Talk:Gokkun

Illustration Legend
This Illustration, although excellent is incorrectly described. The vessel illustrated is not a beaker as stated but a graduated cylinder. Beakers are frequently employed in the Gokkun genre as well as conical flasks. Especially in productions where the actress will consume the collected seminal emissions of a large number of ejaculations, which frequently number well over 100. Directors will often emphasize the enormous quantity of semen the actress will consume by using laboratory glass ware. 80.229.107.41 (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have an image we could use that would be great. If you have a source for that information then it would be fun to add to he article. Cptnono (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole article needs improving, it's very incomplete and a little misleading at the moment. Although more complete illustrations/photos would improve things I think they should be held back until the article is more satisfactory. As for citing sources for the article, would it be satisfactory to cite the actual production codes of JAV productions?Fourisplenty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC).
 * The images improve the article so start finding sources and adding them. Images aren't frosting on the cake as you seem to be asserting. I have no idea what JAV productions is. I assume it isn't RS but please feel free to provide link.Cptnono (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh
The image re-added (again!) is not appropriate for the article, per above. I believe that we have been over this ground before. There is no benefit to including this image. Besides being pointless, it is offensive to many, and the drama associated with re-adding it again detracts from work of building the encyclopedia. I leave it a exercise for the reader to determine if the restoring of this image was mainly to prove a point or be disruptive. The image was added by User:Seedfeeder. User:Seedfeeder states on his user page
 * My apologies, but I do not engage in debate over the content, nor the inclusion or removal of images that I have created... Feel free to remove any image if you feel that you have provided sufficient justification for your edit...

Since I've provided sufficient justification the removal, and User:Seedfeeder has promised not to engage in debate over this, I presume (if he's being truthful) that that's an end to it, at least as far as User:Seedfeeder is concerned. Good day.Herostratus (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. It should be tagged as a nosee image but though the image may be offensive to some, pornographic to others, it is still an encyclopedic image.  I'll request it be added to MediaWiki:Bad image list.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, you people don't get it. "Wikipedia is not censored" is not a brag, but a statement of fact: Wikipedia cannot be censored, since we don't have (or want) any mechanism to censor - edits are published immediately they are saved. It's actually partly a warning to users that, since we don't censor, they are liable to see anything, up to and including the goatse man and beyond, so be aware of this. Inappropriate images may be removed, but not necessarily before the unsuspecting user see them.


 * I understand that the persons continually re-adding this image are doubtless all Hip and Liberal - heck, probably even Post-Liberal! - and everything, but it might be better if they demonstrate this to their peers through their manner of dress and choice of music etc. rather than by continually adding material to the Wikipedia that 1) does not improve the encyclopedia, 2) limits the population that may usefully access the encyclopedia, and 3) is disruptive. I don't want to roll out the "a" word, but, you know? Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with my political affiliation, it's a matter of a picture that adds to the page of an encyclopedia. This does, as it illustrates the topic.  I find it annoying that the image is being removed, but I don't bring up accusations of being a republican, a religious fundamentalist, a prude or otherwise.  Is the image encyclopedic?  I would say yes, and obviously others agree with me.  I'm an editor in good standing, with over 40,000 edits and nearly 4 years on wikipedia.  I'm not adding it back out of some sort of sandwich-violation (and note the primary editor of that page is me).  I have a sincere belief in the principles of the encyclopedia, and believe an image is useful and appropriate, added in good faith.  I would still prefer to replace the image.  As it says on WP:CENSOR, "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."  I read this to mean the image is appropriate for the page since it directly depicts its subject.  I won't edit war over it, but if need be we can seek outside input.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't add anything to the article. As far as I can tell, it's not even a real gokkun image but some artist's idea of gokkun, It's not offensive to me -- heck, who doesn't like a nice tall glass of semen before bed? -- which is probably half the problem. Real gokkun is probably a lot more disgusting than that drawing, thus the drawing is sanitized and not representative. Anyway, this is basically beside the point, which is that 1) the article text is plenty descriptive, no picture needed, while 2) including the picture causes political harm to the wikipedia with no commensurate gain. When you include images like this you are effectively saying "we do not want young people using this product". Why would you want to do that. You are effectively limiting the reach of the wikipedia for no significant gain. I get it that we don't censor for no reason, that does not mean we include inappropriate images just to prove that this is so. Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing solely from the only policy I believe applies in this case - WP:CENSOR. Your comment is a far more general one that applies to essentially any image that could possibly be seen as offensive by any party - this could include, say, the Danish cartoon images (and Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, The Satanic Verses, episodes 200 and 201 of South Park as examples), depictions of dinosaurs (as well as the depiction of common descent, Human evolution, and essentially any expression of human sexuality) for Fundamentalist Christians, depictions of Ancient Egyptians as caucasian or black for anyone with a strong opinion in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Roots for anyone who finds slavery offensive, any depiction or discussion of the works of Richard Wagner, who was a notorious anti-Semite, any substantive disucssion of the controversies of the Israel-Palestine conflict, or the Serbo-Croatian war, or anything else that could possibly be considered offensive.  If you believe that sexual images should be censored or removed, that is something to take up on a policy page, probably WP:NOT.  It's not something to be applied idiosyncratically.  I don't find frank depictions of sexuality offensive, but I do find creationist nonsense both absurd and offensive.  I argue for the removal of no images, only the inclusion of ones that depict content encyclopedic content.  In your edit summaries you allude to being a prude - if that's the reason you are removing the image, may I suggest stepping back and asking for some sort of greater input to offset what could possibly be both our biases?  A request for comment or even a 3O would work for me.  However, if you do think you are reverting simply on taste rather than on policy, may I suggest allowing the image to remain?  I believe the policy clearly supports inclusion of the image, no matter how distasteful it may be to some people.  But if you're arguing that images should not be included if they bring wikipedia into disrepute (and clearly wikipedia already has a bucket of disrepute, but still is used by millions on a daily basis) then that is a very large, very important, very lengthy discussion to be held elsewhere, and first, before removing just this image.  I think the artist's depiction allows the image to be used both because it is more tasteful (akin to plutonium being "more safe" if it's in a paper bag rather than the hand), it is available as a copyleft version that is appropriate per the GFDL, clearly depicts the content of the page, and most importantly, is better than any alternative image (for all these reasons).  Also, your comment that all you need is the text belies WP:IMAGE - again extended across wikipedia we could simply remove any image when the text is sufficiently descriptive.  We wouldn't need pictures of food because, well, everyone has eaten.  Or water.  Or clothes.  Or cars.  Or walking.  Or running.  Or hands, feet, eyes, nose, sky, clouds, colours, etc. because clearly everyone can understand them from the description.
 * Yes, I believe many people could find the image problematic. Yes, many a teenager will see it and giggle (or gag).  Yes, many parents would prefer their children not see it.  Yes, it could add to the political harm of wikipedia.  But wikipedia is built on policies, and the appropriate policy here is Wikipedia is not censored.  Your arguments have merit, but have much greater applicability than just this page.  They should be made to the community at large, rather than just here.  In fact, you may be supported by Jimbo Wales himself.  But make the argument first, establish the policy base first, then remove the image.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But, look. Wikipedia is built within an intellectual and moral framework. That framework may be summed up with references to the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason and liberal intellectualism in general. Like all proper encyclopedias, we are a continuation in spirit of Diderot's original encyclopedia (yes I know it wasn't truly the first, the point remains). Because of this we give short shrift to calls for censorship in the name of superstition or religion or politics. So those examples are not germane. That does not mean we must allow any and all content in the encyclopedia. Not all slopes are slippery. And ultimately we cannot fall back on rules-lawyering the policies if the result is deterimental to the encyclopedia. And I am not worried about the giggling or gagging teem, I am worried about the giggling or gagging congressman. (And also about the confused and worried eight-year-old.) Herostratus (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on a set of community mores documented as policies and guidelines. I have yet to see any "morals" beyond those included in the disclaimers and WP:BLP (and one disclaimer says wikipedia is not censored; BLP doesn't apply since it is an illustration, not a picture).  Arguably, WP:CENSOR supports the morals of free speech as well - which would again support not removing the image.  And again we are arguing over abstracts when there is a clear policy (WP:CENSOR) which states '"being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. '  Your points are ones that should be addressed on WT:NOT, or the village pump, not on an individual page.  Historical encyclopedias are irrelevant, since this one is guided by a very clear, explicit and community-derived set of rules and suggestions - that is what we follow, not abstract concepts.
 * My initial comments and references to WP:CENSOR is not wikilawyering - it is an explicit quote that supports my contention. I don't see it as detrimental to the encyclopedia, and since I don't live in the United States, I also don't really care about congressmen.
 * Can you justify the removal of the image on any policy grounds? Because I have repeatedly pointed to a policy that explicitly supports its inclusion and essentially prohibits arguing on taste.  Though I appreciate the civil discussion, it is not supporting the removal of the image on any relevant basis I can see - wikipedia is not censored, and the image is encyclopedic.  Would you like to bring in the larger community, by a posting on WT:VP, WT:NOT, WP:AN, WP:RFC or another venue?  It is quite apparent that we fundamentally disagree on this issue.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi WLU, Hi Herostratus... I got curious after seeing this mentioned on WLU's talk page, so I checked out the article.  I found that almost all of the sources in the article were not reliable and/or did not support the text.    I did a search for sources and was not able to find any that qualify as reliable and support the definition as a genre of porn. There was one book that defines the term as "swallowing after sucking", and a couple books that mention the term in passing without defining it.  From the web  pages that come up in searches - mixed in with the many listings that refer only to Wikipedia mirrors - it seems like there might be a porn genre in Japan like what was described on this page, but it certainly has not been written up by sources that are usable for Wikipedia.  When something is so obscure that there are no  English language sources, it's questionable if the article should even be kept.


 * Regarding the image, this is an example of the bad idea of making custom images for Wikipedia that are not supported by sources. Without sources, we don't know if that image correctly illustrates the term or not. Unless there is a way to verify that it is accurate, aside from any other concerns, it should not be used.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Undent. If the sources are unreliable, or don't support the text, then AFD is the appropriate way to go and I have no issue with it. I think there are sources, and they can be problematic (here is one in French, but I don't know the publisher, here is another in French but I don't know if it's actually a journal article). I'm sure if you googled it you'd come up with lots of...dubiously reliable...pages that would be considered...primary sources...but finding reliable secondary sources is problematic. However, all seem to converge on the same idea - swallowing semen, which this is indeed an image of. Is it worth kicking this to AFD? Or perhaps merging it with bukkake where it is most frequently linked? And if it is not deleted, does the image remain? Because again, if it is kept then the image is an accurate depiction of the topic of the page in my mind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

semi-protection
I have semi-protected this article for the time being.

It avails little to have discussion when editors like this are also involved. Here is an anon editor, and his first contribution to the wikipedia is to restore the inappropriate image to this article. With no discussion or even an edit summary. (And he can't even do that right, but that's beside the point.) I trust I need not belabor the obvious with discussions of trollery, puppetry, and so forth.

I would like to ask talented and experienced good-faith editors such as User:WLU, User:Seedfeeder and so forth a direct question: is the kind of editor that you want to be be leader of? Proud of yourselves?

You don't need to answer here. You need to answer this in your own hearts. You may not wish to be associated with User:24.143.15.253 etc., but he wants to be associated with you. When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Look at your actions and consider: is the continuum perhaps trying to tell me something? Am I really contributing here to building the best and most accessible encyclopedia, or am I so trapped in the dynamics of my own demographic that I have other more pressing agandae? Herostratus (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the anon is reverting the image without comment it is unclear if they are doing it out of a desire to troll or because of an awareness of and appreciation for the policy documented at WP:NOT. Hopefully semiprotection will get them to comment on this talk page.
 * The appropriateness of the image is still in question - it is inarguably in my mind appropriate for the page, since it depicts the subject of the article.
 * I don't care what kind of editor the anon is and do not consider them representative of anything about myself. Since they are not weighing in on the talk page, I'm indifferent to their opinion as yet.  I again return to the policy of WP:CENSOR - the P&G document the communities mores; since the mores apparently involve opposing censorship, it is arguable that your opinion is actually the one that is not in line with them.  I say this respectfully, but this is an important issue - the policies and guidelines document the communities mores; it does not set them.  In other words, right now the community would support (by my reading) that image being kept on the page.
 * Individuals who do not wish to have those images appear have some options available to them - see WP:NOSEE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Image restored again. We do not censor wikipedia just because some people may find the content offensive. The image is encyclopedic, not overly pornographic considering the subject matter and aids understanding of the topic. Exxolon (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Exxolon, a wise old Wikipedia, Antandrus, has a list of observations on Wikipedia behavior. There are 73, and the first one is "When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good". But I do like be lectured by the likes of you about what "we" do. Is that the royal "we" or the editorial "we"? Are you a king or other monarch of a notable country? Or is there more than one of you at the keyboard, and if so, how do you split the work? left-side/right-side or vowels/consonents or what? As explained above to a tiresome degree: 1) the image is not Gokkun, it is an amateur artists impression of what Gokkun would look like if they drew Gokkun, and 2) per WP:FLEAS, please consider the history of this article. I'm not saying that you are trolling, just that all the people who do troll this article talk and act exactly like you. Something to think about? Herostratus (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That observations link is to an essay - it has zero policy weight. WP:NOTCENSORED is policy - you cannot just arbitarily ignore it. "We" in this context is the Wikipedia Community - your sarcasm is unhelpful. User:Seedfeeder's images are a useful addition to the project - they allow us to depict sexually explicit acts without resorting to actual photographs with possible attendant problems - and I think "amateur" is needlessly provacative, the images are of decent quality. As to your WP:FLEAS comment - it's another essay with zero policy weight and it has unpleasant implications - it's not appropiate to use it about another editor. You seem to be having WP:OWN & WP:POINT issues with this image. You do not get to arbitarily decide if the image is appropiate or not. If you don't want it in the article, file a WP:RFC and get community consensus to remove it. Please revert yourself and restore the image. Exxolon (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Opinion: Honestly I was confused by the article, perhaps due to its overall lack of content, so I went to the Japanese version of this article. It says that the term refers to both swallowing immediately after fellatio, as well as collecting it in a glass. Seems to me, then, that the article should mention that in some capacity. And to that end, the image, though somewhat simplistic, does serve to better exemplify the act. As a side note, an anon IP below mentioned merging this article, which may not be a bad idea. Oh, and this act is also referred to as seiin (精飲) but I don't see it listed. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge?
Should this be merged into one or more of the following articles - Oral sex, Fellatio, or Semen? It doesn't really seem notable enough to have an article of its own, as this article is basically just telling people what the Japanese term for swallowing semen is. 58.169.190.110 (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * References suggest it is a variant of bukkake, so maybe that's an appropriate target. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support merge to bukkake - due to lack of independent notability, lack of sources, and per the reason stated by Kenilworth Terrace. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Junk sourcing
The meaning was sourced to a book published by Lulu. Lulu is a vanity publisher: if I write a book full of mere bollocks and pay Lulu to publish it, Lulu will publish it. The results can occasionally be good (just as, say, Wikipedia articles can occasionally be good). This one? Well, Copac shows that not a single British university library bothers with it. The Library of Congress doesn't bother with it. Amazon tells us that it's "#1,984,931 in Books" -- granted that there's little correlation between sales and quality, this shows that there's no commercial reason to take it seriously. And therefore, this edit. -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This material is now sourced to a book published by Publibook. Here's Publibook. How does publication by Publibook make a work at all authoritative? -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, my mistake. Is Éditions Denoël good enough?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, fine. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC on Image Inclusion

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion is to include the image.

Let me start out by saying this isn't one of those things I enjoy mediating; nobody wants to shut out the opinion of part of the community. However, I've read the arguments, and the ones in favor of inclusion are simply stronger and better reflect existing policy. I will go over each argument and explain how I weighted it:


 * Arguments pro
 * Wikipedia is not censored - this is the key policy. As I interpret it in this case, it says we do not censor things that cause offense if their lack of inclusion would cause harm to the reader's understanding
 * It adds to the understanding of the article - A picture is worth a thousand words - why? As User:Cyclopia points out, we indeed have pictures of a human nose on the article about the nose. Clearly there is something about the brain that helps us to understand or retain a subject by seeing it. It's just the way we're wired.
 * The image is not unnecessarily pornographic - This is in fact the case; as such, it is far preferable to an actual picture or video in terms of causing unnecessary offense. And that is good (see the image causes unnecessary offense which will drive away readers below).


 * Arguments against
 * The image is used to troll the article - I did not consider this at all. As we know, consensus is not a vote, so simply readding the material did nothing to persuade me that consensus was more in favor of including the image. In order to add to the consensus, the editors would have had to contribute to the talk page discussion, or (far less ideally) provided at least a reasonable edit summary. However, the additions have done nothing to persuade me that the image shouldn't remain either. If, as a community, we let our decisions be guided by vandals, then we are committing the guilt by association fallacy.
 * The image is original research - This argument is directly refuted by policy: WP:OI. We are extremely lenient with original research in images because it would otherwise be difficult or impossible to create a free alternative. And that is exactly the case here: it would be very difficult to find a third party (i.e., someone not commissioned by a Wikipedian here) who performed this act or drew it and released the media of it under a free license.
 * The image isn't particularly accurate - this factors into my explanation below about a possible better image in the future. However, it is somewhat accurate, and something is better than nothing. I don't see how nothing could possibly be better than something in terms of understanding a concept, unless it's a gross misinterpretation of the concept at hand. This is not a gross misinterpretation though, it just... isn't particularly well illustrated.
 * The image causes unnecessary offense which will drive away readers - this is a very very valid argument, and I will bring it into contention below. Adding images which give a little understanding to a barely notable subject, but drive away hoards of children, women, the religious, or otherwise easily offended is counterproductive. However, this is clearly a larger issue which needs to be addressed by the community, which I as a lone administrator cannot do. Our policies are vague to the point of frustration, which leads to precisely this sort of disagreement - everything is decided on an ad hoc basis. Frankly, I urge anybody with a strong feeling to form a discussion to help codifying when and how it's appropriate to show offensive images. There certainly can be a middle ground.
 * The image is too vague to understand without a caption - and yet this is the case with many images. That's why we have the caption. Short of a video of a man ejaculating into a cup or into a woman's mouth, and then her drinking it, it would be impossible to convey the subject. The reader's understanding is not any worse for the inclusion of the image, but it certainly may be better.
 * The image is racist - I hesitate to even acknowledge this argument, as I think it's a pretty bad one, and a possible red herring at that. In short, the image is not racist: it depicts an Asian female because it's primarily an Asian concept. It no more implies a hatred of east Asians than a depiction of a typical 19th century baseball team as American would imply a hatred or love toward US citizens.


 * In summary
 * The image, for now, should stay.
 * The location of the image, if it is hidden from the user via a hidden  box, or even if there is only a link to the image (i.e., it is removed from the article except for the link): I am not commenting on this. This is a stylistic judgment left up to you all as editors. However, the image should not be removed altogether
 * There is general consensus that the image does illustrate the subject at hand, but doesn't do a very good job of it. This closure by no means is prejudiced towards this image; however, I do highly recommend that if another image is used, it too should be a drawing, in order to minimize offense.
 * Of course, no prejudice towards a changing consensus in the future based on good arguments or changing policy: but indeed the consensus change should be real (a là Consensus doesn't have to change).

Regards, Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached: There is still an ongoing discussion regarding the accuracy of and appropriateness of including the image File:Wiki-gokkun.png in this article. All interested parties are again invited to comment. — Becksguy (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute regarding the accuracy of and appropiateness of including an image in this article. The image in question can be found at File:Wiki-gokkun.png for reference. All interested parties invited to comment. Exxolon (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Include: I went to the Japanese version of this article to learn more about the act. It says that the term refers to both swallowing immediately after fellatio, as well as collecting it in a glass. Seems to me, then, that the article should mention that in some capacity. And to that end, the image, though somewhat simplistic, does serve to better exemplify the act. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Include: Articles should be illustrated to help the reader understand the subject. It seems the chief objection to illustrations of this article is that viewers do not like the subject and object to the clarity with which the illustration explains it.  I'm a little queasy about it myself, but hey, it's the subject of the article.  In many ways I approve of Seedfeeder's illustration, File:Wiki-gokkun.png: it's a clear high quality drawing and doesn't have the look (and unpleasant associations) of internet porn that photography would have.  But the quantity of semen is unfeasibly large, an ejaculation is typically about 5ml, so how many men are supposed to be involved? --Simon Speed (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Seedfeeder may be amenable to modifying the amount of semen depicted - you could ask him. Exxolon (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Include: Image aids understanding of the topic, is freely licensed, of good quality and not overly pornographic considering the subject matter. As it's also an illustration we avoid problems with model releases and record keeping requirements. WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Exxolon (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. This picture is regularly used to troll this article:
 * Here we have editor 75.88.127.62 making his very first edit to the Wikipedia: adding an image to this article. His second edit ever on Wikipedia is to state that discussion on this subject is to be ended, period. This person's editing history began and ended on May 8, 2010, with a total of nine edits.
 * Here we have editor 24.143.15.253 making his very first edit to the Wikipedia: adding an image to this article. This edit constitutes his entire career at the Wikipedia, so far.
 * Here we have editor 68.34.31.108 making his very first edit to the Wikipedia: adding an image to this article. The entirety of his career here so far (seven edits, all on August 1) consist of re-adding the image or using his deep experience of the Wikipedia to explain why he should be allowed to do so.
 * Here we have Ashemon tag-teaming with 68.34.31.108 to restore the image. Ashemon does have 61 edits, but 57 of them were in 2007-9; this was his first edit in almost a year.


 * I'm sure there's more; this problem has been going for quite a while. I call bad faith, and you if you don't like it, cogitate on WP:FLEAS. You may not be interested in the editors listed above but they are interested in you and whether you intend it or no you are acting as catspaws for this ongoing campaign to disgrace and degrade and the Wikipedia and damage its reputation (and drive away women and young people to boot).


 * Maybe you people could add something of actual use to the article - What is prevalence of this entity? Is this just something invented by the born industry, and if so what is the significance of this? Why does this entity manifest only in Japan? Lots more. Of course, that would require actual research (which would likely turn up dry because it's apparently not even a real and notable entity, which is a separate issue). How much easier to edit war over a stroke picture.


 * The image does not aid understanding of the subject. A critical analysis of why this practice arose in Japan or whatever would aid understanding of the subject. Besides which, the image is not even Gokkun as I said before. For all I know it it is completely false. It's just a drawing that somebody made that is their idea of what Gokkun might look like in their personal opinion. Herostratus (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly - the actions of other editors adding this image before the RFC - it's only your opinion they were "trolling" - it's perfectly reasonable to assume they acted in good faith to improve the article. Secondly - citing WP:FLEAS is uncivil and is bordering on a personal attack. Assuming good faith is very important - your blanket assumption and assertion that none of us is acting in good faith is unhelpful. The phrase "you people" is hardly civil either and your entire tone and attitude is combative and hardly collegial. Using the phrase "useful idiot" about other editors, even as a pipelink is unacceptable as well. I will probably bring this up at WP:ANI - your attitude is deeply unpleasant and not conducive to resolving this RFC amicably. Exxolon (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Instead of arguing over the image, the article should be nominated for deletion. This topic is not notable (at least in English sources).  This article is 6 years old and there are only 3 sentences in the whole thing.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means begin the process if you feel the article should be deleted, you are perfectly entitled to do so if you wish. Exxolon (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as references suggest that this image does not actually portray the act in question. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion. - the image is original research unsupported by sources, there is nothing to support that it illustrates the topic correctly. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion. Assuming good faith on everyone who's added this in past, still: How does a cartoon of a girl drinking enhance the article? Is there anyone who needs a demonstration of what drinking is? Because when you get down to it, that's all the image really is. Arakunem Talk 21:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion --- gratuitous, does not add encyclopedic value. -- JN 466  15:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Include : Images are not added because "anyone needs a demonstration", images are usually retained when illustrating a topic. Visual depictions are helpful and in any case are not to be removed only because someone doesn't need them. Everyone knows how a human nose is made, yet the images are hardly challenged there, I suppose. About the OR concerns, it seems that cartoons are routinely used in sexuality articles, so I don't see why this should be different (unless Kenilworth Terrace can show indeed that the image is misleading). -- Cycl o pia talk 16:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Include Illustrates the topic well. I don't know if I go as far as to use the term "tasteful" (pun not intended this time oddly enough) but there could be much much worse for those concerned about the shock value. Good license from an editor who should be thanked for his work instead of having it removed. Just for full disclosure: I think the precedent of these drawings in related articles is a good thing, am adamant in the believe that media can couple with text to better present info to a wide range of readers (everyone reads books, newspapers, and articles differently), and have been in favor of the other work created by the uploader.Cptnono (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The cup also illustrates that it is not simply bukkake or a facial. Unambiguous illustration of something that can be seen in pornography without adding a video clip or vague image.Cptnono (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Include per Cptnono. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As a cartoonist, I'll point out that the picture violates 'show, don't tell.' Without the caption, who would know what she was drinking?  My first guess would have been milk, given how much there is of it. BitterGrey (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am seeing plenty of includes with valid rationale for using the image. The not include comments that I somewhat understand are the clarity of the image. However, this can't be an easy subject to illustrate. If you do a google image search you will see a few images of men ejaculating into a cup in front of a girl. That makes it a little clear. I'm not sure if Seedfeeder could or would want to pull that off in his drawing. The thumbnail supports a caption. Any reasonable person would see the white substance dribbling down the chin of an Asian female as she drinks from a cup (a penis would not convey the information as well in my opinion) and see the caption and text to clearly understand what is being illustrated.Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your point about "an Asian female" is well taken. We wouldn't want to give the false impression that we're not racists as well as misogynists. 02:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)
 * Care to clarify? If ot, it would be appreciated if you put a cute little strike out in your completely unhelpful and dickish comment.Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps you would like to clarify your "Asian female" remark. If it is not your implication that this activity is especially indulged in by Asian females, what is your reason for including this? Or perhaps you feel that it is not racist to make this implication; maybe you feel it is just the sort of thing that "everyone knows about those people" or something. Since you don't seem inclined to back down, I'd request some sort of corroboration of your implication. Herostratus (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Gokkun (ゴックン?) is a Japanese term for a sexual activity..." are the first words of this article. If you mispoke it is OK to simply acknowledge it.Cptnono (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, both of you, stop. No personal attacks, no assuming bad faith or anything like that. Just end it here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, as long as it's understood that we do not have a requirement or specification that the subject of any image in this article be Asian or, for that matter, female. 00:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we don't have such a requirement. I simply believe it is the best way to illustrate the article in its current form which (along with several other reasons) is why I support inclusion. If you want to make any comments regarding perceived motivation that is not based on content feel free to go to my talk page. And just to be crystal clear on the reasoning mentioned above, this image is similar to several seen by doing a Google Image search of "gokkun cum glass". Safe search must be turned off (obviously not work appropriate).Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So the RfC is done it looks like. More !votes for keep and the arguments are inline with policy and guidelines. If someone wants to create a new image (guy or girl or any race) then that might be cool. At this time, we have a drawing that matches how the subject is portrayed in an internet source. The only hurdle I see is adding a source discussing the glass to make this not a issue. Please see the google image search above. Obviously not RS so I plan on tracking something down and reinsert the image. Cptnono (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Include Wikipedia is not censored. As Cptnono says, the image reflects gokkun correctly. (but, yeah, it would be a better drawing if it had less liquid. Some photoshopping would be good.) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A little surprised to see that reverting. Of course, we still do not have a source. So I started searching for more. AVN is RS. Image shows the cup and so does this one(and it was even nomitated for most outrageous scene) but it isn't in the text. There really should be no dispute about this but I don't mind searching for more. I could always cite video and citeoverkill it but that seems a little pointy.Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Follow-up: Looks like American Gokkun 1 and 8 both show a cup and were also nominated.


 * Oppose Inclusion per BitterGrey, Herostratus, and the other opposers. I'm in favor of tasteful and appropriate images that actually add educational value to an article. File:Wiki-gokkun.png does not. As BitterGrey and Herostratus pointed out, it looks much more like a glass of milk. And once a reader gets that it isn't milk, then the Eww! factor kicks in. How does a drawing of drinking something from a glass increase understanding of the practice? A sexually graphic drawing of a man (or men) masturbating in such a way as to make the connection, or the images referenced by Cptnono, might be harder to oppose in this case. Although I probably would oppose such images, not because of prudery or censorship, but because of appropriateness to the intended purpose and the principle of least surprise (as applied to sexual images, not programming). Also, Wikipedia has been savagely attacked by the right wing as promoting porn and other nasty stuff. Why give them ammunition when there is no clear useful purpose in these images that is worth defending. — Becksguy (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "then the Eww! factor kicks in", we don't remove pictures just because they make you go Eww :) For example, the pictures in some medical articles, the animated picture in Decomposition, the pictures in Feces, the images of dead people in Holocaust articles, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Both quantitatively and rheologically, the illustration is risible; perhaps the readdition of this Calpis-chugging girl would make the article (now but a dreary wee thing) a laughing-stock at its AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Include: The illustration assists in understanding of the topic.-- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 02:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your comment interests me. How was the topic hard for you to understand, and which hurdle to your understanding was removed by the illustration? -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggestion. As the stylization in this picture makes it impossible to decide whether the white stuff most resembles milk, soy milk, Calpis, pastis, or coconut milk, as it's far more likely to be any of these than as currently (and laughably) described, and as some editors might want it to illustrate the consumption of one or more of milk etc etc (or indeed plain drinking), rename it girl_drinking_white_liquid.png and thereby free it for wider use. -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse & elaborate I endorse Hoary's suggestion for renaming the controversial image, and further suggest that the illustrator be prevailed upon to create an animated clip, showing the girl wringing the liquid from the spigot and immediately imbibing. Not only would this more clearly illustrate the concept, it would make for a more lively deletion discussion. I also suggest we use 300_pound_man_in_drag_eating_steak.png to illustrate the concluding scene of Pink Flamingos (1972). Dekkappai (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Further: Further: I'd also suggest Ambasa as another article which could benefit from the re-named image... But then, the article on Ambasa's bound to be deleted sooner or later anyway... not sold in an English-speaking country, therefore lacks "reliable" sourcing... nevermind... Dekkappai (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

image size
Please don't set a pixel size for the image, just let the software use the default size. See WP:IMGSIZE "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so (...)". The image might look better in your monitor but it will look horrible in other computers, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Image
For some reason some editors decided to start restoring the image. This isn't a good idea, though, because the default state of the article is to not have the image, and there's no consensus to restore it (see thread above).

Per WP:CONSENSUS, a sort of "stare decisis" rule generally applies to contentious material: if no consensus is reached, the material reverts to its default state - generally speaking, this is the state the article has been in for awhile, before someone started objecting to the material. There are real problems with this approach, but you have to have some kind of standard to prevent endless sterile edit warring.

C'mon, you guys, play fair. After all, you folks game the system all the time to sneak in bad material. If nobody notices for awhile, touché, you've got your default state. In this particular case, WP:CONSENSUS happens to work against you, so I'd say let it go. Herostratus (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Herostratus, if anyone is gaming the system, this is you. It is you that is actively trying to remove the image since this edit, taking advantage of the CommonsDelinker bot. The RfC shows no consensus to remove the images: if anything, head count shows a majority of opinions to include it. The article had the image since 2008, so the default state has been always the one with the image. You are practically the only editor who is trying to remove the image. You already reverted three four times edits by three different editors. Consensus is for sure not with your removal. -- Cycl o pia talk 19:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority"
 * "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page" Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Very true. Do you see policy-based arguments to remove the image? Bacause all I see are claims that it is "unnecessary" (and nothing in policy asks us to keep only images which are "necessary") and things about "eww! factor". Concerns that the image didn't represent the act in question were proven wrong by Cptnono. So, thanks for reminding us that the consensus is indeed stronger than a simple head count would indicate.
 * The contributor is disrupting. I am not discussing about his personality, which I don't know and of which I don't care: I am discussing his actions. -- Cycl o pia talk 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, don't ask people to use the talk page and continue edit warring, HS. We have had an RfC. The only road block to the image I saw after it was that its accuracy was disputed. I then provided the talk page with multiple images from RS. I would prefer not to start citation overkill/bombardmentesque stuff. There should be no doubt that it is accurate now. We can always add text to the article bit I was worried it would come across gamey and uneccassary ("Multiple pornographic films that have won industry awards feature images of actresses drinking semen out of glasses"). I don't mind though.Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would add the sources/links you found and add this to the caption, to remove any possible doubts, and then we can restore the image safely and close the matter. -- Cycl o pia talk 10:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the pic since it doesn't really have any illustrative value. Gokkun atually involves a long and tedious process of filming ejaculations into some sort of receptacle. The actual ingestion is merely the final step of the process and having an image of just that really doesn't explain anything that's not already present in the text. Any reader knows how a liquid is drunk, so the imagined final step seems only to serve a mildly pornographic interest.
 * Peter Isotalo 04:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored it. Media assists the reader in understanding an article even if the text might appear to be OK (note that it is pretty much needed for GA or FA). Everyone browses the project differently. Wikipedia is not censored and the reasoning presented here falls short.Cptnono (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Cptnono, you haven't actually replied to any of my concerns,though. I'm saying that this image doesn't actually illustrate the act as much as it shows a particular fantasy. If it was a photo of the actual act, I would not object. But this is just someone's vision of drinking stuff. That's an allusion or implication, not an illustration.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This image is indeed ridiculous. I could explain it to you people but the guy Peter already did but you just ignored him and came with irrelevant cliché's like "wikipedia should not be censored!". The picture doesn't add anything that the text doesn't. And if you really want to show this act to the wikipedia audience then why not put a full porn video in here? Wikipedia isn't censored right? Why do people tend to become unreasonable when there's an argument on a controversial topic? If you want to be a decent editor you should keep your prejudices and bias to yourself. These things happen all the time on wikipedia. Controversial topics are always biased. It's the ultimate result of a free wikipedia. The majority of editors (or a select group of editors with a high rank) overrule the minority even if they aren't right. This really is an issue. I'm starting to get bothered with it more and more when I'm here.

Peace BeefDaeRoastLXG  praat 17:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I couldn't have said it better. The argument of wikipedia not being censored is not a valid reason to included an image and just a bunch of total crap. If this was the case we would include images ad nauseam in articles. But the criteria is to add information to an article or to explain a subject better. The image does neither of that and looks to me like a picture of a woman drinking milk. I get a better total idea from just reading the article. I'm removing it in support of other editors that have made strong arguments for its removal. If someone objects then revert, but please provide proper justification this time and not a bunch of stupid arguments. Biofase flame | stalk 23:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the image adds nothing to the article: in my opinion, it is informative, and thus, it satisfies MOS:IMAGES § Pertinence and encyclopedic nature and the relevance criterion of § Offensive images. Whether or not a given image adds something of value is a matter of editorial judgment, and the previous RFC (permalink) squarely addressed this question and determined that the this image was relevant. It further found that the image ought to be included. You are not permitted to ignore that consensus because you disagree. If you want to remove the image, you must start a new RFC. Rebb  ing  02:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If it adds value then explain how. You can't because an image of someone drinking milk doesn't. The RfC also didn't determine that it does so and was inconclusive. Consensus isn't merely a counting of votes but which side has the strongest argument, and the argument to keep is se verely lacking in this regard.
 * If you still believe it adds value then list it somewhere for comment and see if other people agree without being redirected to the article. If they can't gauge the subject matter from the image then it's merely an allusion that it adds value when it is entirely irrelevant to the article. Biofase flame | stalk 03:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It adds value by illustrating the subject in question. That's purely an editorial judgment, and it's all that can be said about most images used in articles. The guideline doesn't require that an image be necessary; it merely says that it should be significant, relevant, and not primarily decorative.


 * I know what consensus is, and I also know that you do not get to re-assess the arguments and implicitly overrule the closing sysop's summary. Given the RFC, the burden is on you to develop a new consensus, not on me to defend it and explain it to your satisfaction. If your argument is as persuasive as you appear to find it, you will have no trouble convincing others in an RFC.


 * Also, the image looks nothing like drinking milk. In my observation, milk drinkers do not typically allow the fluid to drip from their mouths unchecked as is shown in the drawing. Moreover, dairy milk is white, homogeneous, and thin, yet the fluid in the illustration is viscous, translucent, off-white, and not homogeneous. Are you sure you're drinking milk? Rebb  ing  04:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It adds nothing. You're alluding that it does. Without the description it might as well be on the "drink milk" campaign page. There is no consensus. That's why it was listen twice for additional comment and an admin called in to close it still without consensus. If your argument is that multiple people can't overrule the judgment of one then fine make it, but don't invoke consensus because there is none.


 * You prove my point. If you have to explain at length how the image illustrates the subject then it doesn't and is merely there for decorative purpose. Biofase flame | stalk 21:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wrong. The closer found that there was consensus: "The result of the discussion is to include the image." Insisting that you are better able to judge consensus than a neutral, experienced administrator does not make it so. If an editor with a mere 527 edits could waltz in and overrule a formal close because he didn't find the arguments convincing, there would be no point in having consensus discussions.


 * Also, your feigned ignorance does not prove anything. There is simply no way that you can't distinguish between a photograph of someone drinking milk and an image of someone gulping down thick, translucent, coagulated fluid with a sizable amount adorning her chin. Is the image necessary to the article? Of course not! Very few images are. Yet our guideline does not say that images must be necessary; it says they must be relevant. I believe this is; and the consensus has affirmed that. If your position is as solid as you believe, save your words and prove it with an RFC. Rebb  ing  23:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. The closer did not find that there was consensus. The RFCs themselves are because there is no consensus. You don't seem to grasp this fact.
 * This is NOT a photograph. If it was there would be no debate. This is someone's impression of what "gulping down" semen would look like and it is not a particularly accurate depiction. It's only an allusion that it depicts the subject. Your subjective views that someone drinking milk would not let it drip while someone drinking semen would aren't convincing. The same could be said for the reverse. Herp Derp
 * You seem to think that RFC stands for "request for consensus", it doesn't. It stands for request for comment. It's not a requirement for establishing consensus and it's not a requirement to overturn it. If you were so convinced of your argument you would take up the challenge. But you won't because you aren't and you know the image is not an accurate description of the subject. Biofase flame | stalk 23:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've come to a different conclusion. The women is indeed not drinking milk. She's drinking a milkshake, or coconut, or egg white, or... Biofase flame | stalk 00:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Rewite
I've rewritten this article, it's not comprehensive but I've removed the obvious errors and included some additional detail, anyone mind if I put it up or do wanna see it a sandbox first? Fourisplenty (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Goto this page to review the rewrite Fourisplenty (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, but where are your refs? Herostratus (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no sources and it changes the definition of the term by saying it is only in the porn industry. Fails verifiability and touches on a contentious issue. Please feel free to copy edit for grammar but do not make any sweeping changes without leaning on sources. And notice the page ratings. Expansion but not an overhaul is needed.Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The image is a violation of WP:OR
The current image states: An artist's concept of a woman drinking semen. File:Wiki-gokkun.png

Concept? This is someone's opinion and is therefore original research. It has been removed accordingly. I have a concept about many things on Wikipedia but this usually means that a verifiable source is required otherwise it is deleted very quickly. Why should an image be any different?

An "artist's concept"? Sheesh she might as be sucking off the cookie monster if that is deemed to be accuracy!! 86.182.42.44 (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * By your logic all diagrams and non-photographic pictures should be removed. That's complete twaddle. It is not original research to draw something based on sources. In this particular picture, what exactly are you objecting to? That that's not a woman? That she's not drinking something? That what she is drinking could not possibly be semen? This is pretty clearly just another WP:IDONTLIKEIT attempt to get rid of an image doesn't like. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gokkun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100202033818/http://www.seekjapan.jp:80/article-1/744/The+(Almost)+Complete+Japanzine+Dictionary+of+Japan+Sex to http://www.seekjapan.jp/article-1/744/The+(Almost)+Complete+Japanzine+Dictionary+of+Japan+Sex

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 23:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

. . . Why does this image exist again?
Seriously, people. It does little to help the article. It might as well be a still from a porno for all the good it does. Thereby, I've removed it.--Rainythunderstorm (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the section abouve. There you can find the reasons. Noone needs to repeat them to you again. 78.94.53.130 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Permission to replace first reference with archived version?
I'd like to replace it with an archive.org link, in case the source gets deleted.--Rainythunderstorm (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Petition to rename to Semen-Drinking?
I'm not familiar with all of wikipedia's rules and junk, but the japanese article is not named Gokkun [ゴックン], it is Insei [飲精] (or Seiin [精飲]), which would translate into English as Drink Semen (in the case of Insei [飲精]) or Semen Drink (for Seiin [精飲]). Japanese Article: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/飲精

Therefore, I'd like to propose, if someone knows how, that this article be renamed to "Semen-Drinking." Drinking semen is not a uniquely Japanese sex act, and a name change to "Semen-Drinking" would decisively move it away from the implication (through use of the article name Gokkun) that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.71.30.183 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
This article is a fairly useless stub, and I see no reason why it shouldn't simply be folded into the "Ingestion" section of Semen.Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 09:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure, WP has a lot of weird stubs on sex acts, particularly involving semen (Snowballing and felching come to mind). Maybe consolidate them all into one place, either a district article or heavily expanded subsection? Maybe expand the subsection at “Semen” into a whole article on ingestion where the old articles can be merged to? Dronebogus (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Dronebogus (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)