Talk:Creampie (sexual act)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Current images: encyclopedic? (answer: not hardly)

I have no idea with the article containing an image, whether that image is linked (silly) or right up front (I agree, the article is titled "Creampie (sexual act)"). But the images Creampie.jpg and Analcreampie2.jpg (apologies - I'm not sure how to link them rather than just including them in the paragraph) are, to my mind, about a 2 on a scale of 1 (pornographic) to 10 (encyclopedic). There's got to be a better way to get the idea across than these pictures - and don't get me wrong, I'm a guy who likes his, er, adult content. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, I'm going to remove them. --216.114.194.211 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You could probably quelch the insistence of editors on adding the picture by replacing it with a graphic picture of a gay anal creampie and then reverting the picture back to the gay pie every time someone changes it on the grounds that the picture was changed for discriminatory, unencyclopedic, and self-serving reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.85.210 (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Dessert

Okay, funnnnaaay a picture of a pie. A nasty pie at that, that's like eating hoola burgers or something. enough with the censorship, you're on the fucking interweb, make it clickity if you have to but damn, your arguments are fucking retarded, I suspect some innocent person typing in creampie would be more likely to find teh pr0n images of their search directly from their search engine, well before they ever hit wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.15.9 (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

old comment

Details about faking a cream-pie and Cytherea's yeast infection were mentioned on an article on the KSex website [1] .

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabercil (talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

regular sex

in regular sex (=outside porn business) creampieing is the usual act compared to facialing. --Abdull 21:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody want to mention a recent 2006 article by Cosmopolitan magazine which showed that many men often lie awake at night wondering how many times their wife or girlfreind had recieved a creampie by another man? It was in US cosmo I think - no idea where to find a source, I read it on an aeroplane.

Hardly an encyclopedic source Paulish (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

redirect

I have redirected the page to cream pie. Wikipedia is not a porn slang dictionary. There is an article somewhere on idioms of the porn movie industry, where the prior content could perhaps be merged, if someone is interested. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Impregnation

How can so many porn actresses have been creampied but not one has fallen pregnant? Do they use diaphragms or some other contraceptive device?

hahahahaha you can't be serious 64.228.137.3 23:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...But I don't know much about this. lol....But I was wondering, I mean....How could they do it so often and not be pregnant.

Dude there are many ways to avoid pregnancy withiut a condom. check out Oral contraceptive. El Oso 07:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Christ dude, why not just look at the article on contraception. Maybe they wait until just after their period, or maybe they take the pill, or maybe the morning after pill. Or probably all three. I mean, how long do you think sperm can live inside a woman for? A whole month?

Sperm can survive for a few days. Mathmo ^Talk 05:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible that the girl had an hysterectomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Surette (talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

HIV

No proven cases of HIV and anal creampie? WTF?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.26.146.129 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2006 April 25 (UTC)

I removed that section - it was completely unsourced speculation/original-research. Johntex\^talk 20:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Linkimage

Hello, I am hoping we can stop edit warring about whether to show a picture or not. I have replaced the original linkimaged picture which I think is a very reasonable compromise between the people who don't want to show a graphic sexual image and the people who want to provide an image for the reader. This way, no one sees the picture without deliberately taking action to do so, but at the same time, they don't have to leave Wikipedia to get the information - they just have to click an internal link. This compromise has worked well elsewhere on Wikipedia. Can we agree to this compromise and move on to improving the article? Thanks for your help, Johntex\^talk 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with showing the image in the first place, but I think you are right that if some people may be offended because they did not expect to see something graphic, that your compromise is effective and within the Wikipedia standards as I understand them. --Atom 13:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Antoher question is whether the link should be labeled "click here". Two people have been reverting each other on that point. One user says that they thought it was a missing image and they didn't know they had to click. The other says that not all users use a mouse and therefore the language is not applicable to all people.

I think both points of view have merit. On balance, I tend to think we should omit the "click here" wording. Wikipedia could someday be available in print form, or someone might print out the article. In either case the language would not apply. Also, throughout Wikipedia, blue links show that an article or image exists, while red shows that it does not. Therefore, I think the blue link is sufficient. Thoughts? Johntex\^talk 16:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the issue up at {{linkimage}}, but have received to response so far. In my opinion, if any sort of clarification of the link is to be made, it should be made in the original template, so that we can avoid this issue on other articles. That said, the best I've been able to come up with is either very, very ugly, or changing the description to the less than perfect "Hidden image of semen flowing from the vagina after a creampie." -- Ec5618 22:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Wikipedia does not endorse censorship and aims to provide an information resource without having to resort to image redirections or the like. If anyone searches for "creampie" the first thing they find is an article on the pastry; if they're curious as to the sexual act, clearly marked from that page, then they should see the whole of the article. If Wikipedia's article concerning sexual anatomy presents images of both the vagina and the phallus, and it does, then semen should also be represented as natural without obfuscation. Wikipedia isn't responsible for delicately stepping on some people's toes, we're here to present full information. Waelwulf 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Waelwulf in that if someone is looking to find information on a sexual act (again, referenced in the title of the article), then there shouldn't be any problem with being offended by a picture representing the concept being on the page. Wikipedia already features pictures of Vaginas and Semen, so this is just putting the two together in one picture, eh? --Columba livia 16:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If any more rational arguments are not presented with viable reasons as to why this change should not be reverted, this is blatant censorship and will be reverted 12AM GMT+1 tomorrow. I would like to point out that the linkimage tag was originally created to combat abusers of Wikipedia and not to placate people who might find the picture offensive. That is not Wikipedia's job. Waelwulf 16:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of why the linkimage is a good idea

Thanks Waelfulf, for the opportunity to further explain why this is a good idea. I'll start first with the idea of "censorship" in general, because using a linkimage is not censorship.

The standard definition of "censorship" is something imposed upon someone by some outside authoritative/authoritarian entity. If we decide for our own reasons not to include something in an article, that is not censorship. We have the freedom to choice to either include it or not. That goes for a fact, an image, a particular source, anything. We often hear people cry out against "censorship" whenever someone wants to delete a controversial article, or remove a controversial thing from an article, but the term is being misused in that debate.
When Wikipedians debate whether or not to include something, that is an internal debate. There is no authoritarian outside entity involved. Therefore, it doesn't fit the standard definition of "censorship".

Now, onto the question of whether Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia absolutely is censored, in the truest sense of the word. Wikipedia is censored by the Chinese government and other authoritatian regimes every day. We even have an article on Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. Therefore, any assertion that we are not censored is provably false, at least in a world-wide context.

OK, but what about in "Western" or "liberal" countries? The German Wikipedia has run afoul of German law before and content has had to be removed on more than one occasion. One of these cases dealt with holocaust-denial. I don't remember the details at the moment, but I can find them for you if need be.

What about self-censorship? All across the EU, there is no concept of "fair use". Therefore, images that are legal and included in the English Wikipedia are "censored" out of other language versions. We do so even though all those non-English language versions are hosted on US servers. In other words, use of fair use images would be just as legal on those other versions of the encyclopedia, yet we decide not to use them.

I'd now like to address "WP:not censored for the protection of minors" because it 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 ould 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 not have taken it out as of the moment they read the article.

Now onto the subject of pornographic images. There are several reasons why I think they 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 this images 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.

In conclusion - Censorship is something that comes from the outside, which is not happening here. Putting the image behind a single click brings many benefits as listed above. The inconvenience to anyone who wants to see it is so slight as to be negligible. The linkimage compromise has worked well on other articles in the past. Therefore, it is my hope that it will be a good compromise for this article. Johntex\^talk 16:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Information should be offensive. China is obviously offended by some information contained in the Chinese Wikipedia because it potentially undermines their control of their population through propaganda and other means. Some Christians are obviously offended by Wikipedia's support of evolution as the most viable theory for the reason for human life.

Let's not forget that this article is clearly labelled as a sexual act and simple searching for it directs you to the article on the pastry first if using the "wp creampie" command through Firefox. If someone is interested in the sexual act, they would have to be severely hampered in their reasoning as to not assume that most of that article then includes information and images pertaining to the sexual act. The image is foremost informative. And while as you pointed out the inconvenience is so slight as to be negligible, I am increasingly alarmed by Wikipedia's conversion to a governmental, "ordered" structure due to societal pressures. One wonders if our free society of the informed is on the long and winding road to Hell. It all begins with compromise. In this case, you're an administrator so I'll relent.Waelwulf 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Weaelwulf, thank you for your reply. As tempting as it is to accept your deference to the fact that I am an administrator so that this turns out the way I hope it will, I don't claim any special right based upon the fact that I am a sysop.

I've been around a while, I've made a fair number of edits, and I've participated in a fair number of policy discussions. I guess I was made an administrator partly based on that experience, and partly as a show of community trust, which I appreciate. If you want to defer to my opinion because you respect my experience and trust my judgement, that is OK.

But I can't/don't clim some sort of magical monopoly on knowing what is best just because I'm an administrator. I do think my idea is best, of course, or I wouldn't have suggested it. But if you truly disagree then I encourage you to continue the discussion.

With respect to the aritcle title being clearly labelled, that is true. But: (1) A lot of people still would expect to find an article they can read without graphical images of pornogarphy. That is what they would find in other encycopedias and in other on-line sources that they would possible consult, like MSN or WebMD (2) Anyone can make a wikilink say anything they want. I could write a wikilink that says safe sex or hobby or whatever. (3) Imaging someone just learning English, they may not have the same understanding of what "sexual act" means. Therefore, there are still good reasons to expect that people will come here with legitimate expectations not to view this sort of pornography. Johntex\^talk 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I restored the linkimage per the longstanding compromise reached on this and other sexually-oriented pages. Johntex\^talk 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Just put the image in. It's more informative that way. If I didn't know what this was, I'd want to know. That's the whole point of an encyclopedia. Forget this whole censorship/offense/whatever debate. That debate isn't even Confucian. 75.24.215.160 05:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert war by 12.35.135.99

(Atomaton - my edits are not bad. Everyone is not straight - typical mid west mentality.) 12.35.135.99

The Creampie article is primarily about Cream Pies, not Felching. Cream Pie is primarily oriented about cum in a vagina. Technically it can be a form of felching, and felching can apply to men or women. Creampies apply primarily to women.

I was not trying to offend your editing in any way. I am sure yopur editing skills are likely as good as mine.

But, you have to admit, it takes what is a simple explanation, and makes it more complex, and more difficult to read.

You could add a line someplace something like "Some people apply the term "Cream Pie" equally to men or women". Although I don't agree, I'm perfectly happy to have a balanced article with many opinions. With your edit, so yo-ho will come along and say "Let's just combine felching and creampie articles together, as it looks like the same thing. Also, it takes one part of the fair and balanced view (mine and others) and changes it to another view (yours). Fair and balanced is presenting both opinions, not arguing over which one is right.

In pornographic movies, for instance, when someone (of any sexual orientation) goes out and finds a section of Porn with "Creampie" advertised as the Genre, they are all movies of women with cum dripping from their punani. They aren't pictures of gay men with cum dripping from their anus.

So, it seems to me that making the Felching article broader and more inclusive would make more sense than confusing pepole to make them think that a "Cream Pie" is just as much about men as it is women.

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but if I may offer some suggestions that could help.

• ) Editors seem to see an edit with just an IP address, like yourself, and assume that it is someone inexperienced, and often intent on harming or vandalizing an article. Of course that is not your intent. Sign-up and get a login, and people will not revert your stuff as often, I think.

• ) Assume_good_faith is an important value here, and changes are usually by consensus. Revert wars are very discouraged. (in fact there is a rule, called the Three_revert_rule that you should check out. Generally, there is lots of cool stuff about the community standards at Wikipedia:Community_Portal#Departments Especially look at tyhe section on "How to Resolve Conflicts" and "Working with others".

Thanks, and good luck! Atom 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think the anonymous poster would also do well to avoid making judgements about what constitutes a "typical mid west mentality". Such stereotypes are rarely helpful. Johntex\^talk 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Creampie definition made genderless

Several have made efforts to make Creampie gender neutral, and it seems weird to me. I have always heard the term used in the context of a woman -- cumming in a woman's vagina, and not anal (for either gender). Now, I admit I am heterosexual, but I have many gay and lesbian friends, and none of them seem to think of Creampie as a man ejaculating into a woman or man's anus. In speaking with some of them, that might be called "barebacking". But of course the term barebacking is used more broadly, as in unprotected sex, and is generally anal, but could be considered to be vaginal also.

Some confuse Creampie with Felching, as if it were synonymous. And, although I don't watch porn, it seems that in google, and from a list of porn films, none of the films with creampie as the prominent theme show anal ejaculation, or are featured in gay films. I'm sure there is plenty of porn that features both, but none of them advertise the acts taking place as "creampie sex". When most people hear the word "Creampie" they think of something similar to the image we have posted.

Does anyone have any references to "Creampie" used in contexts other than a man ejaculating into a woman's vagina? Could you find them and show them here? Thanks, Atom 00:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So I did a bit of further research. I find numerous porn sites online that reference "creampie" All of the rfere to a man cumming in a woman's vagina. In some instances they refer to an "Anal creampie" They don;t call cumming in the anus a creampie, they call it an "anal creampie". That is to say, like a creampie (in the vagina) except in the anus. On other sites, numerous references to "Anal cumshots". BUt, I could not find one site that referred to a man cumming in a womans anus where it was called a "creampie".

Also, I found many gay sites that featured "anal cumshots". And after looking and looking, never found one site that seemed to refer to a man cumming in another man as a "creampie".

So, I am of the opinion that making it genderless, so that it can refer to a man ejaculating into either a vagina or anus may be reasonable and fair, but unfortunately, just innacurate, and not true to the definition or cultural usage.

We should change the article back to its original form where it clearly indicates a creampie as a man cumming into a woman's vagina. We can give an additional definition that describes an "Anal Cumshot, or Anal Creampie" as a variation of the Original Creampie. Atom 20:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. "Anal creampie" is just a variation of "creampie" and is a perfectly legitimate topic to discuss in the article since they are both featured in the same sites and publications. Also, the term "gay creampie", while not the predominant term, is in use. - DNewhall 23:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This should be genderless. Use a search engine to look for 'gay creampie'. There are numerous sites which refer to the homosexual act as a 'creampie' rather than a 'gay creampie'. The terms 'vaginal creampie', 'anal creampie' and 'gay creampie' are subsets of the umbrella term 'creampie' in my opinion, so the article should remove any gender or orifice bias. Sadat.quoraishi (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Revert

Three major problems with the latest update by 69.69.71.161, so I am reverting to previous version.

1. Inappropriate change of creampie description from being a "sexual" term to a "mating" term. Creampies do not necessarily mean mating, or reproduction, and it is much more accurate to be described as a term within sexology.

2. I have never seen creampie written with a hyphen as in "cream-pie", and do not believe this is accurate. A quick search on Google shows few, if any, instances of the spelling "cream-pie".

3. Use of the third person pronoun "humans" does not conform to wp:1sp. Furthermore it's usage is just plain awkward--I don't believe creampies have ever been used to refer to acts by species other than humans.Parnell88 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Creampie in US Cosmo magazine

Nobody want to mention a recent 2006 article by Cosmopolitan magazine which showed that many men often lie awake at night wondering how many times their wife or girlfriend had recieved a creampie by another man? It was in US cosmo I think - no idea where to find a source, I read it on an aeroplane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.193.212 (talk • contribs)

We can't unless we have a source for it so unless you can give us the issue number or someone else finds it we can't mention it. - DNewhall 02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Would such a source be even encyclopedia worthy? Paulish (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Addition of creampie actresses category

The recent addition of this category I think adds reasonable content to the article, and I hope others will pitch in what they know about certain films. I know I will if I can ever find the time. However, can we combine it with the previous category of "Notable creampie films" into a single table? My suggestion would be first column "Film Name", second column "Actresses appearing with creampie" and (maybe) a third column "Creampie genre" (i.e. vaginal/anal/multiple). I really feel this would be an improvement to the few sentences under "notable creampie films" that randomly name two films and provide little detail. Thanks! Parnell88 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the section's usefulness (particularly since I added it :-)), but I'm not sure if you'll be able to create useful table entries for several / a number of actresses, since their appearances weren't so much in released DVD titles, but via specialist content web sites. For example, I know Missy Monroe appeared in Creampie scenes in content released by creampiecuties.com and amateurcreampies.com, but I have no idea if either of these scenes were ever available via traditional 'hard media'. I guess at least a cite to where the content might be found, be it "Film / Online Provider"? pt

Hmmm. Anyone have any idea why CharlottesWeb would have reverted an edit including links to IAFD titles for DVDs in which porn actresses have appeared in Creampie scenes? I'm curious, because I put a reasonable amount of time into compiling the list. - pt

She may have used an automated tool. You are using an IP, not logged in, and you modifed an article that gets alot of vandalism. Try registering, logging in, and then make the modifications. Atom 17:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article

Removed original research. Interracial pregnancy is a turn-on 'for some'? -- Ec5618 11:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Psycology of internal ejaculation

Creampies are considered by some to be a somewhat "nasty" fetish, implying that people who receive them are somewhat perverted or "dirty". This view is particularly prevailant in modern American and British pornography. The possibility of women becomming pregnant is also a turn-on for some, particularly with interracial or non-couples (e.g. pornstars simply doing a job.)

An alternative view is that the creampie is a particularly intimiate moment, since the male reaches orgasm purely from stimulation of his partners oriface, and does not need to withdraw from his partner during orgasm. During orgasm, men often feel an intense bond with their partner, and (like most mamals) there is a evolutionary desire to thrust deeper in order to increase the chances of pregnancy.

Some men and women also enjoy receiving creampies. This can be for either of the reasons mentioned above, or sometimes simply for the feeling of warm seamen inside the body. However, not all people can feel the seamen (since it is already at body temperature) and it is not uncommon for women to be unaware of a man ejaculating inside her.

Okay, let's discuss. Let's look at some American porn titles related to creampies. "50 Guy Cream Pie" (she will let anyone/many men cum in her). "Blackbread" (black men "impregnating" white women (racisim too)). "Asian Insemination". "Black Dicks in White Chicks #3". "Creampie Milkshakes". "Eighteen 'N Interracial #14". "Split that Booty" (voilence). "Young, Dumb, and Filled With Chocolate Cum".

Compare this to creampies in earlier movies, such as those starring John Holms, or to European movies. In these films, the creampie is often presented as the "natural" end to intercourse, and the couple are shown embracing in a loving manner afterwards.

So, what exactly is it that you are objecting to. I'm afraid you didn't make it entirely clear... is it the "for some"? Because clearly there is a group of people buying these films. If it's just that bit, let's edit the text and put it back shall we? Mojo-chan 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

On what do you base your claim that some people find interracial pregnancy a turn-on? -- Ec5618 17:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

He is correct that some people consider that to be erotic. They find it erotic because it humiliates the man in that someone else has gotten his wife pregnant, and also that the person was of another race. This is inherently racist. Frankly, the number of people who have that fantasy, and are racist in that way, is extremely small. Note that he does not denigrate people of another race.

Of course, there are an infinity of sexual fantasies that people have, and cover the spectrum of possibilities. Often they involve pushing the fringes of some persons sexual experience. The unknown, and the forbidden (culturally/socially, religiously, or legally) are popular topics for fantasy. One not uncommon fantasy is of unprotected sex, risking pregnancy. Another not uncommon fantasy is of having sex with someone of a different race. Another less common male fantasy is of his wife having sex with other man. Combining those is yet another fantasy. Atom 17:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have no source for any of these opinions. As such, they are not allowed. -- Ec5618 18:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about reality, not research. His opinion is stated here on the talk page, and my response, accordingly, in that context. Of course his opinions, or mine, don't belong in the article unless cited or referenced. The opinions are allowed on the talk page. Atom 20:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for my brevity, in my last post. I have a small technical problem with my keyboard. Yes, the data should not be included without a reference, and even then, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. -- Ec5618 21:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just gave you lots of references. You ask the question "On what do you base your claim that some people find interracial pregnancy a turn-on?". I respond with a list of movies available to pander to this fetish. Clearly, there would not be so many movies where interracial (or at least racial) creampies are alluded to in the title if it were not a selling point. Thus, we have a source for these oppinions, they are allowed.

Also, I would like to point out that my additions cover much more than just this one specific issue. If you really still take issue with it, why not re-write that section and leave the rest (which so far you have not objected to) intact instead of reverting the whole thing? Mojo-chan 22:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This in no way shows that some people find interracial pregnancy a turn-on. On top of that, comments on the Talk page do not count as references. The article must contain references. The rest of the added text has similar problems, as none of it is referenced within the text. -- Ec5618 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ec5618, you don't seem to understand what I am saying. Are you trying to suggest that the movies I listed, although pornographic and sold for masturbatory purposes are not a "turn on" for those puchasing them? I think you are missing the point a bit too - it's not just the potential for pregnancy, it's the racist idea of , for example, "dirty" black sperm in a white woman. I'm going to add references to the text, and restore it. Unless you can actually critique each part of the text and come up with concrete reasons why it needs to be removed, rather than improved, please refrain from rv'ing it.

You must please try to understand that while everything on wikipedia is not perfect and does not agree with your own world-view, it is almost always better to try and improve it than to simply delete it. If you feel references are needed, please call for them with citation tags first. If no-one responds with, say, a week, then maybe it's time to think about an rv. Mojo-chan 09:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My worldview is not the issue here. Wikipedia policy is. Your text makes a lot of claims, but sources none of them. "The racist idea"? Find a source that talks about this. Your list of films is not a source, it is original research.

According to Wikipedia policy, unreferenced content may be removed. The tags are used when it is likely that the information is accurate, and that a source will be found. I doubt those things. -- Ec5618 09:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your personal doubt is irrelevant. There are others who have posted here who agree with me. Also, I will add references. It is easy to do, as there are plenty of web sites listing these movies and their blurbs make it quite clear what angle they are going for. Mojo-chan 12:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Your claims are irrelevant until they are cited, regardless of the number of people who find your claims credible. The 'source' I keep asking about would be, for example, an article on people who find interracial pregnancy sexually interesting. Again, listing films that feature interracial couples proves nothing about interracial pregnancy. -- Ec5618 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the article. There are lots of reasons. I gave a fair shot at leaving it in, and editing it to try to leave in your perspective. The trouble is, after editing, there was not enough left to be meaningful. Here is my peer review of your suggested addition to our article:

• Several words misspelled. "Psycology = Psychology" "intimiate = intimate", "mamals = mammals". Many others. We don;t want to proof read your work. Work it out with a spell checker first. Everyone makes mistakes, this was just sloppy.
• Creampies are considered a "nasty" fetish. is POV, and innacurate. It is a fetish. People who get turned on by it, do. Others, don't. If you don't care for it, fine, but don't put that POV in the article, just describe "creampie".
• Your citation is not formatted according to wikipedia standards, and also is a link to a commercial site. Not a good link.
• "and (like most mamals) there is an evolutionary desire to thrust deeper in order to increase the chances of pregnancy" find a citation, or leave it out.
• "Examples of pornography which cater to this view include the Couples Cream Pie series." We don't want examples of Pornography, we want an encylopedia article describing it with sources.
• "Some men and women also enjoy receiving creampies." Men don't have a vagina usually, they can't receive creampies. They can receive "anal creampies", but that is a different topic.
• "either of the reasons mentioned above, or sometimes simply for the feeling of warm seamen inside the body." Nice guess, let's get a citation. Most women say they can't feel the "semen" unless/until it drips out. But, you said that. That's kind of confusing.
• Put the Pyschology section at the bottom, it is not the focus of the article, but a sideline.

In reality, the Psychological aspects have to do with:

• The danger involved, and the thrill of the danger, including possibly getting pregnant, or STD/STI's.
  • The unknown
  • The taboo - that level of intimacy with a stranger, someone of another race, violation of social rules
• The intimacy of direct skin on skin.

The focus of creampie is not on the interacial aspect, that is just one of my permutations. There is no need to focus on that aspect in your section.

In short, get your section in form first, work out the problems, and then see if it gets consensus with other editors. Forcing it on people and creating edit wars is not the method for doing that. Regards to you~ Atom 13:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, okay, let's go through your points one at a time shall we.

1. "Here is my peer review of your suggested addition to our article:" Your article? Do you retain copyright on it?

2. "Several words misspelled." Fair comment.

3. "Creampies are considered a "nasty" fetish. is POV, and innacurate." "Others, don't. If you don't care for it, fine," You seem to misunderstand me here. Perhaps I should rephrase it as being marketed as a nasty fetish. Did you bother to read any of the links I provided? Perhaps it would help if I actually quouted some of it in the text? For example, the blackbred site has a whole page on how the woman was mistreated and abused by black men. I can cite numerous examples of other films marketed in this way, such as the "Cream pie surprise" series. To sum up, it's not my POV (I personally don't agree with it) but seems to be the predominant POV of American and British manufacturers of pornography.

4. "Your citation is not formatted according to wikipedia standards, and also is a link to a commercial site. Not a good link." Fair enough, please correct it or I'll do it myself.

5. (deeper thrusting) I have one in my medical dictionary here, but I am having trouble finding one online. I'll keep looking, but in the mean time I suggest a citation tag. If I cannot find one, I can always cite the book.

6. ""Examples of pornography which cater to this view include the Couples Cream Pie series." We don't want examples of Pornography, we want an encylopedia article describing it with sources." This is another tricky one. There are lots of magazine articles and so forth on the subject, but trying to find anything about it on the net is next to impossible because of the shear number of porn sites eating up all female-related words. I do have a long forum discussion I could link to. I personally think the best thing to do might be to leave it out for now, until a magazine article can be quoted.

7. ""Some men and women also enjoy receiving creampies." Men don't have a vagina usually, they can't receive creampies. They can receive "anal creampies", but that is a different topic." The entire article has been de-gendered in order to consider all kinds of creampies, including anal creampies in both hetrosexual and homosexual couples. In fact, the first sentence is "when a man ejaculates inside his partner's vagina or anus".

8. Okay, going by personal experience here. As I say, it's not always possible to feel it. However, I do have one source if you are really interested... from the alt.bestiality FAQ, where they compare the feeling of human semen and dog semen.

9. Fair enough. I think the terms and concepts should come before the bit about porn too.

10. That's another good point. While I beleive what I wrote is valid, I agree more emphasis needs to be placed on the things you mention.

11. I understand how wikipedia works, thank you. No need to be patronising.

When I get time I'll do some revisions and post them here. Your comments have been much more helpful than Ec5618's, who didn't even seem to have an actual argument. Would you be interesting in writing a paragraph about the psycological aspects you mentioned? Mojo-chan 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My argument is the same as Atom's. Your addition to the article was poorly written. For the record,

1. 'our article' doesn't mean 'my article', it means 'our'. Plural.
2. POV is POV, even if it is the predominant POV.

I'm sorry if I haven't made my objections clear. I find the problems with the section incredibly obvious. Your claims are irrelevant until they are cited, regardless of the number of people who find your claims credible. The 'source' I keep asking about would be, for example, an article on people who find interracial pregnancy sexually interesting. Again, listing films that feature interracial couples proves nothing about interracial pregnancy. -- Ec5618 17:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Words fail me Ec5618, you really are utterly able to comprehend what I am saying. I'll try one last time, but don't expect further replies to your comments until you manage to understand it. Interracial pregnancy isn't the issue. Mistreating or being mistreated by "inferior" races is. Note, I do not agree with that concept at all, but it is clearly a factor for many. I will attempt to find an article, but I imagine it will be hard. The very existance of sites like http://creampiethais.com/ is a good enough source IMHO. For example, read the text on the page http://creampiethais.com/z_tour/. Actually, here are some quotes:

"little SUBMISSIVE fuck toy and fill her full of your man seed"

"Maybe they think it's a ticket to the promise land, or maybe they just want to breed. Are they on the pill? Who gives a fuck. Protection. Fuck no. Do I have illegitimate childern in Thailand? Probably. This is the REAL FUCKIN' DEAL."

This is far from the only example.

Your attitude is quite baffling. You seem to be under the impression that unless some random hack has written an article (which often don't state their sources, especially in newspapers and magazines) on a subject it isn't allowable. Would you, for example, dispute the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger has been in many voilent movies? Sure, everyone has seen those movies, they exist and I can give you links to IMDB etc, quote the blurb from the box which talks about the voilent nature of the film, point out the 18 certificate... but you seem to think someone has to have written an article about how voilent some of his films are to be true.

Your mistake seems to be that, like any encycolpedia, Wikipedia often makes statements of obvious fact that are not backed up with sources. A good example would be a statement like "most human beings like sprouts". It's true, and no-one in their right mind would dispute it. It's a fact. Not oppinion. It does not require the kind of explicit reference you suggest. The fact that sprouts are grown commercially and sold as food all over the world is far more evidence than is required. The key point is that the fact is virtually impossible to dispute, because a anyone can easily prove it by visiting a food shop, just as I can prove some of the things I say by visiting a porn shop. Mojo-chan 20:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Words fail you. Most people hate sprouts. (See Brussels sprout.) Source your claims, and read WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NOT. -- Ec5618 20:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I just have to interject that this is one of the silliest and pointless arguments I've read in Wikipedia in a long, long time. Thanks for the amusement! (I hate Brussels sprouts, but I do like bean sprouts. Does that mean anything?) Zotdragon 20:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Words did fail me, I was supposed to write "some" but put "most". I am occasionally prone to this when typing. Zotdragon is right, this is a stupid argument. Clearly, you have decided you 'own' this article and will not allow any new, non-sanctioned ideas. Either that or you can't understand English. Either respond to my points or don't bother at all please. Mojo-chan 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking me to respond to your points again, or are you requesting clarification? Your text was, and is, unacceptable, as per the pages I asked you to read, as well as the points made by Atom.

You may als want to note that our article on sprouts doesn't state that most people hate sprouts directly, it references a study from which such could be concluded. Our article on paedophilia doesn't state that paedophilia is 'nasty', though that would undoubtably be a majority view. Instead, it states factual and unbiased information.

I'm sorry, but your text was far from clear, grammatically satisfactory, nor unbiased. If you need help with your grammar, that's fine. But don't make a mess and expect others to clean it up.

Finally, if you feel I haven't responded to your points, please restate them, as I see no other points. -- Ec5618 23:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Creampiesex.jpg missing?

Has been deleted, why though? Does another comparable image exist for this page to use? Mathmo ^Talk 05:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of searching, seems Jimbo deleted the image to avoid 2257 regulations on sexually explicit materials. Perhaps Wikimedia ought to join the Free Speech Coalition and fight censorship in the US. 204.13.78.154 14:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think that is the reason why. It did not violate 2257 regulations, and there was no discussion anywhere as far as I know. (if you have found otherwise, a reference would be appreciated)

The regulation covers "a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct" which the image was not. (I think people would argue that it is sexually explicit, but not conduct.) Also, the record keeping requirement is for "primary" and "secondary" producers, of which Wikipedia is neither. The content is encyclopedic, and not "intended for commercial distribution".

Even if someone wanted to argue that Wikipedia was in some way a "secondary producer" that DOJ definition has been struck down by the courts.

I think the reason that he removed it is because he didn't like it. Precedent seems to be for following Mr. Wales lead on Wikipedia issues. I suppose it is possible that someone complained, and not taking a chance on legal action was easier than fighting it. If we are going to take a legal stand on censorship, I'd rather it was over something more important that this. (of course I'd also rather that the government didn't coerce others into abiding by behavior that don't really apply to the existing laws.)

Atom 16:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw the summary, but didn't make sense as a valid reason to me. And if it was over legal reasons that would have been mentioned, but it wasn't. So the only explanation we can be left with is that he simply didn't like it? Not a very good reason at all. Hmmm.... Mathmo ^Talk 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo did mention legal reasons. He deleted the image with the edit summary "Image would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements". Jimbo has paid legal advice from the foundation attorney on such matters, most of us do not. As for fighting so-called "censorship" that is an over-used word. The governmnet is in its place to put conditions on the use of speech and action (screaming "fire" in a movie theater, preaching the violent overthrow of the government, sexually-oriented phtographs of children, etc.) Plenty of porn sites comply with the restrictions and operate just fine. We are not a porn site. We don't need the burden of complying with those types of regualtions. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not tilt at windmills. Removing the picture was the right thing to do. Johntex\^talk 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I respect your view, but what I was asking was where did he mention legal reasons?? It is not in the edit summary[2], and not in the talk pages. You know, you keep talking about porn. I haven't seen ANY porn on wikipedia, and yet you say things like "We are not a porn site." What does that have to do with this image? You seem to feel that every sexually explicit image is "porn". I think you need to look more closely at the Miller test. The reason that people fight the government in lawsuits, such as the Free Speech coalition[3] is precisely what you said: "We don't need the burden of complying with those types of regualtions." We aren't a porn site, we don't produce porn, we don't allow porn on any of our articles. We don't sell out content, regardless of how it is characterized. We clearly don't fit the intent of the law as stated by theChild Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. As I said earlier, I can understand a desire by the people responsible for the welfare of Wikipedia to avoid potentially costly legal battles against an oppressive government. Destroying Wikipedia economically in a costly legal battle that would result in Wikipedia winning, the government losing, and wikipedia being shut down from lack of funds would not be a desirable outcome. Atom 20:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I can respect that you may have a narrower view of sexuality than most people. Certainly than me. I support your right to that opinion. I support yout right to pursue your religious or philisophical values as you choose. But, you have to live your life your way, and stop trying to inject those values on other people. Allowing people to choose their religious philosophy, their values, their range of sexuality is what freedom is all about. If you feel that every sexually explicit image is some form of illegal pornography, then you are in the wrong place, as that is obviously not the generally accepted view, or the predominant view in this Internet community. Atom 21:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent - edit conflict) Thank you, Atom. I respect your view as well. You have a lot of points here worth discussing. I'll try to address them all if you will bear with me.

• Where did he mention legal reasons? - he mentioned it in the edit summary when he deleted File:Creampiesex.jpg. You will not be able to see the deleted edits or their edit sumarries if you are not an admin. His exact quote was: "Image would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements"
• Is there now, or ever has there been, porn on Wikipedia? - as you know, the definition of porn is somewhat subjective. I can assure you that you are mistaken when you say that "[I] seem to feel that every sexually explicit image is 'porn'" I would not agree with that statement. I guess we would have to dive into what "sexually explicit" means. I do know that I have seen porn on Wikipedia before. The most obvious examples have all been deleted. Some examples I consider borderline do remain, such as an image of someone performing autofelatio.
• We are not a porn site, what does that have to do with anything? - Unquestionably, Wikipedia allows articles on topics related to pornography. We have dozens of articles on movies and magazines ranging from Playboy to Deep Throat and beyond. Unquestionably, for non-pornographic movies, we allow fair use screenshots. Why then, don't we have fair use screen shots of porn movies? We need to draw the line clearly that to do so is not acceptable tone for an encyclopedia. It is not censorship, it is editorial restraint and a common sense judgement about what is good for the project.
• We don't sell our content - true, but we do encourage re-use and we also encourage material submitted here to be acceptable for re-use as is, even for commercial uses. I think we go too far in worrying about re-use, but it is ther.
• Destroying Wikipedia economically in a costly legal battle ... would not be a desirable outcome - Agreed 100%
• Unmentioned in your post is anything about serving our readers - one of the things that I feel strongly about is that we are not here just to build an encyclopedia. We are here to build a credible encyclopedia that is used by and useful to a wide range of people. Doing this means that we need to follow encyclopedic norms with respect to sexual content. If EB would not show a photograph of a man sucking his own penis, we may be better serving ourselves and our audiance to follow established conventions regarding what constitutes encyclopedic content.

Again, we are not here to push boundaries of sexuality. We are not here to campaign against any governments policies. We shouldn't spend too much time trying to push boundaries and be edgy. We should (in general) utilize the time-worn solution of presenting images that are less controversial. Johntex\^talk 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As always, thanks for your opinions and insight. Even if I may not agree with some things, I never have any doubts about your good intentions, or good faith.

Our goal isn't really to build a reader base, but to build a comprehensive encyclopedia of human knowledge. We can't hold ourselves to the EB standard, as we have already surpassed EB from a number of criteria (perhaps not all). I feel that building a quality encyclopedia means working on the Attribution, reliability and verifiability of references, as well as continully trying to get more sources and better sources and references for information presented as facts. By not allowing in random content such as blogs and illegal content that may come from myspace, youtube and the like we can follow a process of successive refinement that improves the quality of Wikipedia.

As you know, my area of expertise and focus on Wikipedia is sexology and sexuality. I'm sure I spend subsnatially more time than you do with the breadth of articles on Wikipedia that fit that category. Most of that is in keeping the articles maintained by reverting the constant barrage of vandalism. Also, archiving talk pages and the like. Trying to establish some guidelines for images, with your assistance has been important so that rather than every image taking the kind of time and energy that this image has, we can come to some community consensus on how to handle some kinds of images. We still need to do much more work in that area. Accurately documenting the very broad range of sexuality is what is encyclopedic. Documenting it accurately is not pushing boundaries. Images or artwork of real sexuality is not pornography.

It may possibly be true that there are a great number of people who would, if they could, push a button and immediately stop all occurences of sodomy, all pornography, all unusual sexuality that deviates from the "norm", anything erotic, anything sexually explicit. I would, if I could, push a button that would make all people be honest and open about who they are, and their behavior. Obviously in a predominantly christian country, such as the U.S. or U.K. the occurance of sexual behavior, including purchasing and viewing "pornography", adultery, fornication, spanking, bondage, BDSM, and swinging is HUGE and growing. A majority of the populace, in public or in private participate in those activities regularly. If the 2003 estimate that pornography is a $10 billion industry is correct, then a lot more people than a few truck and taxi cab drivers participate in buying porn. Those numbers are hard for me to imagine, since I haven't spent $1 on porn in the past 20 years. What I am saying is that people need to start practicing what they preach, or we need to change society so that what is normal behavior by most of us is not disparaged as deviant and pornographic. Wikipedia is not about changing society, but it is about openness, honesty, and documentign and cataloging the facts. We need to continue to do that on Wikipedia, and not be swayed to change our behavior to hide or lie about aspects of human sexuality because a small minority of people feel that it is at odds with their religious philosophy (even though they buy porn and are having an affair).

As always, thanks for the discussion. Atom 22:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving the source for your comment. I had not realized that you were referring to the edit summary on the deleted image itself. Mr. Wales could probably help by putting something more specific in the edit summary. That would prevent most people from re adding the image, or similar. Frankly, whomever gave him legal advice that such an image was a violation of 2257 is mistaken. Perhaps conservative, but mistaken. That's my non-legal opinion. For the reasons we discussed earlier, I can't fault for being cautious in dealing with a conservative right-wing government. Atom 22:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Atom. Your second post (made while I wrote the above) seems to me to be significantly more argumentative. I don't know if you intended that or not. Again, I will address each of your points:

• "I can respect that you may have a narrower view of sexuality than most people. Certainly than me." - I doubt my views on sexuality are narrower than yours. I can assure you there are pretty broad. It is my views on what belongs in an encyclopedia that may be substantially different from your view.
• "I support your right to that opinion. I support yout right to pursue your religious or philisophical values as you choose." - great, but I have not argued any such point. I don't think this statement of yours is relevant.
• "But, you have to live your life your way, and stop trying to inject those values on other people." - This a red herring. I am not trying to convert anyone to any view. I am trying to make what I believe to be a better encyclopedia. You are free to differ, but let's not misconstue my intnetions, and let's not get so personal.
• "Allowing people to choose their religious philosophy, their values, their range of sexuality is what freedom is all about." - it sounds to me as if it is you not I who are tryign to convert people over to your philosophy.
• "If you feel that every sexually explicit image is some form of illegal pornography, then you are in the wrong place, as that is obviously not the generally accepted view, or the predominant view in this Internet community." - asked and answered, please see above.

Thanks, Johntex\^talk 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Johntex: My apologies. Perhaps I was carried away by the emotion of the moment. I assume good faith with you, and didn't mean to be too personal. Perhaps I was discussing, with you, the kind of emotions that results from a multitude of people who want to remove whatever they personally find objectionable. Certainly applying such a generalization to you personally would not be appropriate, and not my intention. I think we agree on the motivation to make a better encyclopedia. We have very similar, but somewhat different, views on some aspects of that. My view on sexuality is that the more open and honest we can be, and the more accurately we can document human behavior regarding that, the better we all will be. Information and facts about sexuality does not harm people. The more people know and understand about sexuality and human behavior, the bettr we all will be. As Wikipedia is a forum and platform dedicated to not censoring, and honestly discussing issues and trying to document knowledge, it seems like a perfect forum for frank and open discussion of sexuality to help people get over end remove inhibitions from being "protected" and shielded from the facts. You seem to feel that we can be too honest, push boundaries, to edgy. So, we differ in our opinions on that. Best to you. Atom 22:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you Atom - no great harm done. I agree with you that our views are similar in many ways. I want us to be "honest" definitely. I am not sure I can think of any instance where we could be "too honest". I do think we can be "too edgy" though. That being said, I agree with your desire to be "honestly discussing issues and trying to document knowledge". Would it surprise you to know that I am currently engaged in an effort to undelete the article on Ass to mouth? At the same time, however, I would not suport video or photos on that article. Best to you as well, Johntex\^talk 22:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

List of porn performers

I guess I don't much care for the list of porn performers either. The article isn't about porn, and just because act of a creampie occassionally occures in a porn isn;t (IMO) sufficient. Should we also add a list of porn performers to penis, breast, sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, vagina, spanking, etc...Atom 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It all comes down to the definition of creampie. I personally do not consider semen leaking out of a vagina as a result of intercourse to be a "creampie" unless it is in the context of pornography. I don't think that ordinary sex produces creampies any more than it produces "cum shots", even though the same act may be taking place. So I think that this article is about porn, which makes it different from penis, etc.. --Strait 00:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the list seems silly and pointless, so perhaps it should be removed anyway. I mean, there have probably been thousands of performers who have done creampies by now. How does listing them make this article any more encyclopedic? --Strait 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we shouldn't list all of them, but some of them would be known for doing creampies. Those few ought to be listed here, and not the others. Mathmo ^Talk 10:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that we decided to not have a list, as it would end up growing and growing. Why did you put it back? Do you reaslly think it adds any value to the average reader of the article? Or is it just more cruft? Atom 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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) 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

HIV-AIDS

By the way, can anyone tell me which method of care use porn actor about HIV. I mean, yeah, yeah, they made test theyself... but these tests, (according to WHO) take time to produce the result (about two weeks to month) say nothing that you made the test last week and you perform and get HIV from a HIV-POSITIV last night and next days you have sex with your porn-partner!. We know porn actors with several year of trayectory, without having any manifestation of AIDS!. I mean they must have an active sexual life outside de studio, haven't they?. I don't get it ? they have super powers or something ? :-).

• • Have you ever heard of AIM? <url>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_Industry_Medical_Health_Care_Foundation</url> The group regularly tests porn actors to make sure they are clean and calls for quarantines when an infection is found, which happens very rarely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.245.30 (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • So "regularly tests" how much is "regularly"?, I repeat:
      "say nothing that you made the test last week and you perform and get HIV from a HIV-POSITIV last night and next days you have sex with your porn-partner!."
      This persons has obviously active -out of studio- sex life.
      you say:
      "which happens very rarely."
      This is really extrange, that they "regularly"¿? test, doesn't mean that they came clean of the test. Even more, it has not relation at all, HIV virus doesn't care how much tests do you perform ;-P.
      -"Hey you virus, I perform tests "regularly" so don't contagious me ;-)".
      
      So the most long year (10+) very known porn actors are -according to you- "regularly tests" and they came clean all the time!!! (because other way they already would show some AIDS manifestation or be dead!.)
      What a lucky guys, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.132.235 (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You should check this link: [[4]], you will find the answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.8.105 (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Changed 1 Word

I changed the word "Novel" to "Unique" in the first paragraph. The definition of novel is "New" and it doesn't really fit into the rest of the paragraph. I substituted the more appropriate word unique. If anyone feels I am out of line, please revert my change. I think this is subtle enough to fly under the radar, but I'm not trying to make waves.--Legomancer 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PICTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Drawing

Is this silly little drawing of an anal creampie really necessary? Either act like adults and put in one of many readily availible photographs, or just succumb to puritan nonsense and not include an image at all. 69.222.67.35 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Eating Section

On the eating section, shouldn't there be a reference to simply performing cunnilingus in addition the the more elaborate methods? 66.191.19.217 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

CreamyPies

Although creampies were introduced in adult videos prior, the first internet subscription website to ever feature the creampie was called "CreamyPies" which started in January of 1998 and quickly became one of the most popular amateur adult websites.

This reads like cheap advertising, was unsourced, and marked as such by Malik Shabazz. Porn sites hustling for attention on WP is getting a little old, so I removed it until someone finds an actual source for this. Then, even if CreamyPies was the "first internet subscription website" to show the practise, how is that notable when it had been done on video for ages? 212.202.199.190 (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

image deletions

Per a post I started on Jimbo's talk page, the two images that were on this page have been deleted. While I don't think his suggestion to summarily ban the uploaders of the images will be helpful since there was apparently some confusion about site policy, I also don't think that his stance on photos illustrating this article could be any clearer now. Please report further photos added to this article for speedy deletion as well as possible administrative action against the uploaders. Thanks, BanyanTree 22:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree here; as a classical liberal whose tendency is not to censor in the slightest, that point of view is tempered by issues of taste. There is no reason why an encyclopedia should depict things just because it can, and this is nothing to do with WP:NOTCENSORED. In the case of this article, it's frighteningly thinly sourced anyway, and might be better moved to en:Wiktionary. It's a definition, not a topic, in my view. --Rodhullandemu 23:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If photographs for what is by definition an explicit sexual act(ivity) then the tag "It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality." should NOT be displayed for such entries. This obviously will just invite people to try to post photographs when it appears based on the history and discussion trail of this entry, that none are really desired. Rayngrant (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC) RayNGrant

The attached image should be deleted as it is disgusting2007apm (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a valid reason I'm afraid. The license looks fine to me, it is relevant to the article and ofcourse WP:NOTCENSORED. If you don't like it, don't look at it. raseaC^{talk to me} 00:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Barring that, I'd suggest going somewhere else. HalfShadow 00:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rarity

The article currently states "The uncommon nature is due to the fact that ejaculating inside the vagina significantly increases the risk of pregnancy if the actress is not using some form of birth control." Are we sure this is true? Withdrawal has a high failure rate as a method of contraception, so any actress relying on it for birth control is taking a huge risk. Even if there were no accidents, there is still a small risk of pregnancy from sperm in pre-ejaculatory fluid. I thought most filmmakers used external cum shots as a way of proving that genuine intercourse had taken place and that the male has orgasmed. As noted in the article, a creampie is easier to fake so doesn't achieve the goal (at least, not as reliably). That's just my opinion and I can't point to any published information to back this up. However, the article doesn't cite any sources for its statement either. Is there any published information on this? --Prh47bridge (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I do have to agree on this one. There could be many other reasons as well. If I remember correctly it was once stated that external ejaculations were actually easier to film than internal ones, and it would be pretty foolish to think that porno actresses don't use some form of birth control. Also, based on what I've heard (read: seen, but that's not an official statement), it seems that creampies are becoming more common, perhaps due to the idea of said risk. But don't take my word for it.--GaryCXJk (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

• This RFC is Closed. Keep the current image until a higher quality image that a consensus agrees upon is found. WP:CENSOR carries the strongest weight. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Some editors above have suggested a Request for Comment re the image, so this is it. There has been discussion already directly above at Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#Upgrade to image and Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#re WP:CONSENSUS.

To summarize:

• Some editors think that the image is substandard and should be removed pending improvement.
• Other editors have said the image is OK.
• Other editors have said the article shouldn't have an image at all.

No one has come forward with an improved version, except for the one shown below at right, which is felt by some to be no improvement.

File:Creampie drawing 1.svg

The existing image

File:220px-Cumfart 02.png

The only alternate that has been put forward so far

A count of traditional bolded comment summaries above show, so far, 5 Remove, 6 Keep, 1 "Keep or Remove but do not improve". (Of course this is a great generalzation of the many interesting and cogent arguments advanced above.) New perspectives are invited. Herostratus (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• You failed to mention that other alternatives have been submitted: commons:Category:Creampie (sexual act) And Keep as commented above[5] Cptnono (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• As Cptnono has shown, we've already got free content photos on Commons that are actual photos. You can't "improve" much more than that. So most certainly keep, and use one of those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, are you guys serious? Nooooooo, no photos, please. While we are all in favor of information, there is such as thing as Too Much Information, if you know what we mean. Or, to get more technical, 1) a photo can detract from a scholarly article by overemphasizing the visual, and 2) it's difficult to fully appreciate the scholarly virtues of an article while you are cleaning your breakfast off your keyboard. Herostratus (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hero, Wikipedia is not censored. Images can't be removed just because you happen to think it's too much information. As for which image, I personally think a real photo should be on the page, but I'm not sure which one. Real photos, unless of low quality, always convey the information better than a sketch will. --13² 18:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If I put a video of me dumping a shit in the article defecation, will you also argue that it has to remain in the article because "WP is not censored" and you cannot get better than an actual video of the act? There is such a thing as editorial judgment, you know, and NOTCENSORED is a poor replacement for it. --JN466 01:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In the defecation article, I think we could reasonably argue that a video of an animal defecating is just as illustrative and far less distracting, so I'd support that instead. I would not, however, support no video whatsoever—if we did have such an animal photo or video, I would certainly support its use. That's what we have free media for. In this case, however, since this is in essence a term applicable only to humans (unlike defecation), a human photo is about the only option. I mean, really—who comes to an article entitled "Creampie (sexual act)" and expects to not find content about, well, sex? The fact that it makes some people squeamish is in no way a reason to avoid illustrating an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It is a policy. Your argument of editorial judgment is addressed in it "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so". Note the exceedingly so bit. Wikipedia encourages users to upload their ownf images. Some editors believe that paintings and drawings are preferable but there are exceptions. Can you say that we are not attempting to treat it in an encyclopedic manner? You don't get any more straight forward then a view of the subject without distractions (an actor pulling a funny face while climaxing or some naughty lingerie). It is a simple image the depicts the subject. It is considered obscene to some but to others it is perfectly reasonable. It is a subject that causes distraction in the text to many people. An image pairs with it nicely and should not draw undue focus away from it. And keep in mind that everyone reads an article differently. Some scan images and leads. Some click on every source. This image will assist the understanding (as odd as that may sound) for some readers. The only reason for objection I can see to using the actual photograph is legal issues but it is a gray area that even Commons hasn't worked out. It has the license we need so we should be able to run with it. If that is too offensive then editors need to get over the lower quality of the drawing since it isn not as bad as some are asserting. It isn't perfect but it is good enough and will likely reduce the knee-jerk reaction of seeing a vagina with some semen. Let me know if you need some wikilinks to support the above.Cptnono (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what we do here in this article, I do think as a culture we have to grow beyond NOTCENSORED as a kill-all argument against removing any media file from an article. Take beheading videos embedded in the biographies of all the people who were beheaded in Iraq, or rape videos in rape -- including the latter would be illegal according to law in Florida, where our servers are located, but would you argue that based on NOTCENSORED Wikipedia should feature such a video, and will do so if and when our servers are relocated to a country with less restrictive legislation? --JN466 13:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

How exactly would you propose to get an appropriately licensed video of a rape? "Yep, that's me, I'm the copyright holder! No, I certainly am...why are all those police cars parked outside my house?" We would also have significant privacy issues there, as the victim would almost certainly have been filmed unwillingly. That's quite different than a shot where the person, in addition to not being identifiable, is also clearly knowingly posing for the shot. There is a tremendous difference between rape and consensual sexual activity, as I certainly hope everyone here would know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe you may be sidestepping the issue, by bringing hypothetical objections into play which may not apply, and to avoid thinking about the question. The beheading videos e.g. may well have been released under a CC license -- certainly they were meant to be circulated as widely as possible -- and there is nothing in NOTCENSORED that prohibits the inclusion of media depicting injuries people suffered against their will, or media that is exceedingly offensive. In the case of rape, simply assume that a video is available (rape videos are commercially available, after all), and assume even, for argument's sake, that the person is not recognisable, because their face is covered or out of shot. Or indeed, assume that the person is reconisable and consent is not a problem -- recently we had an editor here, User:TechnoFaye (now banned), who claimed to be a woman who liked being raped, and who posts pictures of rape, and videos of herself, on her blog. Note the self-description at the bottom. This was one of the account's edits to the rape article. It would be entirely within character for such a user to post an image or video of rape under a CC license, insert it in the rape article, and argue that it is informative and must not be removed under NOTCENSORED. If that were to happen, would we all stand up and say, The image has to remain, because (1) Wikipedia is not censored, (2) whether the image is exceedingly offensive to viewers does not matter, and (3) what could be more informative about rape than an image of it? I believe not; and that is why arguments of this type should not be conducted on the basis of NOTCENSORED, but on the basis of editorial judgment. --JN466 00:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would involve editorial judgment (not the least of which the question of whether something someone likes and wants is a rape at all, but that'd be a discussion more specific to the situation). But I suppose, in the unlikely even that we were to get a video that were appropriately licensed, did not raise privacy concerns, and was germane to the subject, we'd use it. Why shouldn't we? The specific role of NOTCENSORED is to say "We do not exclude things because people are squeamish about them", and replacing the word "censor" with "editorial judgment" is a simple case of euphemism, and does not change what it means. As to the beheading videos, yes, yes, and most certainly yes. We show graphic images of suffering in articles about The Holocaust, even though that may not be the most comfortable thing for some people. Why wouldn't we do so in an article about another horrific act, if the material is under a license we can use it with? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position that you consider it desirable, perhaps even imperative, to include videos of actual rape in Rape, and videos of actual murder in Wikipedia biographies of murder victims, and that the only thing that prevents you from doing so at present is a lack of suitably licensed media files. I can't say that I agree with you – I don't see WP:NOTCENSORED saying that we are duty-bound to include such material, i.e. forbidden not to include it -- but it makes your stance clear, and I will bear it in mind should we discuss similar issues again. --JN466 01:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my position. You asked for what it would be in a hypothetical situation where several restrictions that would apply in reality didn't. As I said, in reality, it would be difficult if not impossible to get a video of rape that did not implicate privacy, licensing, or both, and I know of no such video in existence (we would certainly have the privacy issue, in which a victim of actual rape is by definition not consenting to the act, let alone its filming). As to the murder videos, as I said, we certainly do provide relevant images, even when they are difficult, to the corresponding articles, provided that they are either appropriately licensed or are acceptable as nonfree content. I think we are absolutely bound to include such things. We are not only here to educate people about easy subjects, we're here to educate on the parts of the world that are difficult or revolting as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I still find it amazing that you would be prepared to "educate" readers about rape by showing them a video of one (there may well be historical ones that are out of copyright, and whose participants have died). Do you think this is the sort of thing readers, especially female readers, would be looking for if they go to rape? I find it equally amazing that you would "educate" readers about the Iraqi murder victims by including the videos of their killings in their biographies, without considering readers' feelings, or indeed the feelings of these people's families. (Present consensus at these articles does not even support linking to the videos. Anyone who really wants to see them can find them online in less than a minute.) As far as I am concerned, your position is logical, but lacks humanity and empathy. --JN466 05:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting off topic and straying down a weird path. But a note, it isn;t about the female readers. It is about readers reading work like Wikipedia (as well as everywhere else both on and off the internet) differently. Human feces would be great in that article (different colors, consistency and so on can mean different things health wise) and rape might also have a valid rationale (I don;t know and won;t get sucked into that sure-to-be terrible discussion unless it is over there). In THIS article, as I have pointed out, it does not unduely distract from the topic while also illustrating the topic.Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have no issues with videos of animals (including humans) defecating on appropriate articles. I'm sure you were looking for an "OMG THAT'S SO GROSS!" response, but you won't find it from me. --13² 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is not whether you would be grossed out watching it. The question is, what encyclopedic value would it add? I don't think there is a single human being on the planet who needs to watch a video of a person defecating to understand how defecation works. --JN466 13:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If that is your real rationale, then why aren't you going to support removal of images from human nose? But your chat about rape and beheading (both subjects for which I'd strongly advocate a video for, if there could be a free, privacy-keeping one) makes me lose WP:AGF a bittle on this grasping at straws of yours. Let me remember that we, as a culture, had to grow up a lot to accept not being censored. Censoring is the exact opposite of "growing up as a culture", Jayen. --Cyclopia^talk 07:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the use of an animal in illustrating this article has been extensively discussed, and in fact was more or less accepted as preferable. This was after some discussion over the which sex the figure should represent; the consensus being that, with an animal, the fur could cover the naughty bits, rendering the dispute moot. Obviously the requirement for fur would rule out some species, such as giraffe, tapir, or lobster. How about a roundworm? They don't have sex organs. Anyway, leaving up for further discussion the matter of the preferred species, I'll be the first to support this.

• Support inclusion of an image, but only if it avoids human-centric bias by depicting an animal. Herostratus (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think that would be frankly bizarre - there is nothing in the text that refers to animals, but everything about human sexual behaviour. Creampie, as in sex, is specifically about either the use of a term relating to pornographic depictions, or a fetishist consideration within a sexual act. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with LHVU here. --JN466 13:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Frankly bizarre" is not, in my experience, a valid reason for rejecting encyclopedic content, and may I remind you that the Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. I think rejecting out of hand that our four-footed friends may fully participate in loving and caring consensual interspecies sexual encounters, and be so depicted, is what is frankly bizarre. Herostratus (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest that "interspecies sexual encounter" seems to be another word for bestiality (and all that that entails, regardless of WP:NOTCENSORED) but my point is that the article specifically notes that the subject is derived from the pornography industry, descriptions and the titles exampling such productions do not include references to animals. While I am sure that there are images available of post animal mating - same species, obviously - they would not reflect the content of the text. A picture of a recently serviced mare is not a suitable image for an article noting a human sexual act. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• I assume he was not being serious. —Soap— 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the article should be illustrated with an image, and if there is a photograph available, it should be used. I find the drawing frankly grotesque, and actually offensive to me as a female.

Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 09:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• • For reference, there are two available photographs at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Creampie_(sexual_act). The one that is technically better is of a coloured person. Robert Harris, the Foundation consultant currently looking into the question of controversial content, commented the other day that Commons hosts around 1,000 images of penises, and they are all white. Yet the one decent photo of a creampie we have in Commons features a coloured woman; it was originally titled "File:IndoMiMiPussyCream-1.jpg" and authored by someone called "Hardttcore". I find that bias towards serving white males' proclivities offensive, too. --JN466 13:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. If there is an image in this article, it would have to be a male. It's disturbing that in all the sex images I come across here, when a person is shown in an awkward, compromising, unfortunate, or degrading position, it is always a woman. I think the subtext of this is frankly unacceptable. Let the gentlemen step up to the plate and take some of the awkward poses. Herostratus (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that this type of thing used to be more common in gay pornography, an illustration showing a male would arguably be more relevant. --JN466 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it is more prominent but that is OR. More importantly, can you draw such an image? I can't but wouldn't be against someone else doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs)

• Remove, unless someone can come up with a freely-licensed photograph of the act that is notable in and of itself, according to reliable sources. It doesn't seem to me that this concept demands illustration for illustration's sake. It's described perfectly adequately in text, and in fact no one drawing seems able to adequately capture all possible meanings of the term as defined in the article. Doing so with drawings would create a pornographic gallery, not an encyclopedia article, due to the variations required. Therefore, I think any depiction should be specifically notable for some valid reason. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content WP:NNC so your reasoning is by know means a requirement across the project. And as discussed above (02:03, 29 September 2010) a single image illustrating the subject in a way that is no more distracting than the text itself can be achieved. This is not a pornographic gallery.Cptnono (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of a photo: since we have good photographic alternatives on Commons, it is absurd not to use them. Standard considerations apply: given that we are not subject to censorship and that such a picture would be a direct illustration of article subject, the picture is therefore appropriate and there are no encyclopedic or legal considerations to remove it. --Cyclopia^talk 07:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• If we are leaning towards using a photo, then I assume we need to figure out which one. We could use both with the recent expansion but I understand the concern of turning it into a gallery. If we do want to address legalities, there could be a problem of no proof of age. I don't know if the pubic hair (see Tanner scale) or protruding labia are enough to make the assumption. There also could be a concern with a release from the subjects. Not sure though and it doesn't look like there has been a problem at Commons with either (besides a deletion discussion that resulted in "keep"). I would like to use at least one of those but don't know what would be preferred.Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I was just thinking of asking Seedfeeder again if he could do a piece of artwork, as the article now meets his minimum length and content criteria. It might be possible to do an image of an anal creampie that leaves the recipient's gender ambiguous – either by having the penis cover the relevant area, or by having hands stretching the anus, and covering it that way. Thoughts? --JN466 02:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Those sound like fine ideas but I don't know if he takes requests that specialized. He might also decline it since we have two photos and a drawing. Might be worth asking though.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. --JN466 03:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Update. --JN466 00:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't understand why can't we use the Commons photos instead of bothering Seedfeeder. --Cyclopia^talk 10:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• keep an image in the article. I don't care if a image or a drawing is used, as long as the drawing illustrates well the topic (and the drawing at the top of the RfC is good enough for me).

And why on heavens should we use animal photos instead of human ones? And I think that the overwhelming majority of sources are about human creampie? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep WP:NOTCENSORED - simple. If someone makes a better image then sure we should remove this one, but in the same way we don't delete an article because it is badly written, we don't remove an image because it looks a bit amateurish. If people don't like this one, maybe they should contact the creators of the images found in cum shot, Pearl necklace (sexuality) and other articles to see if they might make a new one for here. (Just noticed that's already been done). Smartse (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion (NB: judged premature, consensus is the RfC will remain open until 27 October)

Well, discussion has pretty much died down here and so the RfC has run its course. Let's see where we stand.

There hasn't been much support shown for depicting an animal or for using the alternate File:220px-Cumfart 02.png, so let's dispemse with those.

There have been discussions about obtaining a replacement image, but so far nothing has come of that. So that's not an available option at this time.

There was some support for using a photograph (two are available). So the options in play are are:

• Keep current image
• No image
• Photograph

Prior to the RfC the Keep/No Image "votes" were about even at around 5. The RfC produced few extra "votes" on the Keep/No Image line, instead adding a couple of Use Photo "votes" and considerable discussion around the idea of using a photo. However, the "Use Photo" camp didn't garner enough "votes" to get numbers to match the Keep/No Image camps, and there were also some anti-Photo comments.

In addition: I don't know if the "Use Photo" faction is kidding or not, but if they are kidding they should be congratulated for keeping a straight face throughout. I was hoping for the kicker final post that said just "...the Aristocrats!" But if they're not kidding: of course there isn't going to be a photo. Don't be silly. It would be have immediately removed under the "Obviously inappropriate content" clause, for starters.

So that leaves us about where we were before the RfC: Keep, or No Image. As I said, the "votes" are about the same. But we don't really count numbers of "votes" in a case like this.

Well, what we are left with here is strength of argument. Let's see:

• One editor called it a "poor-quality amateur drawing" that "degrades the article".
• Another editor said it was "obviously an amateur drawing, and doesn't have nearly the sort of quality that would be expected in an encyclopedia".
• Another editor said the image "looks, quite literally, like it came from a 7th-grader's sketchbook".
• Another editor described the image as "of exceedingly poor quality (like something off a men's room stall)".
• Another editor found the drawing "frankly grotesque, and actually offensive to me as a female."
• I didn't comment on the quality of the image, but I concur that it's basically of amateur mens-room-wall grafiti quality and well below the quality of any other article illustration I can recall.

That's a lot of pretty strongly worded negative commentary.

The "Keep" commenters weren't really able to refute any of this. No Keep commenter said anything like "of fully professional quality, comperable or even superior many of our article graphics" or whatever. Because they couldn't, because it isn't. The comments were in the manner of:

• "sufficient for the article"
• "of good enough quality"
• "perceived 'quality' (or lack of) is not sufficient justification for the removal of an image"
• "The quality is not great but it depicts the subject perfectly well"
• "agree the image is not great. However it does its job... A poor quality but clear and correct image is better than no image"

Kind of damning with faint praise, as it were. Only one editor really defended the image as being of good quality, saying that it was a "basic drawing that clearly depicts the subject matter", comparable to images in "a physical dictionary, such as Merriam Webster" which are also "all basic line drawings"

So you pretty much have have every single editor agreeing that it's a substandard image. That's not a really good indication for keeping the image. And the folks who don't like it really don't like it, and the defenders don't really like it. So all in all, I don't see any strength of argument on the Keep side. So I deleted the image. I don't think there's any easy way to appeal beyond actually going nuclear, so let's please be graceful and not edit war over this, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC has not run its course. Even if it had been concluded, !votes and arguments discussing policy and guidelines are still in favor. A replacement is a good option but that also needs to be discussed. Just removing is not acceptable at this time.Cptnono (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, somebody has to decide these things. We can't keep the RfC open forever, and discussion seems to have pretty much died off. If anyone is going to close, it might as well be me, since I'm reasonably fair-minded (I closed my own RfA with a decision against myself even though it could have been arguable, for instance). I can't remove half the image or something. What would be unacceptable is edit warring. I am not really up on the steps following an RfC close, but Wikipedia:Dispute resolution probably has info, or you could ask around. You can certainly request an ArbCom ruling, I don't know if that's the recommended next step or not. But good luck, and let me know what you come up with. Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK, just glancing at the dispute resolution stuff, there is also mediation, I guess. I don't know anything about that but you can look into it if you like. Herostratus (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RfCs can run 30 days. No need to pull the trigger early. Furthermore, editors have been saying a photo would be good. A new image does not mean NO image at this time. If you want to move on to that discussion then fine but so far there is not consensus to remove the image while more editors have supported an image (including the drawing). (I also removed an errant copy and paste on this talk page) And no further DR is needed unless you continue to remove the image without consensus.Cptnono (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And the recent conversation #Upgrade to image (and the following sub sections) should not be disregarded simply because the conversation was expanded. Many arguments for Keep there. Please also see.[6]Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RfCs have to be closed by uninvolved editor. This is disruptive, Herostratus. --Cyclopia^talk 08:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would note that I have warned Herostratus that he will be blocked if he again attempts to enforce his version of consensus in this matter - and also noted that some of his contributions to the discussion verged on trolling (and I am referring to his suggesstions of using depictions of animals, and for his apparent disinclination to provide reasons for using images of males or nondetermined gendered individuals). I have no objections, of course, for Herostratus' continued policy compliant participation in these discussions or elsewhere on the article and talkpages, but think that AGF has been extended as far as it can go in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you, especially on the "verge on trolling" thing. --Cyclopia^talk 14:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I should not have attempted to close the RfC. I didn't know about the 30-day rule (and can be reasonably be chastised for failing to do due diligence). So sorry, and ignore that. I was just operating on the basis of "well, this seems to have run its course, no new editors have joined in for a while, and I suppose it's dropping down on the RfC list so we probably won't get any more, and no new data is being presented, so let's move on".

So the RfC expires on (I think) October 27. I will say that it's probably true that not many new editors will weigh in before that, or cogent new arguments or data be presented, so this is probably a technicality. But rules are rules. But let's not get all excited about a simple mistake.

One editor points out that the RfC has to be closed by an uninvolved editor. But:

• It doesn't say that at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs (although I'm willing to be pointed to where it does say that, if anywhere), and
• The lead sentence WP:RFC says that its an "informal, lightweight process", so exactly how rule-bound is it supposed to get, and
• It's hard to get an uninvolved person, because this is a fraught subject and people usually have strong opinions on it, and
• My aborted close contained a reasonably accurate summary and was reasonably fair-minded, I guess - at least no one has claimed otherwise - so how much better are you going to do with someone else?

So, again, sorry for my error, and if everybody would sit down with a nice big cup of Lighten Up, that would helpful, I think. Herostratus (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I claim otherwise, and think your dismissal of those arguing to keep is quite in the wrong. It certainly is in my case. When we have free images of an article's subject, we use those. So, for clarity's sake, I am firmly, unambiguously, and absolutely against removal of the drawing. I would prefer to see a real photo, but if there's no consensus for that, the drawing it is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and it is becoming practice for uninvolved editors (often admins, simply because the inherent familiarity with policy) to close RfC's - and especially where there are conflicting positions. Your own attempts to determine consensus indicates why it is vital that someone with no position but good understanding of policy is best to referee the final decision, since it is harder to argue against an independents determination under suspicion of bias. Now, you could trawl the policy pages to counter my comments or you could, you know, just assume good faith with what the other editors are telling you - which is the way the wiki is supposed to work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep the image on the left. More image trolling in Wikipedia by overly prudish persons. Now, I'm a bit riled up after having made the same argument at U-Haul lesbian. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, glad to see new blood. My, Tijfo098 is certainly fond of of the term "trolling"! It does roll of the tongue quite nicely. Tijfo098, I understand your frustration in having to deal with other human beings. If it will help, it's OK with me if you put a picture of a U-Haul truck in this article.

Anyway, per the above discussion: OK, sorry if I have offended. How's this: I will henceforth undertake to show proper gravitas and respect for the matter at hand by not referring to the image as "so wretchedly bad that it brings shame to the entire Internet" or ascribe its creation to a "deranged ungulate on an Oxycontin binge" and so forth. Which I haven't done! Instead, I will henceforth refer to the image as The Sublime Image, The Veronica, or The Apotheosis of Human Art. Hopefully this will improve matters.

Well, anyway, if we are having trouble reaching consensus, how about compromise? However, I'm at a loss to figure out what would make a good compromise. All I can come up with is:

• 
  The "Solomon compromise". However, this could be seen as a desecration of The Sublime Image, so I'm not suggesting it.
• 
  Here we get the basic point across, but with a little judicious editing. However, this could be seen as a desecration of The Apotheosis of Human Art, so I'm not suggesting it.
• 
  If we must have a photo, can it at least be a photo of some kittens? CON: Does not illustrate subject very well. PRO: Kittens!

Herostratus (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not on any of those three. The current image is fine unless people want to discuss the other two images actually showing the act. Cptnono (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well? It's November now. Can someone get a Fair Witness to close the RfC and remove the image, please? Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would the image be removed?Cptnono (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, I think that's explained above... Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

what about

• 
  this one

Aisha9152 (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good! Or then again, to capture the general overall reaction to the Divine Image as expressed above, there's

• 
  this one

Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, I think why it should be kept is explained above. Cptnono (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• This RFC is Closed. Keep the current image until a higher quality image that a consensus agrees upon is found. WP:CENSOR carries the strongest weight. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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