?DMSBel (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, you want to add a guideline: "Consensus for inclusion should IMO be done by submitting images or videos to the discussion page and taking no action to include them until consensus is reached, a week or so". The Village Pump is the place to discuss this. And I pointed you to the perennially rejected censor offensive images proposal because you are advocating censoring the video. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also NeilN, this is taking up your time too, perhaps you find your level of contribution enjoyable - I mean the level of just looking for edits and reverting them, or quoting policy and thought-terminating cliche's. Perhaps you are actually trying to be helpful. Some of us however do some real work here, and actually do research for the pages. Clearly what you do is a lot easier than actually editing and perhaps for that reason you don't mind your time being taken up. But as there are no WikiPolice and never will be maybe you should just settle down and edit some stuff instead of trying to keep others in lineDMSBel (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one who has 316 edits in less than 20 days to this page. 99.5% of my 30,000+ edits are to other pages; quite clearly you can't say the same. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Its ok NeilN I was not counting (alot are just typos, or thoughts that came to me after I had saved the page) I see you are still kneejerk about image deletion, how can we disabuse you of your misunderstanding of censorship?DMSBel (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies is fine - I don't regard them as cliches or ignore them when it suits my purpose. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You never ignore them NeilN! Maybe I am misreading you but you do come across like the WikiPolice at times :-) Anyway thanks for the link to the village pump, I had no idea what it was, maybe I will put a petition there. DMSBel (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps :-) Most of what I do on Wikipedia is checking the edits of other users. But there's a whole bunch of us out there - recent change patrollers. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am constantly amused by Wikipedia when I am not exasperated by this discussion! Its a world of its own! By the way the red and blue in your name, reinforce the impression of a patroller (flashing lights). Maybe not you intention or do you all have the same colours? WikiStreet Blues - be careful out there.! :-)DMSBel (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's hilarious! No, I just picked two colors that looked good together. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  04:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But you can see can't you the effort this page is taking some of us - the video is non-essential, the page would not suffer without it and yet it is the centre of discussion - there have been RfCs over it (twice now) arguments over it, fallings out over it, and before it the photos, and this has been going on for 3 years (I have only been here for 1 week or so). It will continue unless something is done to stop the insertion of material that is controversial into an article before discussion takes place.DMSBel (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I point you to the Muhammad article where an entire talk sub-page with over 10 archives is devoted to non-essential controversial images. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  02:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats nothing like this, the issue is totally different NeilN.DMSBel (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To you, yes. But a lot of Muslims regard the images as very very offensive and unecessary ("in the interests of harmony we should remove the pictures"). You'd be surprised at how similar the arguments are. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  04:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NeilN, Muslims have their reasons for not wanted Muhammad depicted, but I am not getting into that discussion. Here there is no objection per se to sexually explicit content (within bounds), thus no attempt to censor. Everyone here knows that there are images and videos that are not appropriate - its not that they are sexually explicit (or the drawings and diagrams would be gone too) its because they are overkill to the article. And the rationale for keeping is weak at best. Basically and this is what I was trying to point out in this section, they remain only because wikipedia (or rather some editors) at present defend the status quo by selective use of policy - once the picture is in (unless it is blatant vandalism) it becomes nearly impossible, to remove, because some editors seem to think one person can veto its removal - no one has a veto here, but in effect that is what is happening. Also it has to be said that some editors here have just lost the plot and need a good long break.DMSBel (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Pornography is a lack of censorship.. as is child porn (as is the debasity and depravity done on even worse things (crystal meth), on certain media,) NeilN you seem to fight for this article a lot, but i wonder,.. do you fight for civil rights or your own pleasure? if a child should not see a man standing over them lustfully ergo it follows they should not see this. a censor is like a parent watching you don't get hurt (even psychologically) now whilst you won't care if you get hurt, I care that my family doesn't get hurt. peace Dava4444 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, take care that your family doesn't see Wikipedia. Sorry, but we are an information resource for the general public. Sometimes information is not nice. This doesn't mean we don't have to show it. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, some content is crass and just because it is crass does not mean we need to show it either.DMSBel (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I fight for neither. Wikipedia does not have the concept of civil rights and I have no idea what "your own pleasure" means. If you're trying to equate the video/pictures to child pornography - that's plain strange. Yes, you have the right to censor what your child sees - you can do that by supervising their Internet activities or by blocking pictures. If you want to censor material for everyone else, well that's a whole different story. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you say Dava4444, but I would prefer this discussion to move away from censorship, not because I want to keep the video, but because censorship is the wrong word here IMO, I understand why people use it, but strictly speaking taking this video down would not be an act of censorship. We work by consensus and if there is a consensus to remove the video then it is not censoring it. Censorship is not done by consensus!! Content can be inserted or removed by a consensus among editors. I take it from your post that you want the video removed. So do I, and so do at least 2 other editors and there have been others who are not currently in the discussion who also think it should be removed from the article. I think the controversy being generated by this video and the other photos is itself detrimental to the article, and the article content would not suffer any if the video was taken out.DMSBel (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an article on "ejaculation". I see no references in the article to pornography. There is nothing sexually explicit in the article. Why is there even any discussion of child porn, Muhammad, crystal meth or fighting for civil rights? This is a scientific article on a normal bodily function. A function that probably nearly every male reader of the article has probably personally experienced and/or witnessed hundreds, if not thousands of times. I would wager than we pretty much all agree on the principal that the better informed and educated people are about the human body, the better. Atom (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Atom I have to be plain with you, what you have just said is ridiculous - even if you don't regard the depiction of an ejaculation in lurid detail as pornography, it most certainly is sexually explicit. Why do we need to be informed of what we already know? Yes there should be a written description which we have, and the illustrations supplement that. After that nothing more is needed. DMSBel (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am fine with an honest discussion. I respect your view that an article does not benefit from a visual image.  That is not consistent with Wikipedia standards though, that recommend an image, video or illustration.  It is my opinion that a really good image can in a glance, clearly place into the mind of a reader what the topic is.  "A picture is worth a thousand words" as the saying goes.


 * Also, it is not a matter of your or my opinion as to whether it is pornography or not. Wikipedia does not allow pornography.  There are clear legal standards for what is and is not pornography.  It is not pornography.


 * Is it sexually explicit? Well, it is certainly "medically explicit" and "scientifically explicit".   I suppose if your criteria is that it is sexually explicit if it involves any topic that is related to sexology and sexuality, then you might call it that.  The problem is that people don't use the terms medically or scientifically explicit.  They use the term "sexually explicit" when they are discussing erotica or pornography.  Used in that context, the images in this article are not sexually explicit.


 * For instance, go to the Sexually_explicit link. It redirects to the pornography article.


 * Well that is just dumb. So every film with a sexually explicit seen is pornography? DMSBel (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Or, consider the law dictionary definition of Sexually Explicit behavior [] "Actual or simulated sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." Clearly the images in this article are medical in nature, and are not any of the things listed there.


 * Let me guess -- you think it is lascivious?). Sexually explicit conduct is defined in 18 USC para 2256[] and is identical to the one just given.    Let me head you off at the pass with the definition of "lascivious[][]".  "In American legal jargon, lascivious is a semi-technical term indicating immoral sexual thoughts or actions. It is often used in the legal description of criminal acts in which some sort of sexual activity is prohibited to differentiate that activity from "innocent" conduct. It is often used as one of several adjectives to describe pornography as compared to non-pornographic depictions of sex or sexual themes."  In other words, these medical images also are not Lascivious. Yes, believe it or not -- it is possible for depictions of sex or sexual themes to be non-pornographic. Atom (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol Atom, read your own post - masturbation.


 * Masturbation is fair game in the Masturbation article. What is it about the video that makes you think masturbation is the topic in this article?  In neither the video or the image does anything on that list occur.    Also, the definition of Lascivious is Masturbation -- in a particilar context -- Masturbation does not make it inherently Lascivious.  The context is important.  In an ejaculation article, an image of ejaculation is on topic.  In the George W. Bush article ejaculation is not.  Atom (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

“Wikipedia does not allow pornography”

Ignorance would have been bliss for me in this situation except for the fact that I know where this photo came from. If this photo was placed back on this guy’s website, it would be considered pornography right along with the rest of his photos and videos there. However, if his photos and videos are uploaded to Wikipedia, they are not considered pornography any more, even though we know that they came from a pornographic website that has practically identical photos and videos that are considered pornography. The truth of the matter is that this guy’s photos and videos here on Wikipedia is nothing more than pornography taken out of context. Is it still pornography then ? I believe that if it can be traced back to a pornographic origin, then it should be considered under the terms of the original creator's intentions and considered by Wikipedia as such. So in this case, Wikipedia should consider this guy's photos and videos that he has uploaded as pornography. The following is my statement :

I think that Wikipedia should accept legal photos, videos, and other images and media that fit the project scope uploaded by professional and amateur photographers / videographers, etc. Where I think the change in policy should be made is that if a photo, video, image, etc. happens to be traced back to a pornographic origin and documentively verified, such as in this case, then the proper action taken to keep Wikipedia protected from the appearance of promoting pornography, should be that the photo, video, image, etc. be deleted from all Wiki projects. Infofreak (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. First of all, I don't know of a policy which explictly denies pornography -can someone link it to me? Second, ontext is everything. The image in pearl necklace (sexuality) would be considered pornography everywhere, but it is illustrating the article subject, and as such it has a clear place in the article. We shouldn't care less of the intent with which an image has been done; what we have to care about is if it suits the article subject. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You sir are a threat to what is left of the credibility of wikipedia - Nupedia lasted a few years? Wikipedia will not last much longer with editors making comments like you have just made. You have lost the plot. Wikipedia is its own standard with you. What a foolish way to deterimine what is appropriate! This is well beyond a joke now. The photos are porn. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a porn site. The photos do not belong here. I am not going to keep going on discussing this for ever. But that don't mean I am not going to take further action. I just wonder when I do which of us will still have accounts left. I have discussed this well beyond what is necessary - some people cannot tell what is porn and what is not. They should therefore concern themselves with editing something they know about. The pictures are protected again. I am not going to tolerate the abuse that is going on here any longer - I have already approached another senior wikipedian with experience in disputes. I am delivering my own verdict here on the content - it is porn. 3 years of discussion - is it not now time for decisions to be made!!DMSBel (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The point isn't if these images are porn. The point is: do these images illustrate the article subject? The answer is, obviously, yes. Therefore they should stay. That's it. Being porn or not is a completely irrelevant observation. For example, see pornographic film, where several screenshots of pornography are shown, because they are obviously relevant to the subject. I prefer to think that a credible encyclopedia is one that does not fear showing controversial things, than one that self-censors itself due to the pruderie of a part of the public. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a strong argument, Cyclopia! The behavior you describe as "pruderie" (Fr.?) is also a clear violation of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  14:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cyclopia is absolutely correct here. DES (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You overlook that there is a POV inherent in wanting to keep the photos also. I quote this from earlier in the discussion:

''As far as actually doing this is concerned -- I'm not sure certain people are interested in compromises. Some people are too busy defending the civil rights of the status quo. They are bent on the issue, and anything different from what they think is labeled censorship and closed-minded. They think Wikipedia is a place to express "sex-positive politics". They want to cite First Amendment rights and all sorts of other legal protections rather than entertain the idea of a compromise and a solution. They figure that as long as they keep talking down any alternatives that they are somehow protecting their rights and making any dissenting viewpoints just "go away". APatcher 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Put in bold by me (DMSbel)DMSBel (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bzzzzzzzzt! No one has cited any First Amendment rights or other legal protections in the current discussion. Try again. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  03:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * NeilN - grow up a little. The relevant part of the quote is in bold.DMSBel (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Btw have you checked through the whole discussion archive to know that for sure? You replied pretty quickDMSBel (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Then why add the whole quote? I don't think APatcher bolded the text. Doing so without indicating you've modified the text is not cool. Also, I said curent discussion. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  04:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok I'll make a note that it was me who put it in bold. But you are just nit-picking NeilN. You always avoid the main thrust of my argument to focus on some minor point that you can pick holes in.DMSBel (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought your current "main thrust" was the pictures were pornography? No? As for sex-positive politics, what does that even mean? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  04:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically the opposite of "prudery" - or extremely liberal in sexual matters. They want to show pretty much everything and they are using wikipedia as a vehicle for their agenda and Wikipedia is gradually losing all credibility as a result.DMSBel (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole point of wikipedia is to include information on "pretty much everything", or to be precise on all notable and verifiable topics. I don't think anyone could argue that topics such as this one, or Sexual intercourse, or Masturbation are not notable. Such topics ought to have complete coverage of all aspects of the topic, in line with WP:NPOV. They ought to be neither "positive" nor "negative", but rather factual, which may include that facts that some people have expressed "positive" and others "negative" views in regard to the topics. They also ought to include relevant images when these help to illustrate the topic and aid the general reader. I for one am not interested in a compromise on any of those principles, not on a compromise that evaluates relevant images on the question of how offensive they are or might be. I would be interested in discussion of how relevant or useful a particular image is to a particular article, or how a different image might be an improvement. There can be such a thing as too many images in an article, or ones that give undue weight to particular aspects of the topic. I don't see that in the current article, but it can happen. DES (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So, what does having a medical and scientific article with a description and image of the medical/scientific topic have to do with Sex Positive Politics? The only reason that the first amendment would be brought up by anyone, is if they were told that could not have a medical or scientific discussion. No one has suggested anywhere that the first amendment says anything about sex positive politics.  As for Wikipedia losing credibility -- that is nonsense.  Does the Encyclopedia Britannics lose credibility because they have an article on ejaculation?  Look if you all want to argue about Wikipedia policies -- please go someplace else. The policies exist -- if you don't like them -- please go discuss changing them in the proper place. This discussion on these talk pages should be about the Ejaculation Article and editorial decisions to improve the article.  Discussions about other topics are not only a distraction, but against Wikipedia pollicy to discuss here.  Atom (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh. As you know Atom it is not about having an ejaculation article per se, but about the content of the article, namely the porn in it - do you remember now? Making this appear as though people are objecting to the mere presence of an article on ejaculation, is setting up a straw-man. Britannica has one illustration in the free online version [], much less would they use porn in their articles. Do you really not remember what we have been discussing Atom.DMSBel (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments at the bottom of the section regarding disruptive editing. Atom (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Time to step back for a bit?
It appears to be time for all involved editors to step back a bit. This discussion is definitely escalating into insulting behavior. Editors should be discussing the topic of the article and not the actions of other editors. If everybody takes a few days off, then a solution might be forthcoming. We all need to remember that we are all after the same thing: Improvement of this article and of Wikipedia! &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, improvement is very much my aim. A few experienced editors perhaps could take a look at this discussion and deliver a verdict. After all we have talked this to death. I will be most glad to take a break from this discussion for a few days.DMSBel (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not been involved in this discussion, nor in editing this article previously. I am a fairly experienced editor, as a glance at my contributions or at my user page will show. I noticed a link to this discussion on another editors talk page when I was there on another issue altogether. I have now read the talk sequence above on this matter. I have just read the article and viewed the video and the image sequence now in the article. I do not find it "sexually explicit" much less "pornographic". I also find that it significantly enhances the article. It might not be "necessary" in a strict sense, but IMO it is very helpful. It may well be that not every parent would want his or her child to see either the video, or the image sequence, but wikipedia is aimed at a general audience, and is not censored for the protection of minors Some images on this site are, and ought to be, sexually explicit. Some might even be considered "pornographic" by some, but as long as they are not legally obscene, that is not IMO relevant. The question is whether they enhance the understanding of the reader in the articles where they are used. Articles on sexual topics will normally have images that are more or less sexual. Neither the video nor the image sequence ought, IMO to be removed from the article. A question arose as to whether the uploader of an image intended it for self-promotion or self-gratification, or was "an exhibitionist". IMO none of those questions is in the least relevant. It is relevant whether an image (or a link) serves to unduly promote someone or something. But if the image as displayed does not in fact act as a promotion, the uploader's wish that it would is of no interest. In short, i see no good reason to remove the video or the image sequences, and several policy-based reasons for them to remain. DES (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you look at the links Infofreak provided?DMSBel (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I followed a few, but I don't see that they are relevant. Suppose that it is established that the creator of these images is an "exhibitionist". So what? Unless the images as displayed in the article link to sites that promote his work, or are otherwise discouraged or forbidden by WP:EL. The motives of the creator or uploader make no difference and should not, IMO, even be referred to in such a discussion. If the image as displayed is promotional in that it links to or displays the URL of a site that the uploader wants to promote, that is a reason to remove the image regardless of its content, or to edit it (if it was uploaded with a free license) to crop out such links or URLs. If the image is not useful to illustrate the article and aid reader understanding, then it should go, but if it is useful, it should stay if there is no promotion or license issue. IMO the images now in the article are all useful, and I would defend the anatomical diagram just as strongly, except that it is unlikely to be objected to on invalid grounds. Whether an image is "offensive" to some is IMO not a valid ground for even discussing its removal from an article. Actually removing it on such grounds is IMO disruptive editing and should result in a block. Now whether an image is useful in a given article is a judgment call, worthy of discussion and on which sensible editors can differ. DES (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should the uploaders motives not be taken into consideration? You can't just say they should not without giving a reason. I take a different view on the usefulness question - I see no need for the photos and videos as they provide no additional information. Neither is it necessary to illustrate everything in an encylopedia. You can't define the grounds or restrict the grounds on which people may object. Thats what you are trying to do. I replied to you at the Village Pump page (you may not have noticed) and I pointed out the POV inherent in your stance there. You are trying to say that only editors who agree with you are "sensible", are you not? You are trying to define "disruptive editing" as the sort of edits you don't agree with, are you not?DMSBel (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should the uploaders motives not be taken into consideration? - Why should they? -- Cycl o pia talk  23:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The motives of the uploader should be taken into consideration when those motives go against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This does not appear to be the case for the film and photos.  Can you point to a WP policy or guideline that states that these visual aids are not appropriate for Wikipedia?


 * Discussion has moved on from this.DMSBel (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Therein lies the problem. When such things are found to be within the scope and policies of Wikipedia, that is where discussion should end .  To "move on" means to discuss a lot of red herrings that have nothing to do with the FACT that if the visual aids are allowed by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then they can be used in this article.  If you object to the policies and guidelines, then the thing to do is to go to the policy's discussion page and/or the guideline's discussion page and attempt to get that changed.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  00:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you here for? You have not taken part in the RfC. You don't seem to have made any other contribution to the page, such has tidying up the text, or making sure of accuracy. What is your interest here?DMSBel (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to assume gooood faith on your part, DMSBel. I am here hopefully for the same reason you are here: To see that this article is improved rather than not improved.  I know that you're not trying to infer that I have no RIGHT to be here.  I am an editor, just like you, doing this job because I like to, because I want to.  So, barring the "bad faith" arguments that I refuse to lay on you, I am compelled to ask you why you would ask me such a thing?  I honestly cannot find a "good faith" argument that would impel you to ask me "Why are you here for?"  So help me out, DMSBel!  Why would an editor ask another editor such a thing on the basis of "good faith"?
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  06:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't play games. It seems you are trying to end discussion. I won't use the enlarged font you used for "end" in your earlier post. I can make my points without the need for that. I can maintain good-faith when others are civil, when they don't start to gang up. Good-faith cannot always be maintained though, and you should recognise that you have not actually, when I last checked at least, taken part in the RfC - why is that? So don't act the innocent here please. When editors start to appear that have never been here before and focus on one issue, I naturally wonder why. Of course you can stay, but there is other work needing done on the article,are you here to help with that also? DMSBel (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You tell me not to play games, so I won't. I came as an uninvolved editor to give my opinion.  I have done so.  It is up to you whether or not to keep running around in discussion circles accomplishing nothing, or adhering to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and improving this article.  If you and I have dealings again, I shall remember you very well, DMSBel, as someone who likes to push people around with his words.  Rather than read any more of your bullish words, I shall be going now.  Have a nice day.
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  10:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Did I use an enlarged bold font anywhere in my posts? You are welcome to give your opinion here, but please don't stonewall the discussion. That said, there has been plenty of discussion, and some facts are now clear, maybe clearer than one or two editors would like. You are perhaps right that discussion should end, and action be taken. Good-faith towards the uploader of the photos could only remain as long as there was doubt about the origin of them. We know now where they are from. An encyclopedic article on the subject of ejaculation does not need to extend to either photographs or video. It should at least be semi-professional in tone and style.DMSBel (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Visual aids are almost always more useful than textual aids alone. It has already been stated that "a picture is worth a thousand words".  So a video, when illustrating the topic as this film does, must be worth millions of words!


 * Don't get carried away. The video "illustrates" only a non-central aspect of the article. Or if you think not then show why distance and volume are central? The video not scientific in either regard even if these were important. As has been pointed out repeatedly, encylopedias do not need to illustrate everything for them to cover a subject adequately. DMSBel (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no boundaries that can possibly corral the objections of many different kinds of people. What one person finds worthy, another finds unworthy.  What one person finds useful, another finds unuseful.  "One man's trash is another man's treasure."
 * The bottom line must be whether or not it is against Wikipedia policy to include these visual aids. It is not against Wikipedia policy.


 * I have to disagree. One of the policies of Wikipedia is to avoid including material of a dubious origin. With regards to determining if particular content is pornographic it is really not that difficult.DMSBel (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  23:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Content of each article is subject to debate among the editors of the article - I recall you (DES) saying you have had no previous involvement in this article, I have and would continue to make adjustments to the text if page protection was not on. What we have here is a whole raft of editors who have made no contribution to the article coming along and trying to overrule those who have worked on it. Correct me if I am wrong but what contribution has Cyclopia made, or Paine? Or NeilN - he just reverts stuff. Atom is only interested in the video and photos. That is all most of the editors here are interested in. Why are they here, one reason only it seems - to defend the video and photos. What brought them to this article?DMSBel (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? I helped you replace a picture just a few days ago. Questioning the motives of other editors when they've pointed out policies and guidelines and stated their reasoning is starting to verge on bad faith. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes you did, but what else have you done here NeilN, you act just like the police cop here and treated me in bad faith from the start, with your questioning and trying to boil down my reasoning. I am a little fed up. I would be somewhat interested in actually working on the page, my interest is waning though because of this dispute - I see neither of the other three Cyclopia, Paine, or DES have commented on this page until recently. They can correct me if I am wrong, but I have just looked through the archive and did not see any of them in the discussions. Most of the editors who would have been willing to compromise on the video have left. I don't know who the writers were, or where they are now - probably exasperated by the busybodies who think editing this page means only making sure the video is kept. I have just learned something about wikipedia.DMSBel (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What did you expect from an RfC? It is designed to solicit input from uninvolved editors. Note that opposing your call for the removal of material is not bad faith. I have pointed you towards guidelines, policies, other places where you could solicit opinions without once insulting you or calling you a busybody or "lacking sound judgement and common sense". If you feel you can't work on this page without the image/video being gone, there are 3 million+ other articles you can work on. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  00:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh please!! Is this the part of the talk page where the RfC is? You seem fairly knowledgible on policy NeilN and established practice. Let me ask you then, because I have after all only been on wikipedia a short time. When a RfC is started and outside editors come to the page to comment, are they not supposed to do so within the particular section allocated to the RfC? You see this talk page is for discussion on all aspects of the article, whether the text, formatting, illustrations or something else. The RfC is a request for comments not on the article generally but on a particular aspect of it. Please correct me if I am wrong (DMSBel) 82.18.164.15 (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the initiation of the RfC was kind of botched with steps not being followed and you adding extra rules (yes, I know you're a new editor but I did offer to help) so it's no surprise things got messy. If editors don't agree with how the RfC is structured they are free to start new sections. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  15:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to my reply to DES: Also there is no need to suppose anything - it has been established who the uploader is. I don't see it necessary that there needs to be actual promotion going on, it is enough that the material is from a dubious source and was produced explicitly for the purposes of voyeurism and exhibitionism. That invalidates it, whether it is anonymous or not and whether or not it "illustrates" anything here. It was also inflamatory to re-introduce disputed material on top of an already heated and protracted discussion about content currently in the article. It was proving difficult enough to resolve the video dispute, without the photos being added. Whether it was deliberately intended to be inflamatory or not there was no request for the photos to be put back in. It was done unilaterally. That is why it was correct to delete them and the page should not have been protected with them in. DMSBel (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DMSBel, I understand you disagree, but realize you're 1)in a minority position 2)a position which is not endorsed by any policy and guideline. Again: the fact the image was produced originally for exhibitionism is irrelevant. For what it's worth, the image may have been produced for the aim of also psychologically torturing little kittens to death. I don't care. Readers of the article don't care. Nobody cares, apart from you . What is important is that it happens to be a useful image for the purpose of this article. Therefore all current policies and guidelines allow the image to stay and, if anything, encourage it to stay. The horse deceased a long time ago. Please. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Look Cyclopia I have told you before there is a longer discussion on this going back 3 or so years in the archive. You will find I am not in a minority when the whole discussion is considered, rather than the narrow snippet of a few days debate. That it was produced for exhibitionism is clearly irrelevant to you. But you cannot state it is irrelevant to everyone. You are trying to impose your views on the community. Or rather give the impression that everyone is in agreement with you. They are not. there is only a very few editor want the photos kept in. The current policies and guidelines don't encourage anything to stay, thats just your subjective interpretation again. Infofreak cares about it to, he identified who the uploader was. Just stop trying to force people out of this who disagree with you, and to shut down discussion. You have no case at all, thats why you are using the strong-arm tactics that are obvious in you're last comment. Your psychic now too I see - Let me remind you, you don't know what readers think, unless they make comments here. Some actually have objected - its recorded in the archives.DMSBel (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL- drop the stick!! You think because a few other people agree with you currently that you can force this to a close? Take it to mediation if you think the photos should stay. DMSBel (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion does not got back three years. There have been other people in the past who objected to the video.  Editor Cyclopia is correct in his last assessment.  He is not offering you his personal opinion, he is stating Wikipedia policy.  I have to say that it is my opinion that your speech is becoming more and more like incivility.  You have stated your case numerous times to numerous people in numerous places.  Between those locations you have posted something like 235 edits in the past week.  Seventy nine of those edits in the past two days.  I see editors NeilN, Twipley, Eric Naval, Jinx, DMacks, Sundar1, Black Falcon, Sum, Cyclopia, Paine, DES, Akrabbim, Ludwigs2, Melodia Chaconne, MBelgrano, Ohms Law (V=IR), Equazcion, Philcha all disagree with you in various places, and you taking the time to rebut nearly every one of them over and over.  I see these editors quoting various Wikipedia policies to you over and over, and you give the same arguments in differing ways over and over anyway, even though being contrary to policy.    Editor Black Falon and yourself had numerous exchanges, and he finally ended up saying, "If an editor's only objection to an image is that it is 'offensive' to him, then really there is very little to discuss. ... but we cannot hope and should not strive to unruffle every ruffled feather when dealing with an editor who simply does not care about a core policy and the fact that Wikipedia does not exist solely to please his sensitivities...when faced with an editor suffering from chronic "refusal to 'get the point'"."  What he was saying/pointing to the Wikipedia behavioral guideline for Disruptive editing.  Does this sound familiar?  "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement..."  I suggest that one could find at least twenty editors that would say this applies.  Atom (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Atom, I have been involved in a different discussion with several of those editors at the Village pump not here. Cyclopia brought up the ejaculation article there. And yes the discussion moved onto that for a bit there. You have not read the discussion at the village pump very well or you would not say what you do in your post, you would see that I am not alone there in my opinion. So the dicussion there went off on a tangent, it often does on wikipedia. So what are you saying: I had discussion with several other editors? And? I wish I could maintain good-faith with you Atom, I have tried. You are accusing me of misbehaviour for having a civil discussion with other editors. How am I guilty of disruptive editing - it was you Atom who put in superfluous content of a dubious origin, that another editor has repeatedly argued against. I merely supported that editors decision to delete and deleted myself - you where the one who kept re-inserting it - ending in page protection - which is far more disruptive than any edits I made. I am being civil with you Atom. Being civil does not exclude pointing out where you are wrong. Your edit, whether it was intended to be or not, was inflamatory to an already heated dicussion. When there is already a dispute you do not put in even more material that is similiar to the disputed content. So I think you need to maybe take a break and have a think about whether you are the one doing the disruptive editing? DMSBel (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I brought up the article there because I noticed the discussion at the village pump, asked myself what this nebulous proposal was about, checked your contribs and understood it stemmed from here. The point is that both discussions (here and there) are pointless, because what you are proposing is not, and will not be in the foreseeable future, policy. You may be not alone (there is indeed another editor who is of your opinion) but you are not getting consensus at all. This is clear. Your editing is disruptive for WP:HEAR, which I want to quote here: In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia.. Yours seems to be a textbook case of this. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cyclopia, I have not made any attacks, or disruptive edits (see my replies to Atom). You might like to know that I have invited a senior editor to look in on this discussion. I suggest if you still think I am a textbook example of a disruptive editor, you leave your post exactly as it is. Bear in mind though that you (and Atom) are making serious accusations against me. DMSBel (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In my personal note to you, I encouraged you to find an area of Wikipedia that is within your area of expertise and add new material to it. One of those was the Humanist article.  I suggested that a common flaw for new editors was to fall into a deletionst role of wanting to remove things they did not agree with.  All of this was before your many, many, many posts, and before your crusade to remove both the video and the image from the ejaculation article.   I gently recommend, and encourage you again to find an area within Wikipedia that is within your area of personal expertise.  Please add new stubs, add detail and references to articles in that area.  I don't think that ejaculation should define your contribution to Wikipedia.  Atom (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. And what is your area of expertise Atom? You will notice that I have (when the page was not protected) made several constructive and useful edits to the written content here (under my IP). I can't make any more because the page is protected due to your insertion of extra controversial content. You will also notice that I did not delete the video after the first period of protection expired. I let it stay and continued the discussion about it. Anyone can check this from the edit history. In the midst of that discussion - it was you Atom who re-inserted more disputed content that had been out of the article for some time. I let the video stay (not because I think the article would suffer without it) but to avoid an edit-war. And you accuse me of disruptive editing, being deletionist??? :-oDMSBel (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't make any more because the page is protected due to your insertion of extra controversial content.: No. The page is protected because you continued to remove content without any policy-based reason. It is you making this content controversial, not the other way round. At the very least, responsibilities are shared. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not the editor to make the first deletion. There is support for my and the other editors deletions in policy DMSBel (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is news. Can you quote the relevant policies? -- Cycl o pia talk  15:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect there are none. DMS is attempting to change policy (here) to accommodate this mode of content decision-making (to exclude content unless it is proven that exclusion would damage the article). I haven't seen any support for it yet. Equazcion  ( talk ) 17:27, 23 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I know/think too, thank you for confirming the impression. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cyclopia, you claim to know there is no support for my deletion in policy? Actually policy here is wider than the WP:NOTCENSORED one. That one does not trump all other policies. If you still think it does maybe you could get a couple of senior editors (those with experience in dispute resolution) to come here and confirm your interpretation. Wikipedia also is not an exhibionists web-host.DMSBel (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You still haven't cited an applicable policy. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that editing experience holds much water with me in an argument, but just thought I'd point out that Cyclopia has roughly 6 times as many edits as you, DMS, and he's been here about 6 years longer. I won't even get into how many more edits Neil and I have. Besides which you still haven't shown how policy supports your deletion. Saying that someone more experienced can probably come here and find it for you isn't an answer. Equazcion  ( talk ) 16:51, 24 Feb 2010 (UTC)


 * Just thought you'd point that out? Ok Thanks. Neils edits are mostly what - reverts? No doubt I could get a great deal of fun from looking up recent changes, and then reverting vandalism, I am not knocking those who do so. I think it was commented somewhere that this page has had very little actual vandalism. So you have been here longer than me. OK. not sure what this has to do with anything? Well now, truthfully I would not mind a little help, interpreting the policy here.  Or showing me if my edits are against policy, or indeed in line with policy. Would you deprive a new editor of that assistance? You see I don't spend all day in the policy pages. Also I have not actually made many edits to this page. Btw I like your font for your sig. If you don't mind and have time could you tell me how to set that up. Not the same but just where to edit my sig. DMSBel (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You asked for "senior editors to come here and confirm my interpretation". It turns out, you are talking already with reasonably experienced editors. Which all happen to disagree with you. We have already shown that your edits are against WP:NOTCENSORED, which is policy. You also bragged that your deletion is instead supported by policy, above: now, when asked to provide proof of that, now you ask for help? Please. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No doubt you have been here a good while longer than I. You however are not neutral Cyclopia. You have misrepresented the current dispute at times, perhaps unintentionally - I will assume good faith. But as you came here fairly recently you were unaware of the fact that four editors (CIS, Postoak, Dava4444, myself) over just the last week have each said that they see the video here as unneccessary or unsuitable to an encylopedia article. I asked none of them to give a view here. There are currently five editors (the previous four and Infofreak) over the same period against the photos. Now, you said no-one here cares about this but me. Well certainly I am here more often than the others, but you cannot deduce from them not commenting more often that they do not care. Could be many reasons why they are not here. One editor has said they find the discussion depressing, and won't be visiting this page. The thing is that wikipedia is censored, judgements are made all the time on content. To interpret that policy to mean that wikipedia must not be censored is to totally misunderstand it IMO. If you had been here over a week ago you would know that the video was not included on the grounds of any encyclopedic reasoning. It was inserted, or re-inserted with no reason given. None at all. That's the point at which I entered the dispute. There still has not been any sensible rationale given for it.DMSBel (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The rationale is that they are images and videos depicting clearly and objectively the article subject. No other rationale is needed. We have already discussed to death the other points. I only want to add two things: First, this is not a democracy. A billion editors can jump in and propose to remove the image, and yet be ignored, because removing it is against policy (if they want to change policy, then that's another question). Second, please have a look at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ to understand how similar cases are dealt with. On the Muhammad talk page nearly every day someone comes in and asks to remove the images. Much more people than here. Yet -guess what?- They are all denied their request. Why? Because it is against policy. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing has been discussed to death here Cyclopia. The subject is already depicted clearly and objectively and medically and scientifically by the two illustrations top of page. Apples and oranges. Know what that means? thats what your comparison with muhammad pictures is like. It was relevant to mention it the discussion at the village pump in regard to changing policy on objectionable material. There is no comparison here however. DMSBel (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say the lengths of this thread makes it clear that it has been discussed to death indeed. About the two illustrations on top, they do not depict an actual ejaculation, so technically they're even less relevant than the images we're discussing about. Of course they are of relevance, they explain content and they should stay. But they're not depicting the subject, kinda obviously. So, if anything, there is less of a rationale for them than for the images below. About Muhammad: Please, again, read the link I gave you. The arguments therein explained apply well here too. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We have already discussed this before you came here. There is actually no need to depict the subject - most people I suspect do not expect or need to see an ejaculation depicted even in an online encyclopedia. I am puzzled why you think it is so important to depict something that basically most people have no problem forming a mental picture of. So important that you don't care if the illustration of it comes from a exhibitionist video. Perhaps you would explain way it is so important to have this depicted.DMSBel (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cyclopia I see you are in the AIW, perhaps you could also explain to me how removing the video would result in a "loss of knowledge"?. Being an inclusionist, you are no doubt only against deletion if it results in loss of knowledge? DMSBel (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand why removing depictions of the very article subject results in crucial loss of knowledge, I don't know how to help you. You say it is "something basically most people have no problem forming a mental picture of" - If what you say is true, why do you worry about having the images? The "mental picture" wouldn't be more or less "offensive" than the real ones. If what you say is false, then we're missing crucial information. Either way, no reason to delete them. Now, would you kindly stop your self-imposed deafness and let go? -- Cycl o pia  talk  10:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing an at best amateurish, non-medical, non-scientific video, "results a crucial loss of knowledge". Please!! People can choose whether to form a mental picture, and obviously they are hardly going to form a mental picture in a way that would be offensive to themselves. So the mental picture they could make would be less offensive. I am not deaf Cyclopia, I have heard everything you have said, and Atom has said, neither of you have given anything ammounting to a credible argument for keeping either the video or photos in the article.DMSBel (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * neither of you have given anything ammounting to a credible argument for keeping either the video or photos in the article - Your opinion, fine. Nor you gave anything amounting to a credible argument for deleting the video or the photos. Given that, given the current discussion, and given that no policy or guideline anyone here is aware of supports your arguments, the photos and video stay. For now, the discussion ends here -I am going to archive it. Endless pestering will not help your cause. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Replying to this offtopic thread on your talk page. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * NeilN, could you give me your view? Does putting protection on the page with the disputed content in currently reward an edit war?DMSBel (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When an admin sees an edit war happening between multiple people on multiple sides he/she is supposed to protect the most recent version they come across without making any changes (except for removing obvious vandalism and WP:BLP violations). They then get accused of protecting the wrong version :-) -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  05:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated stuff
"In my personal note to you, I encouraged you to find an area of Wikipedia that is within your area of expertise and add new material to it. One of those was the Humanist article. I suggested that a common flaw for new editors was to fall into a deletionst role of wanting to remove things they did not agree with. All of this was before your many, many, many posts, and before your crusade to remove both the video and the image from the ejaculation article. I gently recommend, and encourage you again to find an area within Wikipedia that is within your area of personal expertise. Please add new stubs, add detail and references to articles in that area. I don't think that ejaculation should define your contribution to Wikipedia. Atom  (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)"

Hi Atom! er just an FYI, Humanism, is a religion, that some claim is a lack of... but many Satanist are humanists. " a set of core beliefs to define ones life and interaction with the universe/creation" can be applied to both. just to be freer and to not hide anything, I am Catholic. but if I tried to put my perspective on the immorally of a man ejaculating without stimulation from his wife at the top of the article it would (would of as it is locked just now) undoubtedly be quickly moved, so then does it follow a Humanist perspective is as outwardly bias? Dava4444 (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Humanism is not a religion, it is a philosophy. There are Secular Humanists and Christian Humanists among others. There are many Catholics that are Humanists. An interest and concern on the human condition does not make one either theistic or non-theistic. Likely the God that mostChristian believe in is a Humanist. I am not sure what to make of your comment. Humanism has nothing to do with whether a medical image of a bodily function is appropriate on Wikipedia. The only reference given was where I gave DMSBel advice to edit within articles that are his area of expertise. He cooicidentally happened to have edited the humanism article once. And for the record, I am a Buddhist (which is non-theistic) as well as being a humanist. Lets stick to the topic though, okay? Atom (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't want this to veer off into a discussion about humanism, but if I recall there are some humanists who favour humanism as a alternative religion. But I think it can perhaps be classed as a philosophy to. But to the topic. Atom I think it would be best to drop using the word "medical" here. The photos certainly were not made in a clinical enviroment. And the video is a anonymous self-made upload. "Scientific" also fails to describe them accurately. I will continue to give the benefit of the doubt to the video uploader in that we don't know anything of his intentions. Though I still think the visual depiction is not necessary here. As regards the photos no benefit of the doubt is possible as there is no longer any doubt about the origins or intentions for what the video they are from was made. Am I mistaken Atom, or did you not say that pornography is inappropriate on Wikipedia in one of your comments? Being illustrative is not sufficient to qualify images for inclusion. Do you really think that it can help the credibility of wikipedia to use pornographic photos in a article on ejaculation? It's not a matter of prudery, it just that I suspect most people do not expect or need an encyclopedia to actually illustrate this beyond a certain point. DMSBel (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think either medical or scientific would be an appropriate description for the video. This is a human sexuality article, after all.  It does look rather clinical.  It is not erotic, arousing, nor is it obscene, so it obviously could not properly be called pornographic.  I assume since you continue to classify it as pornographic, that you see it as erotic or arousing in some way?  What is it about the image that brings pornography to your mind when few other people seem to find it erotic?  In this case the reason it is in the article is because it illustrates the topic extremely well.  It is not merely the fact that it is illustrative that makes it a good video, but that, at a glance, a reader can clearly understand the topic.  Here is the Good article criteria.  One of the many criteria is "Illustrated if possible by images" and "images are relevant to the topic".  As for credibility, Wikipedia has millions of articles (3,204,786) so no one article will influence it that heavily.  And if the credibility were that heavily influenced by an image in an article, there and thousands of articles that would be much more controversial that something as mundane as ejaculation.  Also, obviously an example of pornography on the pornography or hardcore pornography is appropriate, but should be as inoffensive as possible. Atom (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you find this difficult to grasp Atom. Separate the video and the photos in your mind for a moment. The photos are from a video on X-tube. X-tube is a porn site. The photos are therefore pornographic. They are not medical. Porn is porn regardless of the context. Now that we know that it is no longer a matter of opinion if they are porn. DMSBel (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Porn does often depend on the context. A picture of a penis or vagina can be placed in a dirty magazine or in a medical article and mean different things. Besides which, we're not clearly defining the word "pornography" here, which is obfuscating the issue. Describe your definition of pornography and why it's a problem, then maybe we'd start getting somewhere. As I've said before, if the only way you can describe the issue here is to say that "pornography doesn't belong on Wikipedia", you have no case. Equazcion  ( talk ) 17:35, 25 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I gather from your many words that when you see an image that is explicit in a way you personally define as sexual, that criteria alone is sufficient for you to call it pornographic. That is a different standard and definition than others use. I don't argue your right to express your opinion. Others may use a definition that the nature of the article and the context of its use are also factors in determining if it is obscene. As I have said before, the law does not find an image to be obscene if it has literary, political, scientific or artistic context and use. Even if it is sexual in nature, or viewed by some as shocking. You have made the point that an image does not have to be in an article just because it is *not* viewed as obscene. Wikipedia policy and all of the editors you have discussed with argree with that. I haven't heard anyone say that the ejaculation video was appropriate, or recommended its use for any other Wikipedia article. You have argued that the quality of the article would be improved by the removal of any video or image. That argument is completely consistent with Wikipedia policy, and the best argument you have made in all of the thousands of words where you have expressed your feelings. I respect that argument, and I suspect other editors do too. But -- unfortunately there does not seem to be any other editors who share that view. Certainly no consensus for that view. If a consensus of editors did feel that the topic was easier to understand without an image or a video, then we would remove them from the article. Atom (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My "many" words!!?? Lol. You are saying that context determines whether an image is porn? If I take an apple and put it in sack of potatoes, does the apple cease to be fruit and become a vegetable? No, of course not. Neither does porn cease to be porn when it is in wikipedia. No other editors??? No Atom. You only have to go back barely a couple of weeks in this discussion to see at least 4 editors who have questioned the need for the video. You'll see who they are from my earlier post here. Do you just ignore that? You seem to. Just because they are not here right now, does not mean they can be disregarded. There is even less support for the photos, because besides being porn, they are essentially redundant.DMSBel (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote
It's my understanding that the hatnote should go above everything else, including the protection tag, per WP:HN, isn't this correct? &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, NeilN and Martin!
 * &mdash; Paine ( Ellsworth's   Climax )  18:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)