From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured list. Please see its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.

	List of sex positions is part of WikiProject Sexuality, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of human sexuality. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of sex positions article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Requests/Questions 1.1 Citations? 1.2 Image - Removed 1.3 Generalizing 1.4 Images 1.5 TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

[edit] Requests/Questions

Discussion on Guidelines for images in Sexology and Sexuality articles
Click here

Archives

1 2

[edit] Citations?

• My comment is partially in response to the "urban dictionary" post above and partially to the "citation needed" links sprinkled liberally throughout the article. Why are citations needed for most of these, especially some of the common or obvious ones? I don't think we really need a scholarly source to tell us they exist. I'm fairly new to the editing side of wikipedia (despite the creation date of my account being just minutes ago, I've made a number of anonymous contributions before, so I'm not THAT new!), so I'm not really up on the interpretation of policies, but I've read the "verifiable" policy and the "no original research" policy. It seems to me that something that intuitively seems correct and can also be verified with a trivially simple experiment (along the lines of "if I drop a dense object, it will fall") shouldn't fall under "original research" and also shouldn't need to be verified with an external source. If there's a consensus that agrees with me, I'll come back and remove a bunch of the citations; if not, then I guess I'll take my opinion to the policy talk pages. In support of my position I offer the discussion here. Yanroy 08:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of the "citation needed"s are there because:

• The position is given a name and it is not clear that the name is used by anyone except the person who added it.
• There are claims made about the position such as "good for pregnancy" which are not obvious.

Less critically, some positions are marked as needing a citation, in my mind, because it is not clear that they really belong on a list which, by necessity (see top of the article), can only contain the more common positions. Having a mention in a published source would be an indication that they are worth listing. --Strait 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a "This Thread Is Useless Without Pics" type thing. At least, that's what it looks like.  :)

[edit] Image - Removed

Sorry I reverted the two images that were removed. An automatic reaction to the removal of images by an anon IP. One of them clearly is no longer a valid image. I should have checked that.

The other image, Image:Doublepen.png seems to be a legitimate image. I note that it is from Wikipedia commons, and has a valid GFDL license by user Helmans[1]. It is artwork, and not a picture. It is stylistically different than the other images in that it is coloured, rather than B/W. But seems to be an image directly related to the section that it is in.

I note a discussion related to this image at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Looking_for_guidance. The conversation, IMO, would suggest that ther eis no problem with this image as long as it is not a copyvio. It does not appear to be a copyvio. Am I mistaken? I will return the image once again. We can certainly discuss whether the image is approriate for this section, this article, and stylistically appropriate, or not. Atom 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The image indicates it was sourced from the English wikipedia so it obviously has copyright issues. I'm going to hold off discussion about including the image in the article until the image source is provided and the copyright status can be verified. I really never put much weight on the copyright status and verifiability of images but it’s something that should be taken care of before including the image in the article, especially if it has the potential to disrupt the flow of editing or cause edit disputes. --I already forgot 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with determining the copyright status clearly in advance. If it isn't in the article for awhile, I don't think anyone will suffer. They will probably figure out how to do it anyhow. Atom 19:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Although, I checked out the image pretty throughly. You say that it is sourced form en.wikipedia, and obviously has copyright issues. But, I show that the image we have been talking about Image:Doublepen.png is from Wikipedia Commons. Going to the refeence on Wikipedia Commons[2], shows that it was added by a user "helmans" [3] with no user page, and the only contribution was this image, on 29 June 2006. It shows author as "Cris, Self-made" and has a GFDL[[4]] tag for licensing. I admit the detail is fairly sketchy, but it seems we have done due diligence in determining licensing status, and it is marked clearly licensed under GFDL.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License.

Is there some reason to believe that it is not, in fact GFDL licensed? Does Wikipedia not accept or use GFDL licenses images? Wikipedia:Image_use_policy does not explicitly mention GFDL licensing. However, Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags does explicitly say that an image should have GFDL, cc-by-sa-2.5, or public domain tags. What am I missing here? Why does it have copyright issues? Atom 19:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The image is in fact from wikimedia commons which indicates the source is English wikipedia. English wikipedia is not the source of the image so the proper source needs to be provided. Any person can create an account, upload an image, and tag it with a copyright status. If the user provides the source of the image the copyright status can be verified. Thats my understanding at least. --I already forgot 19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I still don't get it. The image is on the commons site, not on en.wikipedia, nor does it say it is on en.wikipedia. It says that the image was created by the downloader, it gives a very explicit GFDL licensing status. The article does list "english Wikipedia" but the author means that it was created FOr the english wikipedia. Regardless of the incorrect usage of that field, it is licensed. Its source is "self-made". It is GFDL licensed by the creator. Wikipedia allows use of GFDL licensed images. That means we have done our due diligence. Atom 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

errr... I don't get what this fuss it about, it ought to be obvious this image is fine. You can't possibly be saying "source must be provided", isn't possible! Or do you want the editor to provide a picture of his/her hand?!?! Mathmo ^Talk 20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF? How is this hard to understand? Source is not how or by what means the image was created, it’s where the image was attained and where the permission came from. English wikipedia did not provide the image or give permission to use it so the source needs to be provided. If the author of the image is also the source, make it clear that's the case as not all authors of images can give permission to use the work. How is that not clear? Seems like a pretty easy fix by the user??? Anyway, it doesn’t seem to be as big a deal as I was led to believe so the conversation of excluding the image for copyright problems is moot at this point.

On a side note, can I get some background music from The Dwarves on this page? Back seat of my car would work wonderfully with this article...seriously. --I already forgot 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If the copyright question is resolved, then I suggest that {{linkimage}} would be the ideal compromise here. We need to think of what will best serve our readers. Some of them will (based upon past experiences from other encyclopedias) expect to be able to read an informative article on sexual positions without encountering drawings or photos that directly portray penetration. Others may be conditioned by the amount of pornography available on-line to expect that we would be pushing the boundaries and allowing this sort of image to remain. Putting the image in the article but behind a single click helps cater to both desired user experiences. Johntex\^talk 19:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Per our guidelines, this artwork does not fit the characteristics for {{linkimage}}, as it is artwork, and not a picture or video. This is obviously a sexually explicit and frank article. The section the image is in is described as multiple penetration, and the artwork is precisely that. Please don't use rhetoric to censor. If you think there is an editorial or licensing reason for not having the image, then let's discuss that. We aren't going to remove the image because you think it is stylistically similar to what you consider to be pornographic. If it meets the miller test for obscenity, then we should remove it. It the image is not appropriate to the content, then let's remove it. If we have a better image that illustrates that section, then let's change it. But, not just because it squicks you, okay? Please see the Wikipedia Content disclaimer again, if you please. Atom 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Generalizing

Maybe the original sources don't generalize, but to keep the article consistent, generalizing the positions seems like a good idea. There's no need to keep the descriptions gender specific especially when the article section starts with the words "These positions involve the insertion of a penis or penis-like object (such as a strap-on dildo) into a vagina or anus." If the reader wants to know the original text information, then they can look there. You can't say that the Kama Sutra was written for such instances as when a strap-on or some such is used. --Zuejay 01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll compromise on Burton's "Seventh posture" for the reasons you give. But I think that it is silly to generalize "lateral coital position" or "coital alignment technique" when they are precisely defined terms which specifically refer to penile-vaginal intercourse and do so for particular reasons. This is in contrast with all other positions in this article — even those listed in the Perfumed Garden or Kama Sutra are not defined anywhere near as precisely as these. --Strait 04:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I can't say that I've read these texts, that'll have to do. Changing the "Seventh posture" now. Thanks. --Zuejay 05:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I hereby request that all sexual positions in this article be replaced with these. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.153.3.86 (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Absolutely, that way they would be completely non-offensive to everybody! lol. Well... except perhaps robots?!?! Mathmo ^Talk 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets just formally oppose on grounds of sillyness Martijn Hoekstra 13:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)