Talk:Pre-ejaculate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pre-ejaculate 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

On the first paragraph, the last word inside the starting bracket was missing a closing bracket, I have edited this to include the closing bracket.

Contents 1 Picture discussion January 2006 2 AIDS/HIV and pregnancy risk 3 Picture discussion starting April 2006 4 From RfC 5 Picture discussion December 2006 - 2007 6 Inline image proposal 7 TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

[edit] Picture discussion January 2006

The picture is somewhat offensive, maybe it could be changed to something a little more scientific and less pornographic.

The picture really serves no purpose. shaddix 11:41, 01 January 2006

It clearly serves *a* purpose, which is to illustrate the topic of the article. However I do think the photograph is a bit jarring when included in-line. Perhaps a link to the image with a clear explanation would do the trick?

That seems fine, as long as it is not the same image. shaddix 9:30, 02 January 2006

There is nothing wrong with the original image. The license is good and the image clearly depicts the subject matter. I fail to see what makes the image "pornographic" except, perhaps, that the model has a well-developed physique. But that is not a reason to exclude an otherwise accurate and useful image.

I get really offended by all the moral fanatics pushing to eliminate all images that are sex-related. This picure is not pornographic, it clearly depicts the subject, which happens to be sexually related. The picture is perfectly suited to its context and is not gratuitous, or even arousing. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to censor its images for the purpose of placating a handful of fanatics. THe picture should remain on the web page, accesible as an accurate depicture of something for all who seek knolwedge about that thing.

The porn picture has to go. Young kids look stuff up on this site they dont need to see such graphic sexual images..GROSE!!!!!!!!!

its "gross" not "grose"

THIS picture is too much, i was taken back when i saw it, u cannot even see the preejaculate, it would at least be better to have a close up of only the head, then at least the picture would have something to do with the subject

^^^ he's right

~No, he's not right. You can see the secretion quite plainly. Its the clear goo oozing out of the meatus. One doesn't need to be Dr. Ruth to point it out. If there were an image of copius amounts of the stuff dripping down to the floor, that'd be considered vile by the same people pronouncing the current pic pornographic. Its really tragic that we've taken to censoring ourselves with mere accusations that something is "grosse" and hysteria about the chance that children might see something that some think they should not. There are other images of precum available (check google). Many of them are closeups that do not include a man's genitals protruding from a jock strap...a dead giveaway about hte image's pornographic origins. The truth is though that people aren't offended by the image's origins...they're offended by the image which, in its context, is totally non-pornographic and appropriate. It could be the most unsexy pic from a medical text, and they'd react similarly, because people are so hysterical about sex.

This is a sad day on wikipedia, when we find ourselves shutting off every image with accusations of "pornography", simply because the nature of the topic makes us uncomfortable.

Excellent, I'll just go add pictures of people taking a crap on each other on the coprophilia page. 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS/HIV and pregnancy risk

• "the virus responsible for the disease AIDS, in pre-ejaculate. Although the frequency of HIV transmission through oral-genital contact is fairly low [3] a risk still exists.". I took the liberty of removing this passage. No one is certain whether the low incidence of HIV transmission in oral sex is a result of the low concentration of HIV in precum, digestive enzymes in saliva, or the mechanics of the average, healthy mouth (no where for the HIV to go for infection). I worry that including it could prove destructive, as people may underestimate the risk of transmission from a substance that may or may not be dangerous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.173.210.48 (talk • contribs).

• Added a bit more info relating to pre-ejaculate and birth control, plus some documentation. I figure that's probably why most people would visit this page. What was already here sounded incontravertible, and could have the pontial for more people to use Coitus interruptus. I wanted to get some facts out there about the average effectiveness. 69.245.48.182 19:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture discussion starting April 2006

Merriam Wesbter defines pronography as "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement". This picture is not intended for sexual excitement, it is intended for information purposes only. Those who refer to information as "grose" are preoccupied with sex and porn. The fact that it is a link and not a picture on the page is enough of a warning. Children who go looking for gross pictures will indeed find it but those who use wikipedia as an encyclopedia(which it is) will find it if they need a visual guide. And anyways what kid who isn't looking for something gross would be looking up pre-ejaculation. All in all the picture should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.18.143 (talk • contribs).

I was very shocked with the picture in this page. If we want to start depicting real pictures in the encyclopedia, then maybe we should start putting pictures for "Male/Female Ejaculation", "Masturbation", and "semen" ... They would be "accurate and useful images" woudn't they? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.229.38.177 (talk • contribs).

• Your shock is no reason to remove the picture. I was shocked that Greenland is 100% literate, but you don't see me protesting the inclusion of that image in its associated articles. We do have a picture at Semen, there's discussion about adding one to Ejaculation, and the image of female ejaculation isn't in the article because it's not well-sourced. Masturbation can be adequately illustrated by a line drawing (whereas it's much harder to provide a useful line drawing of a fluid). In any case, the other articles are irrelevant: our main guide here should be Wikipedia policy. I've re-added the image. ^L_Wizard @ 08:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The picture to my mind is not a problem within the article 'Pre-ejaculate', but when come across as a result of redirection from Preseminal fluid - currently on the front page under AIDS. Those clicking on Pre-ejaculate are likely to expect a graphic representation, and so the image is fine; those clicking on Preseminal fluid may well not be familliar with the term and hence be offended at the image. Perhaps the image could be moved lower down the page so that users are aware of what article they are reading before being presented with the image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcrowdy (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia:Profanity: "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." A picture of some exhibitionist's penis is indeed profane and, judging from the above discussion, is clearly offensive. It does not add to the article at all, since "clear lubricating fluid that is issued from a man's penis when he is sexually aroused" pretty much tells the whole story. Clearly, some people have this on their watchlist, choosing to ignore the link at "Wikipedia is not censored" to Wikipedia:Profanity, and re-add every time someone deletes. And many of these people will not be convinced by Wikipedia policy that violates their own ideas of what Wikipedia should be. But I hope that most of you will respect not only what Wikipedia rules say, but also what Wikipedia aspires to be. People who insist on unnecessary explicit photographs will make Wikipedia something avoided by teachers, students, the press, and the general public, since it enforces the popular image of Wikipedia as a Wild West where smut and lies are easily promulgated, rather than a self-regulating source of information that is just as reliable and relevant as a traditional encyclopedia. 192.68.228.4 21:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether the photo makes the article any more informative, relevant, or accurate. I think it does. "Clear lubricating fluid that is issued from a man's penis" doesn't tell the whole story - that also describes sweat. I don't think words will ever describe pre-ejaculate thoroughly enough that a photo wouldn't add something.

You should also note that we may disagree on what Wikipedia aspires to be, and my search of policy doesn't turn up anything to settle our disagreement. We clearly have to offend some people (for instance, by not putting "PBUH" after every reference to Muhammad), so I see no compelling reason to hypervalue the American prudishness about nudity and sex. I think Wikipedia should aspire to value information foremost - far more than it values not offending anyone who might want that information.

That all said, I am willing to use the linkimage template currently used at Ejaculation and Autofellatio in this type of situation. ^L_Wizard @ 23:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is really that confused as to confuse sweat with pre-ejaculate. I've never heard the word "issued" used with sweat, though if you think the language is confusing, by all means change it. Asserting such confusion, one can easily cite the photograph as confusing; where did the fluid come from and how did it get to the tip?

The articles for the other usual male urethral discharges, semen and urine, do not have pictures of penises. There is a reason for this: it is not useful nor is it necessary. It is not "censorship" to get rid of photographs that are unnecessary and in poor taste. I'm fairly confident that no physical encyclopedia has a photograph for this entry, including those that have photos and diagrams under the word "penis" itself. As I said before, many people will not be convinced by a Wikipedia policy that violates their own ideas of what Wikipedia should be, but I hope that those with open minds will realize that the argument against using the photograph is (a) consistent with Wikipedia policy and (b) not just "prudishness." 192.68.228.4 23:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There certainly are people who don't know the difference between sweat and pre-ejaculate: won't somebody please think of the children We have lots of pictures of things that can be easily described or that everyone knows: paperclip, foot, etc. We also have a lot of images that may be found offensive that add only somewhat to the articles missionary position, Bahaullah, autofellatio, ejaculation. According to WP:WIAGA, we should have an image. The image makes the article more informative. That's the bottom line. With that condition met, WP:Profanity obliges us to include it - there is an 'if' right before the 'only if' from which you were arguing.

It is not censorship to get rid of photos that are unnecessary, I agree. This photo is necessary.

What physical encyclopedias do is irrelevant. Before all else, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.

What people are or are not convinced of is irrelevant: we operate under Wikipedia policies, not based on user whim. If you disagree with the policy, dispute it at its talk page. As it is, your argument against inclusion of the image is inconsistent with WP:Profanity, as I noted above. ^L_Wizard @ 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the whim here is the opinion that the photograph is necessary, since it is against Wikipedia policy on profanity. As I said, no such picture is present for comparable entries (semen, urine, vaginal lubrication), and the picture contains nothing that words could not: e.g., "clear droplet emerging from penis tip" describes the picture perfectly. It's not even 100% clear from the picture that the discharge is urethral; an inexperience person could think it to be sweat, if I run with the argument that the usefulness of the photograph is distinguishing the two fluids. A diagram might be useful and informative, but this is not.

I knew when I stated my case that there would be users so convinced of the status quo that no appeal to policy or logic would work. Since one of those users has the entry on a watchlist, any attempt to change it will merely result in a revert war, ultimately preserving the status quo. Thus, this entry is ultimately dictated by this user. However, since a linkimage template has been proposed, I suppose that's a compromise the both of us can live with; let's hope everyone else can as well. 192.68.228.4 18:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, one user can't and has reverted rather than joining the discussion. I reverted back, and, unless this fellow wants to make his/her case, will continue to do so. I may view User:LizardWizard's interpretation of the rules as arbitrary, but at least (s)he has the balls to argue for it. 192.68.228.4 23:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, my position is not that "the photograph is necessary since it is against Wikipedia policy on profanity." The policy on profanity says that "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." Just rearranging that grammatically a bit and sticking to relevant sections, it says "if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, images should be used." That is how WP:Profanity necessitates the inclusion of the image. ^L_Wizard @ 01:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I understood (and understand) your rationale, but, unfortunately, it is (as stated) not logical; see, e.g., Inverse (logic). Not being useful implies not to use the image, but being useful does not necessarily imply to use to the image. That said, of course, I still don't find it useful to the article, but very much appreciate your efforts at compromise, and would be happy to see such a compromise be reached. 192.68.228.4 18:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is logical. WP:Profanity has an if and only if. This strong relationship between the statements is true when inverted (i.e. (P <-> Q) -> (~P <-> ~Q)). It may be surprising that WP:Profanity makes this sort of claim, but it does. I'm trained in logic so if you'd like I can give you a natural deduction proof from "images should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative" and "the image's omission would cause the article to be less informative" to "the image should be used" (it's only about six lines). We disagree on the premise regarding the image's utility, and we may believe that WP:Profanity shouldn't make such broad statements as it does (i.e. an if and only if statement), but from those premises we cannot disagree on the conclusion. ^L_Wizard @ 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your quotation of the guidelines; I should have reread what you wrote, not just what I wrote. You are right: If it is useful, it should be included. Of course, you know my position on its usefulness - as in other bodily fluids, one need not show from where it emerged to have a full understanding of its look and function. But the compromise is one that all but the linkage-is-censorship dead-enders can agree on. 192.68.228.4 19:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We so far have one person for the picture per edits (Circeus) one person for the picture but accepting of the link compromise (LizardWizard), one person against the picture but accepting of the link compromise (192.68.228.4), one person for moving the picture further down the article (RCrowdy) and one person for the link compromise (myself). I think the link is winning. Lyrl 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Profanity is a guideline, but as a policy, Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia:Content disclaimer clearly state:

Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.

and

Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States

I utterly fail to see how this image (certainly less offensive than, say, Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg or Image:Penis corrected.jpg) breaks any established policy. I think a point has been clearly made on this talk page that this image is, from past consensus,both clearly appropriate and not offensive to a majority of people. That is why I firmly believe it should stay, and would actually favor its inclusion in the lead paragraph. Circeus 02:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. --Scienceman123 04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As fun as it may be to ignore consensus weeks after close of discussion, it really doesn't help. It's too bad nothing official came of this, but, as I read it, consensus was reached for having a link to the image while not including it, and Circeus was the only opposed party (with Rcrowdy's opinion not precisely determined). If you see a point of view not here or want to reopen things, by all means do so, but, as is, this is merely a useless revert war and a waste of everyone's time. 66.245.3.239 04:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you are having trouble deciding on the image usage for this article, so I've got a few non-erotic photographs showing the pre-ejaculate in a non-sexual context. I think these images do a good job of showing the anatomical function without being distracting. There are four to choose from. Here for your consideration. -- 678901 21:43, 20 August 2006.

My apologies if I am wrong, but these seems a lot like a troll. I don't think anyone's deciding which picture to use; the discussion is about whether to display (or link) a picture of a penis at all. And "showing the pre-ejaculate in a non-sexual context"? Unless you discovered some use for the fluid other than the intended one, every context is, by definition, sexual. If other people believe this is a troll, we should probably remove the pictures; if not, no harm in linking them. Again, my apologies if this is an inaccurate characterization. 192.68.228.4 23:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From RfC

While I think the image deserves a prominent place in the article, the reverting has to stop. It is counter-productive to consensus building. I think many of you are making good-faith efforts to discuss the issue here on the talk page. I also think that there is currently no consensus for either removing the image entirely nor having the image inline.

Circeus makes a good point, though. Wikipedia is not censored is policy, while Wikipedia:Profanity is only a guidline. I do worry about Circeus' statement that the image is, "both clearly appropriate and not offensive to a majority of people." It is not clearly appropriate. If it were, this discussion would not be taking place. As for a majority of people... I'd like to see where you got your statistics.

To sum up my rambling:

• Reverting needs to stop until the discussion is done. I suggest leaving the image link until then.
• The image may be offensive to some, but is a good illustration of the topic. —D-Rock

I thought that the fact the anon has been the only one to insist on reverting the image in a while tended to prove the existence of a consensus to keep the image inline. Circeus 04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if true, what is the harm in discussion, and a compromise while the discussion is ongoing? —D-Rock 15:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the January discussion and the edit history, several people have been against the inclusion of the photograph. I doubt any one of them wanted to get into a revert war in which they would check up to see if the photograph, offensive to them, was up; if you don't like seeing it once, you probably won't want to see it several times a day. And I'm not sure any of them were aware of Wikipedia:Profanity, which states that if the photograph doesn't help the article, it shouldn't be there; again, semen, urine, and vaginal lubrication do not have such images, so it is not necessary, and, even if it were, other articles have potentially offensive images linked, not inline. I realize there is a reflex to regard any change regarding offensive content, if not POV or spam, as "censorship," but I hope people will look past the reflex and judge according to the guidelines, not impulse. Thanks to those who reformatted this; I considered doing so, but I didn't want to be too pushy! 192.68.228.4 18:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

again, semen, urine, and vaginal lubrication do not have such images,

Should I have to point out that urine and semen can be illustrated without requiring illustrating the male member? (there actually IS an image at semen, Image:Semen.jpg) See also human feces. The lack of images at vaginal lubrication probably has more to do with us having no images than images being unnecessary to properly illustrate the topic. Circeus 18:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

192.68.228.4, I find your argument, it's not in these other articles, so it doesn't belong here, specious. Your argument doesn't allow for the possiblity images should be included in those other articles. However, after some thought and discussion in meatspace, I wonder if the picture is at all informative apart from the prose in the article. "Clear fluid that is issued from a man's penis when he is sexually aroused" is not augmented in the least from this paticular photograph. I propose the current set-up remain. —D-Rock 00:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, my argument was never it's not in these other articles, so it doesn't belong here. It was, as you say, that the article is not augmented by this particular photograph. As evidence of this, I pointed to the other articles, which also lacked similar photographs due to their non-necessity. This observation was presented evidence, not proof, that the photograph was unnecessary. Sorry if that was unclear. 192.68.228.4 00:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my incorrect assumption. —D-Rock 01:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with D-Rock on keeping the image inline. There is no consensus here for not having it inline.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I really fail to see the problem with this image, it's not in itself erotic, pornographic or lewd, and seems appropriate. If this is an encyclopedia we must consider whether it will be helpful to those who access it; young boys may who are confused/ignorant/insecure about what is happening to their bodies are likely to find this reassuring. I cannot believe that this image will be the cause of prurient fascination; it's hardly centre fold stuffGleng 07:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't buy into the arguement that it is pornographic, however, the image is certainly jarring. I know 'jarring' isn't really a wikipolicy, but I see no reason why the image cannot be left as a link so that particularly squeemish people don't get an eyefull of precum, pun intented. It also seems like it be a good middle ground between those that want it deleted and those that want it kept. CaptainManacles 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

WP isn't a medical textbook, so readers should maybe have the choice of whether or not they want to see "lewd" photos when the image may be somewhat discretionary (as opposed to articles like vagina). --Nectar 21:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture discussion December 2006 - 2007

Some lonely nerd made this picture in order to get a few jollies from posting explicit pictures of themselves in an "educational" fashion. I say go ahead and take another's advice and post pictures of people taking craps on each other on the coprophilia page. It's the same deal. Both are unnecessary - a textual description will do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.234.63.28 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I could imagine there are some girls, and possibly some curious guys as well who want to know exactly what it looks like. Given your logic, we shouldn't put a picture of a banana on the banana article simply because everyone already knows what it looks like, and "a textual description will do." Well, I happen to believe that a lot more people don't know what pre-ejaculate looks like than a banana. 66.157.60.203 23:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's kind of a weak argument, considering it looks no different from tears, and everyone knows what tears look like. (Hint: It's not like a banana.) Nevertheless, a compromise was reached, and it would be good if it were respected barring further significant debate and consensus. Calbaer 18:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Logical error. You're saying "it looks no different from tears." While everyone may know what tears look like, not everyone knows, in fact, it looks like tears. A lot of people may believe it to look like semen. Just so you know, we have a picture of semen on the semen article. You may think it's not such a big deal and all, but educating people through sexuality articles is a very important priority. And you'd be surprised how little some people know about sexuality topics. 68.222.23.140 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Looks like tears with the consistency of semen" is actually more informative than having a picture. Anyway, I'm not pushing for the status quo to be changed. I'm just pointing out that one need not click on the photograph (or make it inline) to know what the fluid looks like. Calbaer 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In the most recent discussion (this section) there are two people who want to delete the image altogether (first anon poster and Calbaer), and one person who supports inclusion of the picture but does not specify inline vs. link preference (second anon posteR). Calbaer also indicates his support for the compromise position of linking the picture. I fail to see how this could be interpreted as consensus to make the picture inline, as implied by JeffGent in his recent edit to the image.

To restate my own position (from many months ago), I support either a linkimage, or placement of the inline image at the bottom of the article, where it is unlikely to be the first thing to load. An image is fine, but having it be the very first thing one sees when coming to this article is something I oppose. There was opposition from both sides when I first proposed moving the image to the bottom of the article (people completely opposed to inline image, and people completely opposed to not having the image at the very top of the article), so the compromise of linkimage at the top of the article won out. Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving the image down seems silly. At most modern resolutions the article fits on one page, so we can't hide the picture "below the fold". I'd prefer to have the image inline, but will accept a linkimage (at the top of the article). ^L_Wizard @ 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline image proposal

I propose that, as originally added in this diff by 67.187.114.75 at 21:22 on 9 May 2006 (UTC) and reverted to many times since by many different editors, this image be inline.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

While the current picture may have only been around since May, a picture was first added to the article 15 August 2005 (diff). It was removed that same day. A picture was next added 1 January 2006 (diff), again reverted the same day.

A link to an image was added 2 January 2006 (diff). This was the status quo until 9 May 2006, when an inline image was added for the third time (diff). Since then, there has been a lot of editing to change between inline and linked image. Editing to change from an inline picture to a linked image has also been done "many times by many different editors". I don't believe that's a convincing argument for either side. Lyrl ^Talk _C 03:31, 27 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) 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)