Jump to content

Talk:Pearl necklace (sexual act)/Archive 3

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

Building consensus for the image

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was JeffGent, Prolog and others have argued that they "don't see consensus" for using Linkimage on this page, choosing to reinstate the image. I find this troublesome, because I do not see consensus for including the image on the page. Dalbury, 67.101.64.229, Force10 and particularly Johntex have each voiced concerns, and numerous users have removed the image outright or used the {{Linkimage}} template without discussion. The repeated removal and linking of the image, the repeated comments that the image should be removed demonstrate that many people have a problem with including this image on the page. The subsequent reinstatement and protest shows that we have no consensus, period.

The academic-style discussion above was interesting, but it largely skirted around the matter: many people want to read about this sexual topic, without having a photo of the aftermath of a sex act as an integral part of their reading experience. Of the people who object to this, I want to ask the following:

Are you kidding me? A visual is not needed to describe what ejaculate looks like on a persons neck. I can not believe something so graphic would remain on an educational website. This is completely unnecessary and bordering on offensive.

1) Including the image caters to those already comfortable with the topic, instead of those who are newer to the subject or more hesitant about the subject matter. If you believe this is the best choice, can you justify the loss of readers who will not read the page with the image inline, who would be able to educate themselves on the topic if the image required a click?
2) What is lost by requiring interested users to click to see the image? Can you demonstrate that this loss is greater than the loss of readers?
3) Can you demonstrate the necessity of the immediate accessibility of a photo of a young woman with semen dribbled on her?

Thanks in advance for helping build consensus. Joie de Vivre 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The image was inline and unchallenged for months before one user turned it into a link. Of course there will always be image removals on certain pages, such as this, penis, Muhammad, et cetera. These usually happen because users are not aware of our policies and guidelines. We do not censor because some people find some content offensive: "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers."
Not having the illustration would make this article less informative. The linkimage template is also dislaimerish and gives the impression that the editors of this article have judged the image to be offensive, which raises neutrality concerns. Prolog 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
We are on the same page about not wanting to remove the image entirely. Regarding usage of the Linkimage template: I would like to point out that the Linkimage template has survived two nominations for deletion, so apparently there is consensus that it has legitimate uses. It is mainly used to provide a discretionary layer for individual images which are deemed by consensus to be disruptive to a significant number of readers if included inline. The repeated protestations here show that concern over this image bears legitimate weight.
The way I see it is this: this is an encyclopedia article whose primary purpose is to educate. Using Linkimage improves the educational value of the article, by increasing the number of readers who will be willing to read the piece. We can provide a text-based resource to those who want it and a photographically-enhanced version to those who wish to see it. We can help people who are otherwise uncomfortable with the topic to learn about it.
I don't see this as a censorship issue; because nothing is actually gone. The Linkimage template puts control in the hands of the reader by providing an interactive choice as to what images they see. I see a user-controlled option as particularly beneficial in this instance. Thoughts? Joie de Vivre 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The template survived the Tfd's, but even many of those wanting it kept emphasized that it must be used carefully on consensus-basis. I do not think we should aim to educate when building articles, but only to provide free textual and visual information to the reader, whether he/she likes the presentation or not. Since this not creampie, the image is very unlikely to prevent the reader from concentrating on the text part. It could be a distraction to many but due to both personal and cultural differences, it is like that with many articles; Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, etc. This project would be too large to deal with all the different objections anyway, but I think the neutral approach to all images and text is one of our strengths. Prolog 06:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As always, I strongly support the use of Linkimage for images of a graphic or potentially shocking nature, and I continue to do so here. I regard it as the best possible compromise between those who want the image freely available, and those who want it removed entirely. While it is undeniably true that WP is not censored, I've never regarded Linkimage usage as censorship because the image remains available to any that wish to view it. I would push for a consensus to use Linkimage in this article, but until we have one I will continue to revert those who delete the image entirely without joining this discuission. Doc Tropics 03:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This subject's name ("pearl necklace") is dependent upon its appearance, so, the inclusion of an image might help to illustrate this point. On the other hand, I agree that a graphic depiction of this nature might be distracting or off-putting to some readers, especially those who are accessing this article from a work or school setting, and who might not know what exactly to expect regarding the meaning of "pearl necklace" in a sexual context. I think Wikipedia should aim to balance informativeness with maintaining readability for a wide audience, and, the linkimage template is a good compromise. Also, I don't advocate widespread use of the linkimage template throughout sexuality-related articles, but, in a lot of such articles, the images are either diagrams or illustrations, and I think a distinction needs to me made between real depictions and fictional depictions (see Metawiki, Potentially offensive images). In this case, we are dealing with a real photograph, so perhaps we should base any editorial judgments around this distinction. -Severa (!!!) 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object to using the linkimage template here? Several people have made thoughtful contributions regarding support of its usage. Joie de Vivre 03:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose implementing the linkimage template in this article. What about everyone else? -Severa (!!!) 05:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been two weeks and no one has objected. I've instated the template. Joie de Vivre T 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't noticed this discussion before. Yeah, I object the "linkimage", that's censorship. --BMF81 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You have not responded to any of the points I made about accessibility. The linkimage template has survived two TfD nominations. It has a purpose. Joie de Vivre T 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't deleted, but many of the voters are against its usage. To use it on this soft image is quite silly...--BMF81 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the adjectives "soft" and "silly" adequately address the concerns about accessibility that several editors have raised. Joie de Vivre T

PS. When you said you got no abjection you forgot Prolog. Currently there's no consensus on linkimage, please don't reinsert it..--BMF81 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I asked again, waited two weeks, and when I got no response, I instated the template. In terms of consensus, currently there is no consensus to include the image either. Joie de Vivre T 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
considering the disputed status of linkimage in general, the need of consensus is on those that want it.--BMF81 15:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to the usage of the linkimage temoplate in general, but especially in this case. I have great difficulties in realizing what is offensive about the image, it is just white spots on some girls neck. The image should just be included as any other picture. --Morten LJ 17:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand the debate. Hiding the image from the main page is censoring it, and Wikipedia isn't censored. Seems fairly straightforward to me. --Xiaphias 06:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

People likely to be viewing this article are those that would come here by choice. Also the image isn't exactly explicit; very little is shown. I can think of far worse representations, but this one is somewhat tasteful, the woman's breasts aren't shown, and nor is the man's penis. Overall I personally don't find this image offensive, it's illustrating something which is not easy to describe accurately. In summary, considering my first point I think the image should be shown by default.

From a technical point of view, the image would be shown if a user had JavaScript disabled or not available. Therefore i suggest such methods of hiding the image not be used (you can't rely on JavaScript being available) and only a plain text link be proveded to the image. — Lee Carré 00:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Look, the image is fine. How ELSE do you people want to describe it?. The 'hemisected' artists representation on intercourse is useless enough. Now don't tell me you want something like a pixelated monochrome artists representation of a pearl necklace in order to make it 'decent'. Look, I know the main thing is if a 'minor' sees it. But trust me, I'm 14. And A LOT of other kids I know have looked at porn and view it, (hardcore too), on a regular basis. They're not mentally messed pu whatever you claim. And the picture of the ejaculate on the womans neck is FAR MORE benign than hardcore pornography.

If you think it's innapropriate, then PLEASE don't visit this aricle. And hey!. Maybe someone who arrives here by accident (or ont). Might actually LEARN something, which is the whole point of Wikipedia isn't it?. Knowledge... and knowledge can't be spread if censored to protect minors. (If a 6 year old visits this page I doubt they'll even know what it is. Much less be able to read it.)

So quit worrying. It's really annoying. Sorry to go on am pseudo-rant there. But the level of censorship found in articles relating to sexuality on the English Wikipedia is a bit frightening. Nateland 17:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As stated by numerous others, Wikipedia is not censored. As Lee Carre noted, the photo is cropped in such a way to make it reasonably tasteful given the subject. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Does the image contribute substantially to the body knowledge on this topic that the description does not? I thought that the image was unnecessary, and if the argument stands that it should exist (as opposed to that it should not be "censored"), then our efforts should be as forceful in adding other images to Wikipedia. For example, should we include images from "2 Girls 1 Cup" in the article?
On a second note, I would say that not everyone who visits this page is necessarily predisposed to seeing it. My mother, for example, has no idea what a pearl necklace is... and if she was doing her research, she might want to see an academic article on the matter but not a graphic depiction of the same. The difference between academic information and depiction is vast. Should we include a picture of a person eating feces in an article about eating feces? Don't we get the idea from the description just fine (assuming that we are competent writers)? I'm no prude, but just thinking of this academically. Just my $0.02.71.143.153.191 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for this picture. WIkipedia is turning into an escalating diorama of shrewdness. The servers are located in Florida, and I assure you Florida obscenity laws prohibit this image without disclaimer. One cannot simply post any such picture with no prior warning, especially when the title of the article could be commonly mistaken for a rather standard piece of jewelry. In absolute utilitarian terms I agree that the image carries information, but prudence is necessary here. Linkimage is not censorship, and no logical argument has or can be made to that effect. Linkimage is actually more in line with liberal philosophies than leaving the image as is, because it gives the user a greater degree of choice over what they want to see. I believe that forcing someone to view the image is nearly as bad as telling someone they cannot view it; in any case these two offenses are equal. Furthermore, there is no assigned proof that the model in the picture is 18 years of age or older, and without proper record keeping, under the latest federal statutes the image is illegal and prosecutable under United States law. It does not matter if there is consensus in the comminuty that she is over 18, the abscence of record is enough. It is also highly doubtful that this image would pass the Miller test, and so therefore is quite likely considered obscene by Florida law. I am sure there are hundreds of images such as this one on porn sites hosted in Florida, but the difference is that all of them are required to have records of their models, and all of them must have a disclaimer of adult oriented material. Pornography is clearly legal in Florida, and I certainly don't object to its existence when the law is followed; however I believe that this is a gross misuse of an academic resource, and at the very least linkimage should be used. The only consolation I can offer any of you is that no prosecutor cares enough about this to act on it, so th elaw will probably never be enforced here. Also, if you respond to this with a one line aside stating that "linkimage is censorship, WP is not censored" please be aware that you have made no appeal to logic of any kind and should carry no weight in this discussion. Furthermore, I believe those here who oppose censorship so vehemently do so not because they fear repression, but because it is a convenient catchphrase that aligns them with popular opinion. This entire article is also not framed within the scope of human sexuality in a way that is realistic. While some humans practice this technique in private, it is well known and well characterized that visual ejaculation techniques were perpetuated and popularized by pornography because it is more titillating to the viewer to have confirmation of the completion of the sex act. I think what we are compiling here is perhaps an extended profile of visual techniques in pornography, not articles that genuinely address human sexuality.


Whiteknight521 (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2008 (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.

I have reinstated the option to view the picture, as reasonable and significant arguments have been raised for using Linkimage. I will not stand for a select few, for reasons which I suspect border on simply wanted to cause trouble and controversy, to prevent linkimage from being used in a reasonable and effective way. That said, anyone who attempts to revert it will enter into a revert war with me and whoever else knows that linkimage is the best compromise between outright removal and obnoxious, forceful presentation. It is not difficult for a viewer to see the option to view it, and there is no reason why indirect access to the picture will result in a less effective way of communicating information, since the information remains, but the choice to view it exists. As others have pointed out without any significant counterargument, the accessibility of the informative content of this page is not at all diminished by using linkimage to access the its corresponding picture. --Exanimous 08:17, July 3rd, 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and you have failed to get a new consensus and pushing your POV is not the way. Bidgee (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not a POV, it is a fact. Adding a link to the image is NOT censorship, a fact which you have chosen not to heed in the arguments below and above. It is also a fact that, as I mentioned, allowing the user the choice of access is the wisest course of action and the best compromise. If I can help it, I will not allow you to force an image on another without that person's wish to see it. As I said, nothing is diminished by allowing access, but much is gained. You are actually the one forcing your POV by having this picture be displayed regardless. Give me a good reason why linkimage should not be used for this picture and I will back down, otherwise, I invite others to continue this debate.
You know as well as I do that given the nature of the internet, the anonymity inherent in wikipedia, and the existence of those whose sole purpose is to troll and disrupt, a total consensus, especially on this issue, is for all intents and purposes impossible. I also quote the individual below me, and I argue from a point of beginnings on this matter: First, given the nature of wikipedia, pages begin with no images, no information, instead of the other way around, that they start with images and information. Secondly, since images are chosen, shouldn't there be a consensus to add it, because otherwise, isn't it reasonable to remove them, or revert, as you have done? Using your logic, I can argue that there was no consensus for YOUR course of action, and YOU are forcing your POV on others without consensus. What I am doing is reverting back to the uncontested state of having no default image, and thus in line more with the regulations of wikipedia. Because there is a general consensus that it is normal for a topic to have an absence of information until someone decides to write about it, adding information of any kind, including pictures, must also reach a consensus. However, I am being kind, for I have every right to remove this image until a consensus is reached to add it. Yet, I compromise because I believe that this image, for those who choose to view it, can be educational and informative. Thus, using linkimage is the best of both worlds, it satisfies both the consensus that as default template, no images should be added without consensus, and the "imaginary consensus" that you argue is keeping it displayed by default. Since neither consensus has been reached, allowing the user the choice of view does not contradict the lack of either consensus, since the inherent state of having it viewed by choice is neither a negation of the default state nor a negation of the public display state. --Exanimous (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no 'disclaimerish' problem with allowing this picture to be viewed, and no neutrality is lost, since no one has attacked nor defended the offensiveness of the picture. The linkimage device does not convey to its user any sense of whether or not the objectivity of creator of the linkimage is being questioned. Thus, as I have said, as I find no compelling reason to remove the linkimage, and I will continue reinstating it everyday until someone provides a compelling reason otherwise, of which I am sure there is none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exanimous (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You are actually the one forcing your POV by having this picture be displayed regardless. Give me a good reason why linkimage should not be used for this picture and I will back down, otherwise

In no way that I'm pushing my POV. There is NO consensus to link instead of showing an thumbnail which links to the image and to remove from the article. Also Penis, Vagina just to name a few have images shown within the article.

I can argue that there was no consensus for YOUR course of action, and YOU are forcing your POV on others without consensus. What I am doing is reverting back to the uncontested state of having no default image, and thus in line more with the regulations of wikipedia.

In what way am I forcing when you're changing the state of the article without an consensus? The discussion below is old (2007) with it being rehashed in April 2008.

it satisfies both the consensus that as default template, no images should be added without consensus, and the "imaginary consensus" that you argue is keeping it displayed by default.

There is no consensus to get an consensus to add images. Bidgee (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have refactored this conversation and topped the old conversation off, the conversation was about the linkimage tempate, which was deleted in a TfD, the point is settled. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert War

Ok folks, clearly there must be another dispute resolution than a revert war, no? Otherwise the page is just going to eventually get locked Baiter 04:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus has previously been to keep the image on the page, various IPs and user remove the image and I revert to enforce this consensus. None of those persons has apparently taken up the discussion on the talk page. --Morten LJ 07:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Something to note. A couple of people have cited WP:NOTCENSORED in support of the image, which is fair enough, but they seem to be missing a very important page which is one link away from that one - WP:PROFANITY, which states: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. Given that this is a pornographic image (and it is) and that it appears at the very top of the article (a shock to anyone who may have clicked the 'random page' button), I think we should seriously consider removing the image. --carelesshx talk 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have two objections to your argument:
  1. You state that the image is pornographic as if this is the absolute truth. I think the vast majority of people in this world does not find this image arousing (I don't). The definition of pornography is a representation with the intent of sexual arousal.
  2. The nutshell of WP:PROFANITY states: "Wikipedia articles may contain profanity — but only for good reason. ..." The text goes on in the same lines stating that images that might be offensive should be removed if and only if their removal does not remove information from the article. A picture in this article is essential to visualize the subject of the article and can thus not be removed with reference to this policy. --Morten LJ 07:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Whatever happened to good taste? Can we at least pretend that wikipedia is a wholesome site suitable for viewing by all people? Show this picture to any other person and they would cringe at its crudeness. Stop trying to defend an offensive picture with your smoke and mirror arguments. Clear writing = clear thinking. This picture is offensive and unnecessary. Gregiscool14 05:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture is not offensive to me, should your concepts of good and bad taste be imposed on me? --Morten LJ 16:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
If we let every halfwit delete a picture because it's offensive, we'd have no pictures left because everyone would find something offensive and delete it. Vampire Warrior 22:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture is not offensive it could be milk and I couldnt tell the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blizzard King (talk • contribs) 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this image is unnecessary and downright gross. We don't need pictures showing semen on a woman's neck to explain what this particular sex act entails. I don't see why we couldn't use an illustrated example, such as the former graphic used on the cream pie article. I think a drawn image would be much less revolting. Bottom line, the image is not necessary and it is unseemly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weenerboy (talk • contribs)

However distasteful I may find the image, these things are settled by consensus in Wikipedia, and a consensus does not exist to remove the image. -- Donald Albury 12:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the picture quite informative because it conveyed exactly what the term 'pearl necklace' meant. After seeing the image there was no real need to actually read the description in the article. It certainly should stay on here 86.80.122.213 (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC) LCV

Agreed. Wandered into the article after seeking the definition of a rather more obscure sex act. Not only is the image immediately informative as to the nature of the act, it's downright pleasant as compared to a couple other sexuality-related articles I've visited. The subject is attractive and if not for the context it might simply seem a messy and poorly cropped portrait. 203.171.75.177 (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The text detailing what a pearl necklace is is pretty self-explanatory and a picture is absolutely not necessary. We have a sexually explicit image on Wikipedia without any real reason. People who are arguing for the image to remain are either aroused by it or are just seeking fulfilment by going against what rational thought dictates is the right thing to do. Remove the image; or this article is nothing more than an outlet for someone's sexual fantasy.81.151.140.33 (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

PORN?! On MY wiki?!

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.128.109 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more likely than you think. Fantom (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary Item

After the first sentence, or being generous, the first two sentences, the text of this article is just unencyclopedic chit-chat. The Wiktionary entry covers the topic, and this Wikipedia item is unnecessary.

What do other editors think?

Wanderer57 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs clean-up (feel like being bold Wanderer?) but I think there is decent article potential here, with enough people chipping in. Baiter (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it has zero potetntial. The definition and categorization of slang is for a dictionary. I have initiated the deletion process. DeeKenn (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The section of the article on popular culture was deleted in a recent edit; because it was tagged "Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided." Let me state right away that I do not agree with that Wikipedia guideline. However the popular culture section in this article was beyond a trivial trivia section as it demonsrated that this rather obscure and unknown sexual act had in fact made its way into popular, mainstream culture. That section, in my opinion, was the main reason not to merge this article with facial or cum shot articles. So I propose returning the section (I have some edits coming up for this article; but won't undo that deletion without consensus of course.). Evren Güldoğan (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This was the popular culture section:
  • The pearl necklace is the subject of the song .
  • The film
  • In the HBO show :*In the film Forgetting Sarah Marshall, the protagonist, Ryan Flores, makes a reference to a pearl necklace while on a webcam chat with his step-brother and his wife.
I have rewritten it in prose and re-incorporated it into the article. How's it look? Neıl 龱 11:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much better than the previous list version. Best regards. Evren Güldoğan (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, both your recent edit on popular culture and my edit on alternative slang terms were deleted. I have no idea why and I think it should be discussed whether or not we should keep those information in the article. Best regards. Evren Güldoğan (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Has everyone forgotten?

OK, I know there is loads of talk about this already but I want to put my point across. I know Wikipedia is an environment where majority rules and almost all decisions are made by a consensus but I feel as though we are stuck in a rut over what to do about the obscene image used in this article.

Surely there is an overriding factor here that the image is very graphic and that a child could easily and innocently find themselves on this page. Yes, I know it is the parents' responsibility to monitor their child's online activities but we are making it very difficult by displaying this image on a well known and respected encyclopedia.

When will somebody make a decision about this image? Or will the debating just continue in the hope that we will all suddenly agree?

Anybody with a rational mind must be able to see the inappropriateness of this image glaring them in the face? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.140.33 (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself, it is the parents responsiblity to monitor their childs activity. Wikipedia is a repository for information, not a babysitter. 67.142.130.34 (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
While I won't use your argumentum ad populum (anybody with a rational mind) or your appeal to emotion (Think of the children!); I do believe even if a young child DID accidently come across this page, it is very UNlikely said young child would understand what the image depicts. Are most of the young children you know able to identify ejaculated semen on sight? I certainly hope not. Kingadrock (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
And then what if that same child, after innocently finding himself on this page and viewing this graphic image, then gouged out his eyes because he saw something his parents thought he was too young for? I see your point. But maybe reading the text would cause that too. Baiter (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the moral objection is a non-issue. The only thing we should be concerned about is if it should be included per Wikipedia's guidelines. There are much worse things than this page on the internet. I do not worry for future generations. --mboverload@ 09:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTCENSORED and then see Wikipedia:Options to not see an image =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Support of removal - This discussion was extended here, Wikipedia needs to flag articles of adult content and images of this nature. --eric (mailbox) 09:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED? There is no technical way to flag an article, nor should their be. --mboverload@ 09:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, but I support proposal of it. --eric (mailbox) 09:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me first say that I understand your position on this article and do support your views in some way. Can I ask that you lay out your feelings on why? --mboverload@ 09:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes thank you, sorry I was at the AIAV for bit and forgot about this post. Anywho, I feel images like this mock Wikipedia's standing as a reliable source for information, which is already greatly debated amound the internet community. However, when you add images like this I can only set myself to feel that this is inexplicitly sexual. Per the ejaculation article, I mean come on now! A freakin' video?!! What the hell?! Wikipedia shouldn't be a show and tell source. Especially when refering to articles this nature. --eric (mailbox)
(EC) Have you looked at the images which are used in an Encyclopedia at an Library? Bidgee (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Not in reference to sexual topics. Even if I did I don't think they would include home made pictures by their publishers(sarcasm). Also, I object to those kind of images used too in any enclycopediac source. I think those images are subliminal. --eric (mailbox) 10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be show and tell. --mboverload
Well yes, but in regards to this stuff, No. :( --eric (mailbox) 10:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I do feel that Wikipedia is useless without images per my userbox, but this is totally on a different level. --eric (mailbox) 10:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

@ 10:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

because i don't feel it's necessary to show a picture of ejaculation on a woman's neck to really demonstrate what a pearl necklace is. i feel that the text explaining the act seems like enough. by the way, i am 100% uninterested in censoring wikipedia in any way, i just wanted to give my opinion. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

New image

This section is for discussion of potential new images for the article of more certain provenance and copyright status. Have at it. Nandesuka (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Until then, you restore the image that you removed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there such an image? Exploding Boy (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For comparison. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
To the extent that people want to claim that it's practically impossible to find publically-available, properly licensed images that illustrate this topic, I gently suggest that that difficulty speaks to the likelihood of the removed image being properly licensed. Nandesuka (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, some people just dig having photos of themselves online. We have user-made images of pretty much every "private" body part and bodily fluid, and a good many sex acts as well. It's been pointed out that professional lighting and an absence of tags might not in themselves be suspicious. In the absence of some compelling evidence (such as a page capture from a porn site) we really do have to go on the word of the uploader, imprecise as that method might be. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The current image was created specifically for the creation of this article, and then later cropped and enlarged for this article. Their motivation may have been exhibitionism, but it seems pretty likely based on the circumstances that it is not a copyvio. The absence of tags is not unusual, since it was cropped -- the original had them. I don't consider it to be professional lighting. It may not be my area of expertise, but the original looked ot be an ordinary image like many I take with my $300 camera in a well lit room. Any image software can change the contrast and darkness with five minutes work. The train of thought that it looks like it might be professional lighting, therefore it must be copyrighted seems a pretty far stretch.
Nevertheless, although the image shoud be returned once the survery completes, finding someone to contribute an image that has a very well known background does not hurt. It should not be that hard, I know hundreds of people who would offer a photo like that. Atom (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
"and then later cropped and enlarged for this article" by cropping the item, not having a link to the previous item, and having the CC tag afterwards, they are not acknowledging the proper trail, unless they are creating that there is a "new" item, and then they would have to identify who cropped it and when. That is how licensing works. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Atom, you are mistaken. The image that was initially put on this article was one of the User:PublicgirlUK images, which was later discovered to be a blatant copyvio taken from a porn site. There was a larger version of the image under discussion here, but (a) that came later and, (b) it had no metadata tags either. I know. I've looked at it. So unless we're talking about completely different images...? Nandesuka (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be helpful to see or at least have links to the specific images we're talking about here. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the larger version of this image is Image:Sexuality_pearl_necklace.png; that image has no metadata tags at all. If Atom means another image, he should specify. The earliest image on this article was Image:Woman_Pearl_Necklace.jpg which was, as I said, part of the Publicgirluk debacle. As we all now know, those photos turned out to be copyvios, which exploited some WIkipedia editors' credulity. I believe that Sexuality_pearl_necklace.png was uploaded during the same time-frame as publicgirluk was active is relevant, as well as that the image shares certain characteristics with those images. p[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"I believe" isn't proof. It's all just here say speculation without factual proof. Bidgee (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so Image:Sexuality_pearl_necklace.png is the larger version of Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png, which is the image we're discussing here, right?
As for the other image and the publicgirl issue, which you've brought up before, I'm not intimately familiar with it, but this comment by WAS 4.250 seems quite sensible. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See here Wikipedia:Publicgirluk_photo_debate for what Nandesuka is talking about. His concern is genuine. I just think that the image in question is unrelated, and not a copyvio. Atom (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pearl_necklace_(sexual_act)/Archive_3&oldid=1156210226"