Talk:Creampie (sexual act)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposed move to internal ejaculation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upgrade to image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

re WP:CONSENSUS

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

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

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

Image discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

remove. completely unnecessary.

RfC?

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

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

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

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

Mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just looked at this one[3] and it is clear that the fetish grew from adult movies. It does not say that the fetish is confined to it. Maybe if internal ejaculation was created then we could have an easy fix but it isn't and this article should not have its scope changed before such action is taken. So since we have sources I don't see the problem at this time.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

But you don't seem interested in doing any of that so please do not make it seem that you are willing to create another article unless you are. There is a big difference between being inaccurate and being restrictive. I actually find the assertion that it would be inaccurate to keep the scope potentially broader laughable. Are you actually arguing that it is not a sex act and is only in porn? By the way, I found another reference that makes note of it gaining prominence in porn and its relation to real life.[4] I wouldn't call it an academic source but this isn't exactly a mainstream topic. And if such a moves takes place (doesn't look like it will) please remember that we are not bound by your essay and te image has consensus to be in.Cptnono (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

This article is rough to be shown to a family audience

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

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

Poorly rendered image adds nothing to article; text sufficiently explains the act

Are you all so socially inept that the inclusion of a POORLY RENDERED sexual ILLUSTRATION is important enough to warrant "consensus" and edit wars? Wikipedia is not a repository for poorly rendered sexual acts. If a reader cannot understand the act from the GRAPHIC TEXT, he/she is free to google for more "research." The image is disgusting and poorly done, and one could make a fantastic argument for the whole article's removal as per wp:notable or whatever the hell it is. "Creampie" is not in the vernacular of those not in the porn industry who have a healthy sex life, sorry to inform you losers. -LM 69.123.141.129 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd go as far as to say I'm a social spastic and yet am able to comprehend that the quality of an image and consensus are two entirely different matters. The image in question is sufficietnly detailed to depict the act in question without resorting to including an actual photograph. It's clear that this article offends you and, while that's regrettable as no well-meaning WP editor wishes to offend, may I suggest that you go home and stay there forever because there's a shit load worse stuff out there happening to people on a daily basis. WP:BOLD is a wonderful policy but shouldn't be abused as it has been on this occasion. Trust me, there's a lot worse policies on WP than the one that allows the inclusion of this image. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The article does not offend; however the text is sufficient to illustrate the act. A poorly rendered image of ejaculate leaking from a woman's anus seems superfluous, and adds nothing educational to the article. Again, Google is available for those unable to grasp the basic concept through the text alone; if you feel differently, feel free to edit the article to include further description, as how it can be made any clearer is beyond my comprehension. WP is not a repository for poorly rendered cartoon porn; that someone sat at their computer creating the image is quite pathetic. I am against censorship, but the inclusion of this image serves no discernible purpose except to perhaps stimulate the socially inept who have yet to discover the wonders of free porn across the Internets. It's anti-woman (why not an image of a man with ejaculate leaking from his bum? Oh, but that would fail to satisfy the majority of editors on WP who rely on cartoons to fulfill sexual frustration, apparently), done poorly, and ADDS NOTHING TO THE ARTICLE. Create a better image, or leave the article as-is. Anyone browsing for the term "creampie" generally has an idea of what the term implies. The image is superfluous and not encyclopedic. Also, personal attacks are generally frowned upon amongst editors. I again cite WP:BOLD and whatever policy relates to maintaining high, encyclopedic standards for Wikipedia for my editing of the article. There is no sufficient argument as to why the inclusion of the image is vital to the article, and therefore it has been removed. I ask that you respectfully discuss the matter here, as opposed to starting an edit war. I have made my points, and you have not made any points in regards to what exactly the image adds to the article, and to Wikipedia as a whole. There is PLENTY of vectorized porn on wikipedia (see: fisting, anal beads, etc) and I do not object to those images because they do help facilitate understanding, and as a plus, do not look like absolute crap. Provide a valid argument so consensus can be reached. -LM 69.123.141.129 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please suggest a replacement image instead of trying to remove the image again. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My argument is that the image is SUPERFLUOUS, as the text is graphic enough to sufficiently explain the act. It is simply not needed. Also, if I ever had even the faintest inkling of desire to spend a moment of my time creating an image of a 'creampie,' I would immediately kill myself because my life would no longer be meaningful. I was messaged about "edit warring;" so much for being BOLD. I asked for consensus and dissenting opinions BEFORE reverting my initial edit, but was ignored. So far, my opinion versus two does not a consensus make. I'm attempting to improve an article, but it's pointless- keep your disgusting and poorly rendered cartoon porn that serves no educational or encyclopedic value except to include as many images of vaginas and semen as possible in a project that asks to be taken seriously. That the image's inclusion is SO IMPORTANT speaks VOLUMES about the average wiki editor's irl contact with females. And for chrissake, if you INSIST on cartoon porn, at least render it well. Wikipedia is so lulzy. 69.123.141.129 (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC) -LM

You should read WP:BRD, which describes a common editing scenario (and one you should have followed here). You were bold, somebody reverted your edit, and you should have discussed the change. Instead, you edit-warred with several different editors to remove the image. That's your opinion vs. three editors who reverted you and the editors who, by their silence, approved of the image in the article. You don't have to believe it's consensus, but so far nobody has spoken up for your point of view. Think about it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is a free-licensed image about a topic, then the wikipedia article on this topic is bound to display that image. This is not a written rule, it's just standard practice across all topics. For reference, see the fights to add non-free book covers to book articles, even although they add nothing to the understanding of the contents of the book (barring famous or controversial covers, of course). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I did NOT edit-war; I removed the image and asked for a discussion before the change was reverted. Wikipedia is not a photo album; that an image exists does not warrant it's inclusion in the article. (see: archived and long discussion re: feces article, where people actually debated passionately about the inclusion of a photo of human poo on a plate). Also see the pornography article; there are no photos of extreme porn despite the plethora of people who love taking photos of their genitals and would undoubtedly enjoy contributing images to such an article. Because an image exists does not mean it warrants inclusion in an article. Also see the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia, where the "shock image" of a chick eating crap was removed even though it was free-licensed and depicted the act in question because it added nothing to the article. The image for this article is for shock value and does not create a better article. It is also poorly rendered. If there were a better image, it would be less of an issue, but I would still argue for it's superfluousness being that THE TEXT EXPLAINS THE ACT SUFFICIENTLY, but at least the argument for its inclusion would hold more weight. Perhaps there's no one voicing my POV because most reasonable persons are not searching for "creampie" on Wikipedia, and those that have any vested interest in the topic would obviously encourage the image's inclusion. If Wikipedia would like to be taken seriously, perhaps it should take more seriously the purging of it's huge community of pedophiles and perverts who need cartoon porn because they'll never have the opportunity to come near a woman's nether regions. This discussion is moot. You can cite more WP:Whateverthehell to "justify" THEIR edit warring and not following the rules than I can, most definitely. If someone makes a good faith edit to improve the quality of an article and asks for discussion before the edit is reverted, it is those who reverted the edit who are not following WP policy and are not acting in good faith. -LM 69.123.141.129 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As already explained, everyone reads an article differently and images are a benefit to the reader. Although it might be offensive, it is possible to illustrate something in a way that adds value. If you do not like the quality of the image, please produce a better one. I assume no image would be of acceptable quality (or at least another excuse for objection would be provided) so please do not waste our time dancing around the issues by latching on any possible reason to censor an image based on puritan interests.Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As already explained, this image sucks and adds nothing to the article. LOL puritanical. I cited MANY sex articles that include images that are of worth for the article in which they're included (see: anal beads, fisting, vulva, etc etc) and I have no issue with their inclusion. I also noted that just because an free-licensed image exists, it does not automatically necessitate it's inclusion in an article because it does not make an article stronger. I won't repeat all of that, as it has obviously gone right over your head; not my fault if you have an issue with reading comprehension due to your DEVOTED PASSION for this image and it's necessity in this article. I've made excellent arguments re: this image's removal that have nothing to do with being puritanical- if that were the case, I'd put this whole stupid article up for deletion. As i said before, I'd kill myself before creating a creampie image, although you can bet your (virgin) ass I'd be able to produce something of higher quality than what appears to be a contribution drawn by a frequent visitor to the "child grooming" article. I made many points, none of which were addressed by you or anybody, namely that superfluous imagery on other pages have been removed because they added nothing to the content or understanding of the article. I guess reading and logic are not your strong suits. I'm a male with an active sex life and therefore "creampies" are hardly offensive to me; go find yourself one that's consensual and doesn't involve Anime and maybe wiki won't be such serious business for you. On the other hand, I could always recruit non-pervs with intellect to back up my POV and thus have the image removed by consensus. Oh wait, I don't give enough of a crap. -LM WHOOPS 69.127.235.203 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

N.b.: I deleted this comment as per WP:TALK but it's apparent that the IP believes that the world needs to hear his wisdom so I won't fight to take that morsel of worth from him. I would, however, suggest that we don't feed the trolls. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, i'm totally a troll because I made a good faith edit and was attacked. Sorry if my "words of wisdom" hit too close to home :( Also, good strategy: instead of reading the debate and the points I've made, just call me a troll and remove the credibility of my arguments that have been glossed over time and time again! MUCH easier than assuming I'm actually trying to improve this COMMUNITY PROJECT known as wikipedia! -LM 69.127.235.203 (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Now prove you mean it by keeping quiet until you have a proper argument and can express it without insulting other editors. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: removed comment by raseaC, which is offensive to anyone with a brain; however he feels his opinion about this topic is SO IMPORTANT that he has not discussed the issue that was being debated, albeit poorly by other editors, but still felt the need to add nothing of worth to the discussion page :(

Discussion page, learn how to use it. Love that you've been banned for your own trolling as your talk page clearly shows. Pot, kettle, all that. Also, your opinion is null and void: HAVE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH my VALID arguments; only started attacking when was attacked. It's okay, nobody expects you to be able to read or comprehend what I've said, Plus, Nobody cares what you think :) Wiki is srs business. Go back to whatever rock you crawled out of and stop attacking and failing at using discussion pages, THANKS! -LM 69.127.235.203 (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to add the template, feel free to add a link to my talk (it's easy to find as it's the only subject I've left on my talk given that I don't have a problem with it being in the public domain seeing as I was acting in good faith and the editor that revoked my access was, in my honest and entirely biased opinion, 'not' a cunt). My second post on this thread was meant to encourage other editors to not waste their time in discussing the matter with you because, frankly, life is too fucking short. So, yeah, have fun with whatever it is you're doing here. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 00:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

learn proper formatting for discussion pages. also, nobody cares. This page is for DISCUSSION about the creampie_(sexual act) article, not about your failings as a wikipedian/human, Calling me a troll because you don't like my POV is unduly biased, especially being that you were not involved in the original debate, but still felt the need to add your worthless contribution -LM 69.127.235.203 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, I agree with the IP that the image is hopeless. I wrote and researched most of the article and if it were up to me, I'd drop the image. I'm ashamed of it. --JN466 02:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yeah, and would you people stop being so unfriendly and piling on the poor anon IP? Great welcoming committee. He's got a point, after all. The fact of the matter is, there was an RfC on removing the image, and although the "vote" was tied somewhere around 7-7, the "remove" camp had a pretty strong argument in that as they pointed out that (to pull some quotes), the image is a "poor-quality amateur drawing" that "degrades the article", is "obviously an amateur drawing, and doesn't have nearly the sort of quality that would be expected in an encyclopedia", "looks, quite literally, like it came from a 7th-grader's sketchbook", is "of exceedingly poor quality (like something off a men's room stall)", is "frankly grotesque, and actually offensive to me as a female", is "so wretchedly bad that it brings shame to the entire Internet" and looks to have been created by a "deranged ungulate on an Oxycontin binge". I think that means that people kind of don't like it, and on strength of argument the image should probably have been removed, but some person in their infinite wisdom decided to close the RfC as Keep on the basis of "WP:CENSOR carries the strongest weight" as if WP:CENSOR had anything to say about keeping sub-quality materials. Quite ridiculous, and thanks to the RfC closer failing to perform with proper diligence, a new RfC will need to be run, if anybody wants to bother. But since the anon IP raises the issue, it should be done. Herostratus (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to do this, but I am tired of the arguments. Here, check File:Creampie_drawing_1-2.png. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the constructive effort. What makes the picture unsuitable to my mind is the primitive technique. Secondly, the woman does not seem to have a body beyond her behind, which is degrading in itself; even her arms appear not to be attached to the rest of the body. I appreciate your effort, but still prefer doing without an image. --JN466 13:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• I've dropped a pointer to this discussion on the WikiProject Feminism talk page. While these discussions have been going on for months now, I believe only one female editor has commented so far here on this page; it was her who called the image "frankly grotesque, and actually offensive to me as a female". I've added identical notes to the sexuality and pornography projects' talk pages as well. --JN466 13:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Talk:Creampie (sexual act)/Archive 1#Request for comment says it all. We have had multiple editors agree to keep. Although consensus can change, it is worrying that the same discussion is brought up over and over again with little regard for previous arguments and precedent. If the quality is actually the issue, please see the alternatives presented or create on yourself. If the explicitness is the issue please see the arguments here and at other articles (I will dig them all up if needed) where it is clear that such images are acceptable. Magog the Ogre put it perfectly. We are wired to learn through images and as I have said multiple times, everyone reads an article differenty. So it is great if an IP wishes to contribute their thoughts but unless they actually go through the archives then it is just another complaint that appears to be done without actually understanding our standards.Cptnono (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually DID go through the archives and saw that the previous RfC on this issue was closed prematurely, when it was nearly 50/50 keep/delete, as was mentioned by Herostratus above. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that DARING to edit the page would result in all of this; it seemed evident to me that the past quantity of concerns about the quality of the image would be sufficient to at least facilitate some new discussion, as again the previous RfC was pretty much a joke. "Our standards?" Are you serious? I may not be registered, but I've kept up with Wikipedia throughout the years and I cited examples where images were removed precisely because their inclusion was not necessary, they were not encyclopedic, or because they were poor examples. Your standards are not Wikipedia's standards- which is why articles have discussion pages to begin with, to, ya know, DISCUSS the merits of various opinions and weigh them according to wiki policy- and saying I don't understand wiki policy is pretty damn disparaging and nothing more than a petty way to discredit some good, solid examples and a well thought-out explanation all based upon past instances of Wikipedia's policies in action regarding images in articles that raised similar concerns. How exclusionary of you- it's much harder to actually refute the arguments I've made, and much easier to make blanket statements about my knowledge of policy. I read the discussion, saw that an attempt to reach consensus was cut short, and made my edit, with a note asking for discussion. The "precedent" for the image's inclusion was borne out of a crappy attempt to reach consensus (for which I was not present to participate in- had it been clear that consensus had been reached and I went ahead and edited without any regard to it, you would have a point) and people crying "censorship!" when that actually was not the issue brought forth to support it's removal by several people, including me. My edit was actually an attempt to follow wiki standards for encyclopedic excellence. Just because this issue was discussed previously does not mean that I am not allowed to echo past concerns, especially when the RfC was not exactly definitive. It doesn't hurt to have some new eyes on a contentious issue. -LM 69.127.235.203 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I, too, thank you for trying to be constructive about this issue, but the quality of the image has less to do with the trajectory of the ejaculate and more to do with its very low quality. I think it's wonderful that another user has brought the discussion to a larger audience so maybe some fresh insight can be had, and I apologize for creating a headache for you. I would just like to reiterate that my initial edit was done in good faith, and my inflammatory conduct on the talk page was borne out of frustration, not an attempt to "troll" or disrupt Wikipedia. I'll leave this discussion alone for the time being, as it doesn't appear to be constructive at this point in time. -LM 69.127.235.203 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• I think the image should stay in the absence of a better one. It does illustrate the article, making it horribly clear to the reader, particularly as it refers to a certain sort of shot in porn movies. (And though the image could be better in many ways, I'm glad its a drawing rather than a photo or a frame from a porno. The aptly named "money shot" really is a climax of nastiness: a moment of ecstasy turned into a demonstration for the paying public that the performers are actually having unsafe sex. But porn is a huge part of current sexuality and we describe such facts.) Articles should be illustrated where possible and I think we generally just don't like the subject of the article which the picture confronts us with. Perhaps if the image was moved lower down the page, the reader would feel less like they were being mooned at. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that moving the image down to the beginning of the pornography section would help, and concur that having a drawing is preferable to a photograph. Perhaps I'll try to do some work on the image. Seedfeeder (I always wish he'd picked a more dignified user name ...) had promised to create a better image, but then retired before doing so. --JN466 15:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• I think we should keep the image unless a better one is produced. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• I wish we did use a better image. Commons has actual photographs. Why use a line drawing when we've got a perfectly free photo? The only differentiation I can see between replacing free photos of a wolf with someone's line drawing of one, and here, is pure prudishness (and what do people expect to find when they come to an article clearly entitled Creampie (sexual act)?) But since people don't seem to want to use that, the current drawing is what we've got, until and unless someone wants to make a better one. Or get over it and use relevant free photos, like we would anywhere else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The difference between drawings and photographs of, say, wolves vs. creampies is significant. See 2257. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Based upon the very article you referred me to, I fail to see the relevance: "A "secondary producer" is defined as any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct. Different record-keeping requirements exist for primary versus secondary producers...." (emphasis added) Did Wikimedia become a commercial project while I wasn't looking? Also, if this was an issue, Wikimedia's GC would've removed all such photos under WP:OFFICE. Clearly, that hasn't happened. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• You know when they make a biology textbook, and they use a line drawing instead of a real photo, because it's easier to understand it and see the shapes? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, I've seen that done. But if that's the idea, we don't have limited publishing space like a textbook—let's use both! It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to include textbook-quality line drawings in biology articles, even those that have nothing to do with sex, for that reason. This has nothing to do with the line drawing being "better" than a photo, and look how many people here are complaining about the quality. It has to do with squeamishness, pure and simple. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If this were purely a matter of squeamishness, I would not have written an article which, by universal agreement, is textually extremely explicit. To me, what this is about is that our standards of editorial judgment should be up with those of reputable real-world publications. There is no need for philosophizing beyond that. I believe Wikipedia should be reputable. I've cited university press publications which use extremely frank language, and have used the same language here, per the precedent of these reputable sources. However, such publications are unlikely to use either a poor line drawing like the one we have here, or an explicit photograph. As for Wikipedia not being commercial, the project generally uses the media standards for commercial use, in deference to downstream commercial users of our content. --JN466 17:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Another point that bears making here is that pages like this one should be subject to an opt-in (“under 12 button” or “NSFW” button). This was one of the recommendations of the 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content whose results are currently being reviewed by a Foundation working group. Of all major websites, Wikipedia is the only that presents such content without an opt-in like the one used by Google or Flickr, say. --JN466 17:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• @Seraphimblade. It's not about lack of space in textbooks, but about drawings being clearer. If there is a photography in Commons that is clearer than this drawing, then please just propose it here. (not going to lookup the category right now). Let's discuss specifics instead of abstracts. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe either of the 2 photographs in Commons:Category:Creampie (sexual act) are clearer: for anyone not well acquainted with the subject matter the close-up tightly cropped images of the genital area from the rear are going to be confusing. Also, sex photos are associated in peoples minds with porn, sex drawings more with sex education, a factor where a viewer may be "caught" reading a Wikipedia page. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sooo, I am going to go ahead and replace the current drawing with File:Creampie_drawing_1-2.png, which has semen coming out of the vagina instead of the anus, ok? I think that it's a net improvement to the article. I will just switch drawings.

About removing the drawing or about using a photography instead, I think that it's a separate topic that can continue regardless of the drawing replacement. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer the drawing with vaginal rather than anal sex, though we are not in the business of giving advice I'd prefer that we illustrate a safer sex alternative where there is a choice. --Simon Speed (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Simon suggested above we put the image at the beginning of the "Use in pornography" section, rather than the top of the article. If would like to put your image there, I think that would be a double improvement. --JN466 00:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Didn't we have this discussion - especially the latter part - just recently within an RfC? In fact, we did and the existing consensus for the retention of the image was not deprecated. While Wikipedia:Consensus can change, there has to be some evidence of new policy or interpretation or better arguing of the pre-existing ones to sustain running through the same points as before. I see no evidence of that here. Under the circumstances this present discussion is moot, it simply repeats what went before (and having different people advancing the same arguments is no basis for reviewing the issue, since it is weight of argument by reference to policy that counts and not weight of numbers). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The RfC closed with "Keep the current image until a higher quality image that a consensus agrees upon is found". Enric Naval has created an alternative image and consensus seems to favour using it. --JN466 16:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Errr, that sounds like trouble. How about I replace the drawing, and then we discuss about moving it. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, moving the image has never been discussed before; but I liked the idea when Simon suggested it. But by all means, one thing at a time. :) --JN466 17:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there was an RfC, but unfortunately it was not closed correctly. The person closing the RfC (User:Mike Cline) could have said any of these things:

• Well, the numbers are about even, and the arguments are fairly even, so there is no consensus to change the state of the article.
• Well, the numbers are about even, but evaluating the strength of argument, I find the Delete argument to be stronger, based on my evaluation of the arguments: [cogent summary]]. So delete.
• Well, the numbers are about even, but evaluating the strength of argument, I find the Keep argument to be stronger, based on my evaluation of the arguments: [cogent summary]]. So keep.

But User:Mike Cline didn't do any of those things. What he did was write this: "This RFC is Closed. Keep the current image until a higher quality image that a consensus agrees upon is found. WP:CENSOR carries the strongest weight."

The problem with that is that WP:CENSOR doesn't carry any weight here. WP:CENSOR was not issue here and was not invoked, or if invoked was only invoked peripherally. WP:CENSOR doesn't say anything about how to deal with sub-optimal material. WP:CENSOR doesn't say anything about how to deal with material to which there are cogent objections based on quality or other factors.

So this was basically a non sequitur. User:Mike Cline might as well have said "WP:MUSIC carries the strongest weight" or "WP:NOP carries the strongest weight" or whatever.

So because of User:Mike Cline's failure to diligently perform his task, the RfC was wasted, and another one needs to be run, which is annoying and wasteful of everyone's time, but no helping it. Enric Naval's alteration doesn't address the issues raised against the graphic. Herostratus (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, although the closure placed undue emphasis on one reason which was included in the "keep" arguments it generally recognised that the existing consensus had not been successfully challenged. You have tried wikilawyering this "incorrect closure" previously, and have been rebuffed. You have also tried other processes in an attempt to deprecate the RfC - and all have been rejected. As I previously noted, before the RfC even, your efforts to remove an image you find inappropriate but has consensus are in danger in becoming disruptive. The RfC was run and the arguments made, and closed as keep. Since the same arguments are being presented again, initially for removal and also subsequently for keep, there is no point in running another RfC - at best another admin might be invited to review the closure of the earlier one, and see if the conclusion was correct (regardless of the closing comments). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe that you (an admin) are continuing to threaten me ("your efforts to remove an image you find inappropriate but has consensus are in danger in [sic] becoming disruptive") for pointing something out on a talk page. I have called you on this before I had assumed that you took the point. Guess not. This is a problem, and you need to stop threatening people for discussing this issue. This is a bigger problem than the issue itself. Threatening other users in this way absolutely poisons the discussion. We cannot move forward as an organization in the kind of atmosphere that that engenders. Please stop. Herostratus (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring this matter to ANI. If you continue to try to subvert consensus, by bringing the processes into question when it is apparent that your issue is with the content then it is possible that I will be the one presenting the case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, that is not the response I was hoping for. Well, there is no consensus. What we have is lack of consensus, in which case an entity generally stays in its current state. And that's different. If for saying this or anything else you want to make a case at ANI (to have me kicked off the Wikipedia, I suppose), well, if that is the way you think that the Wikipedia should be run, I can't stop you. Herostratus (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment While I'm all for keeping informative images in articles, including graphic ones, I don't think this particular image qualifies as informative. The poor quality is pretty much the sticking point. There's nothing in the image that isn't better represented with the combination of text and a link to vagina or vulva, where the images are anatomically correct. (This image may be misleading, because it isn't particularly accurate.) --Danger (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. Making reflexive arguments based on NOTCENSORED entirely misses the point. I wish we had a properly gender-mixed group of editors responding here. This discussion would be long over by now. --JN466 02:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• You asserted that sort of thing on the gendergap mailing list as well, but when we did the informal survey, only one of the many female respondents agreed. I believe you're using this argument (which, if it were true, would certainly be worth taking in to account) to mentally cover up your own bias on the matter. IMHO, based on the actual responses there, women participants are sufficiently mature and aware to not browse to sexual or pornographic related topics unless they intentionally want to, and prepared for what they find if they go there intentionally. The opposite might be true, but asserting it is true is counter to the one (non-scientific) poll done on the issue, and truth by assertion is not a wise basis for policy.

That's not an argument that we must keep the material - but it is a valid reason that your argument on this particular point should not be blindly accepted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My recollection of these discussions is different. One woman wondered about the editorial decision-making process that results in nude images featuring a preponderance of women, not men. Another commented that when she came across material she found offensive, she was discouraged from editing, or even commenting (which is a problem). Another said she could "easily see the problem and that there are needed solutions both to make it inviting to women and to discourage any kind of sexism related to extensive editng of these articles". Another complained about being reverted with "censorship" arguments when trying to remove erotic images appearing in unexpected contexts. Another advocated a "necessity test". Another referred to inappropriate NOTCENSORED arguments as an "embarrassment". A visiting academic said about WP's pornography pages, "I don't like what I saw; find some it childish and some of it malicious." As far as the discussions on this page are concerned, I believe two women commented, both pronouncing against the image. --JN466 03:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please refresh your memory; the thread Sue started, with the question posed to the female readers. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I can mail you the URLs for all the comments above, if you like. As far as the subthread beginning with Sue's general question as to whether women had come across "offensive, degrading or discouraging" material on Wikimedia projects was concerned,

• one post stated "I do not think it is negative, degrading etc.",
• another said "Occasionally on user pages. Rarely in the article namespace.",
• another said (in relation to an article on de:WP) "looking at the pictures, you'd think only women are practicing bondage ...I wonder how the 'editorial' choice was made there.",
• another said "In my personal experience, I when I have come across material I found offensive I was discouraged from editing in the immediate area (or even commenting) and leaving my name in any way associated with the material.",
• another said, that "I don't think there's a sliding scale of educational value from softcore to hardcore. I expect to find pictures of pinups on 'Pinups'. I expect to find relevant drawings on 'Fellatio' ... Does the multiplication of sexual images need to be dealt with in a different manner than the multiplication of personal snapshots? I could see proposing a new image speedy deletion criterion for unused graphic images ... Graphic material of any sort does not belong on the main page."
• another said, in relation to en:WP, "Get more women in, have a central womens wikiproject or portal where efforts to remove material for WP:Undue/or other policy violating reasons can be advertised and the most questionable photographs (like five of the seven on the bondage article) can be removed."
• The visiting scholar who posted a couple of weeks later said, "I've never been on the pornography pages of Wikipedia or any of the ones cited as offensive. ... I don't like what I saw; find some it childish and some of it malicious. Just like life."

Those were the posts from that subthread. I've said this before: I wrote this article. Its text is extremely explicit, because the sources I cited are reputable and similarly explicit. I don't have a problem with the article having an image; I asked Seedfeeder to create a better one (he said he would, but unfortunately has since retired without doing so). I've considered creating one myself, and may still do so. But this image is not it. It's juvenile crap. --JN466 05:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have used the alternate (vaginal) drawing and moved it down the page per my earlier suggestions. I think the image is the same poor quality, but it continues to illustrate the article just as well and addresses some of the concerns raised. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

While I have no objection to the new picture, I don't see it as any improvement either. What are the concerns raised that it addresses? 24.62.227.76 (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

People were complaining that it was not representative of the topic. "Creampie" usually refers to vaginal creampie, to not the anal one. The new image was made to address only that specific complaint. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This is Awesome. (Bgluck (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

no shit.. i barely contribute, just sometimes edit typos when i read an article, but i LOVE to read comment pages to see a bunch of wp fanatics argue their heads off. i disagree with the loser who wants to remove the pic. 77.176.233.210 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)