Talk:Pearl necklace (sexual act)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Joe Schmoe

Why is this bit being removed? It's a proper reference Riphal 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I found a citation, is tv.com (formerly tvtome i believe) good enough? http://www.tv.com/the-joe-schmo-show/on-with-the-schmo/episode/324609/summary.html?tag=ep_list;title;0
The link refers to the elimination ceremony as a pear necklace eviction ceremony.Riphal 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The site is editable by users. The Terms of Use includes the sentence, "Our sites include a combination of content that we create, that our partners create, and that our users create." This make the site unacceptable as a source for Wikipedia articles. -- Donald Albury 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH :-(

Is this a PORN SITE? :-(

Since the world is full of porn and since Wikipedia isn't censored, I guess parts of it have to have porn :P Sonic3KMaster(talk) 22:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture selecion

Publicgirluk. I don't think that's the best representation of a pearl necklace. It clearly seems to be a second facial picture. Perhaps you could generate another pearl necklace picture which would isolate the deposition of semen on the neck area. Kudos to you for being so generous though.

I agree that the image, while enticing, is not actually a perfect depiction of a pearl necklace. I would suggest that another, more accurate image is in order. If you find yourself uncertain as to what image might be best, feel free to email a dozen or so to me and I'll be happy to sort through them and post the most...appropriate...one to this article. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I would offer to help you with the selection process, but my wife just doesn't understand what I see in such pictures (oh wait, maybe she does understand ...) -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Linkimage

  • I am setting up the image as a "linkimage". This means it is shown as a link rather than as an image. Doing this keeps the image available for people who want to see it, but it helps us remain legal. In the US, where our servers are based, one must abide by laws such as model releases and taking steps to avoid pornography is seen by minors. Putting the image behind an extra link serves as notice not to click the link unless you are specifically ready to view this type of image. Johntex\talk 06:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The rationale is that it a resonable compromise between several competing aims. One of those aims is to be informative. That aim is met since anyone can make a simple click to see the image. Another aim is to aid the general reputation of the project. Although you may disagree with their opinion, there are lots of readers that would say such an image is not worthy of being in an encyclopedia at all. Some of these people object or moral grounds, etc. While we may not agree with them, linking the image allows them to read an informative article without veiwing the image. Another set of people would be people who come to this article not knowing what the term means. They may be browsing at work or at school, and this gives them also a chance to read the article and then decide if they want to click the image. Another aim is to keep Wikipedia legal and available to as many people as possible. There are many jurisdictions where presenting pornographic images to minors is illegal. Putting the image behind a link helps us to avoid running afoul of those laws.
With respect to the often cited WP:not censored, nothing there prevents us from making editorial decisions. What it is saying is that content is not reviewed by a central authority before being posted. It is really a disclaimer saying that we have examined every single thing that any editor decides to post some day. At any moment in term, any article may contain anything. However, that doesn't remove our editorial freedom to decide what we want to be in the articles.
In conclusion then, the linkimage violates no policy, and it seems a very reasonable compromise to help address competing aims. I hope you and others will join me in accepting this compromise so that we can devote our energies to making the text of the article as informative as possible. Johntex\talk 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the editorial "choice," then. I don't consider it useful to hide material that may be "objectionable" behind a link. It certainly violates WP:NOT guidelines, and arguably WP:NPOV, as it's your point of view that it needs to be hidden. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks for taking the time to elaborate Johntex, your points are well made. While I suspect that concerns about legal issues are probably unfounded, I can always respect an attempt at compromise; that's part of what keeps WP going. And I can agree completely with your final point about improving the stub that this article is right now. I've actually tried to write a few sentences to expand it, but...I'm not used to working on this type of article. Rumor has it that badlydrawnjeff has some experience in this area, maybe he can find a way to add some content (hint, hint). --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hahah! I hate that I'm gaining *that* reputation too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to both Doc and Jeff for your views.
With respect to WP:Not, there is no violation at all. "WP:not censored for the protection of minors" is often misconstrued to mean somehting that it does not mean at all. People seem to think it means that we have some sort of policy against taking out material that would be harmful to minors. That is not the case. Going back to the usual definition of "censorship", it refers to action by a central authority. What WP:not is actually saying is that we don't have a central authority reviewing all work before it is posted. It is actually a disclaimer warning the reader that at any point in time any article may contain offensive language, pornographic material, etc. It is not doing anything to limit the decisions that we make as editors. It is just warning people that we may or may not have taken it out as of the moment they read the article.
WP:NPOV means that the article needs to be written from a neutral point of view. That means we should not have statements like "Recieving pearl necklaces are gross - don't ever do it." I would certainly join in removing such statements. However, on all articles, we have to make decisions about what is best for the reader and for the project.
There are several reasons why pornographic images should not be shown in articles in plain view:
1. Some of them are illegal in some jurisdictions, even for viewing by adults.
2. Many that are legally viewable by adults are not legal to show to minors.
3. Most serious reference works would not include such images and therefore, we run the risk of lowering our credibility by showing them.
4. Many people would be offended if they viewed such an image accidentally. This would be easy to do. A child may here the word "ejaculation" at school and not fully understand what it means. A person learning English might have no clue what "Autofelatio" means. (In fact, a lot of native-English speakers probably don't know either.) Someone browsing Wikipedia at work may read an article on "Anytown, USA" and see a list of famous residents from that town, then they may click on "Ms. Unknown Actress" only to find out she is a porn star speciallize in Double Penetration. Keep in mind, it is eady to change how the wikilink appears. Therefore, the text you think you are following may have little to do with the actual name of the article.
In all these cases, the person coming to the article would probably appreciate the opportunity to read about the term first, without being confronted immediately with the image.
I think it should be self-evident that our goal is not just to make a comprehensive encyclopedia. Our goal is to make an encyclopedia that is useful and well-used. If we are shut down due to obscene content, if we have to spend excessive amounts of money on legal fees fighting about certain content, if we are dismissed in the public perception as "peddlers of pornography", if people can't trust following any link for fear of what they may find there, then we are not performing well our mission.
On the flip side, putting the image behind one link keeps the image available for the inquisitive reader. That reader is able to inform themselves about what the term means, consider the legal consequences of their viewing it, if any, and then they are able to take an informed action. There is little inconvenience to them since they only have to make one click to see the image.
The linkimage compromise has worked well on other articles in the past. It is my hope that it will be a good compromise for Pearl necklace (sexuality). As Doc says, there is much informative text that can be added to this article to improve it, and I am sure we can work toghether to do that. Johntex\talk 02:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that I was strongly biased in favor of the image, mostly because I'd had a trying day when I stumbled into it and it did a lot to lift my spirits : )
Seriously though, while I'm strongly opposed to "real" censorship, I don't think that using a linkimage in this situation qualifies. It does seem like a very reasonable compromise on an inevitably controversial topic. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Found a poll on this topic. Shawnc 09:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

image and wiktionary

First, I decided to be bold and remove the image, since we're all at least in agreement that the image doesn't really demonstrate the act in the article. If we need an image, let's grab one that actually demonstrates the act.

Second, I see someone tossed a {{dicdef}} on the article. I won't revert it at the moment, but I oppose it, and hope we can all actually expand it a bit instead of just leaving it at its current stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the {{dicdef}} tag. It specifically says "If the page can be re-written to be more than a dictionary entry, please do so and remove this message." It was the best way I knew to get that on there. =) I don't particularly mind removing the image, although it does seem to show a pearl necklace (in part). I just object to the {{linkimage}} template on general principle. Powers 14:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, the irony. Someone else replaced it and I have just removed the image again (after being sure I downloaded it to my drive). I agree that the article needs a more accurate image. Also, as much as I enjoyed this...educational photo, the Linkimage still seems a good compromise. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 14:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I still feel strongly that any image should be linkimaged. Doing so is far more helpful than any harm it creates (as I explain verbosely above). I have a mild preference to leave the existing image there (as a linkimage) until a better one is found. I think it does illustrate the general concept. But I'm not strongly opposed to removing it, either. Johntex\talk 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Since badlydrawnjeff removed it I'd wait for his input. Perhaps he's doing the kind of in-depth-research that will provide a more accurate image :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll go along with whatever you guys ultimately decide, but a) I don't think the image is a good enough illustration, b) I'm opposed to putting the image behind the block regardless of the photo, and c) I have my doubts that we can find a worthwhile free/fair use image to illustrate it anyway. Honestly, it doesn't matter much to me, I'm more concerned about expanding past the stub than whatever we do for an image, so I won't touch the image if someone puts it back. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
And I feel strongly that showing images is far more helpful than any harm it creates, plus it has the advantage of conforming to precedent. =) Powers 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
There are several precedents for using linkimage with pornographic photographs. For instance, the linkimage solution has been accepted at Ejaculation for months. To my knowledge, there are no pornographic photographs on Wikipedia that are not linkimaged. There are some clinical-style drawings of sexual positions, but no photographs. Johntex\talk 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't support its usage there, either. By precedent I was refering to the copious photographs on articles such as penis, vulva, erection, circumcision, sex in advertising, breast, nipple, pubic hair, semen, and numerous others. The image in the Ejaculation article has been removed in favor of a video (linked because we can't imbed videos). Powers 13:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
While I regard myself as being very strongly against censorship of any kind, I can easily acknowledge the difference between a flaccid penis or an isolated breast, and an image of a smiling young lady dripping with semen. The former are clearly "academic interest" while the later is...titillating. FWIW, I've actually requested that Brad Patrick clarify this if possible, largely because there is significant reasonable concern about the topic. Until then, I continue to support the use of Linkimage for those things which might generally be regarded as "pornographic" as opposed to "academic". --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 14:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Doc Tropics. Those are my thoughts exactly. None of the articles listed by Powers contain images that would be considered titilating or pornographic. They are purely academic in nature. Showing nudity is one thing, showing pornography is another. Johntex\talk 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite certain how we can have an image illustrating the subject of this article that someone wouldn't consider pornographic. Powers 20:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote we leave the image up, but linked. Sex education may deal with sensitive subjects relating to pornography and pornographic images, but it is still education. And while the image may not be the best image to represent the sex act, you work with the tools you have. A teacher that doesn't have the best text book still teaches. And besides it really is a kick ass image and i think it should go up again (at least long enough for me to download it).  :-)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.163.244.221 (talk • contribs) .

  • Update - I just got an email from Brad. He said that as much as he would like to be able to offer us "stone tablets" (his words), it just ain't gonna happen. So for now, we'll just have to muddle through on our own. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I tentatively agree with the IP 128's comments; especially "you work with the tools you have". I'll go ahead and put it up again (Linkimaged), but I really won't object if someone decides to move it. Color me ambivalent. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
And again I must strongly object to the use of linkimage. It's ugly and unencyclopedic. Powers 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doc, I think you did the right thing. While not perfect, this image is a better educational tool than no image, so I think it good to have it linkimaged until/unless an even better image comes along. Johntex\talk 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur. —Nightstallion (?) 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

linkimage, again

I strongly object to this edit summary by Dalbury: [1]. There is no consensus for linkimage here, that I can see. I see a few on one side and a couple on the other. Powers T 17:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then there would be no reason to remove the linkimage then, because there is no consensus to have the image displayed inline. The linkimage is a compromise position between people who want to show the image in plain view to all readers, and those who wish to see it deleted entirely. Johntex\talk 05:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What's your point? I never said there was a reason to remove the linkimage. My point was that there was no reason to revert the removal either. Powers T 12:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced factoids

I've move these two sentences back here while waiting for sources to be provided.

  • Usually, the anterior neck or upper chest are involved, but depositing semen on the back of the neck can also be considered as creating a pearl necklace.
  • There is some debate about whether this act is truly different from a facial.

-- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary

I have removed the Witionary tag. This article is a stub but clearly encyclopaedic, and potentially more than a dicdef. Bridgeplayer 22:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The version as of September 9 is nothing more than a definition. --24.8.117.81 23:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Removal of the tag was appropriate as the article was already transwikied to wiktionary, but the tag was accidentally left in place. --Xyzzyplugh 13:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning?

Shouldn't the image be removed and a link to the image be added. Or could the image be moved to the bottom of the article with a warning at the top? This image could be disturbing to many. -24.92.41.95 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Powers T 02:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations for Popular culture section

Strait, please do not remove requests for citations until the citations have been provided. At the very least, you need to specify when (how many minutes and seconds from the start) in the movie or TV episode the reference occurs. My personal opinion is that this sort of trivia should not be included unless 'it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself' (to quote User:Uncle G/On notability), but then, it wouldn't be trivia, I guess. However, I will settle for enough information to find the reference without having to sit through the entire film or episode. -- Donald Albury 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like "popular culture references" sections, but if we have one, we should be sane about it. Minutes and seconds from the start of a movie? C'mon. Show me an article where the book or article references give page and line numbers. If it references a particular movie or episode of a TV show, that's specific enough. --Strait 04:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
What's the point of the section in general, though? Where's the importance of listing all references? How does that help build an encyclopedic article on the subject? -- nae'blis 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It helps show that the term (and perhaps the act) is (are) common enough to be notable (WP:V). Because people are reluctant to talk and write about sex in matter-of-fact ways, it's often hard to find better sorts of references. --Strait 17:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The trouble is that saying a bit of dialogue is referring to a specific term verges on original research. I think we ought to be requiring a reliable source that says that bit of dialogue is actually a use of the term in question. -- Donald Albury 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Specifying how far into the film or episode (OK, seconds may be a little much, but at least in minutes) is equivalent to specifying the page number in a book that supports a citation. This is done in other articles in Wikipedia. It is unreasonable to expect someone who wishes to verify a citation to sit through an entire film or TV episode to catch what is often an isolated reference without an idea of when to expect it to occur. -- Donald Albury 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Technical Term

I came here to find out if there is a technical term for this act. I see no mention of it. Is there an ism to describe this?

Not that I am aware of. I will keep an eye for the use of one and will add it to the article if found. Johntex\talk 04:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pearl_necklace_(sexual_act)/Archive_1&oldid=1156210217"