Talk:Ejaculation/Archives/2007/October

The ejaculation video is of unknown accuracy
Wikipedia is interesting from an anthropoligical point of view. Looking carefully at the arguments regarding the ejaculation video I see a pattern. I personally don't find the video objectionable per se, it's actually a little interesting, but I do strongly maintain that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. There is tone to the arguments that seems to say that because wikipedia is not censured and is of open contribution that any questioning of sutability revolving around potential audiences is by its nature unwarranted. Further, and more importantly, there is also this prounounced undercurrent that if someone wants that video removed, it must be for antequated feelings of propriety. The arguments for keeping that video dance around this carefully, but always seem to land on statements of the form "this is wikipedia". As if keeping such a video is sticking it to the establishment, or something similar.

'''This only hurts wikipedia, and is in part why wikipedia is gaining a reputation as source of disinformation. This is not a video from the kinsey institute. There is no documenting evidence or attribution whatsoever showing this to be an average or even normal ejaculation. Having that image here is akin to a self attributed quote, or worse, an example of original work. As such, it must be removed.''' As such I will remove it unless anyone can show how this video's accuracy can be established.

As an experiment I tried removing this video without discussion. It was regarded as vandalism, which is inaccurate because it is a good faith attempt at improving both wikipedia and the article, but still fell within vandalsm probably because of the blanking clause, indicating removal without non trivial reasoning, which makes a fair ammount of sense to me. To the credit of the individual involved I was politely warned with the appropriate assumption in the begining that it may have been a mistake on my part. I was warned repeatedly, until banned for a day or two by an admin. I was looking for a childish reponse to my actions, but did not find it. Again this is to the individual's credit, in my opinion thus far the warning mechanism is sound.Tgm1024 14:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thank you for coming here to discuss the matter. Secondly, I am curious as to whether you are attempting to implement an existing policy, or to make new policy. If you're attempting to implement existing policy, can you tell us what policy that is? If you're attempting to make new policy, it should apply across Wikipedia and not to this one article. Thirdly, and following from this, how could this be applied consistently in either case across the whole of Wikipedia? For example, if Sheep needs a photo and someone goes out and takes one and uploads it, do we delete it on the grounds that it wasn't certified by a biologist or a veterinarian as a genuine sheep? The Wednesday Island 22:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Existing policy, and yes, unless you want me to be able to cite myself for saying "sheep are wonderfully puffy", then you better delete any sheep photo I supply that similarly lack credibility. Otherwise you have a policy that states that supplied information needs a credible source, except for when it is in the form of a matrix of pixels.Tgm1024 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Though the propriety of the video in this article isn't my primary focus, I do have to wonder (with a chuckle) what the proponents of this video would think of the defecation or GI_tract pages containing a video closeup of me taking a dump. I feel rather like that editing this talk page :) to bust on myself a little... Tgm1024 01:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is the guy shaved? Surely that's not normative--nor is it necessary to reveal essential detail (as in the article of the vulva). Also, why only a human? Humans are not the only species that ejaculate.LCP 20:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)