Talk:Pre-ejaculate/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Picture discussion January 2006

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

its "gross" not "grose"

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

^^^ he's right

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

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

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

Comparing eating crap to pre-ejaculte liquid probably denotes some mental condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.3.122 (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

About picture. I think it should have some kind of warning that content is for mature audiences only. 93.106.22.62 (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

AIDS/HIV and pregnancy risk

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Picture discussion starting April 2006

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There certainly are people who don't know the difference between sweat and pre-ejaculate: won't somebody please think of the children

We have lots of pictures of things that can be easily described or that everyone knows: paperclip, foot, etc. We also have a lot of images that may be found offensive that add only somewhat to the articles missionary position, Bahaullah, autofellatio, ejaculation. According to WP:WIAGA, we should have an image. The image makes the article more informative. That's the bottom line. With that condition met, WP:Profanity obliges us to include it - there is an 'if' right before the 'only if' from which you were arguing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyedit

On the first paragraph, the last word inside the starting bracket was missing a closing bracket, I have edited this to include the closing bracket.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.175.232 (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2006

From RfC

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

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

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

To sum up my rambling:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture discussion December 2006 - 2007

Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments11 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I still don't understand why any special care should be taken! You can't argue it's not a relevant picture. If it didn't fit the article, there wouldn't be a link to the picture. Wikipedia does not censor, and this is censorship! What's going on here!? 68.222.56.80 05:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently ignorance of the definition of the word, "censorship," that's what. -- 68.127.150.43 06:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We should post this inline, at the top. Christopher Connor 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a pic of a more viscious higher flow natural variation BigBoris 07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna replace that one that had barely any flow that was just an enlargement of the head with a better example. Yes it is my own penis and I am proud of it. Crowdedcar 22:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the new picture to remove legs, toes, closet contents, etc. from the picture. Especially considering the small size thumbnail visible in this article, it was very difficult to see the actual fluid in the original picture. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lyrl! I thought it was okay to see, but I guess that's just because it is my own. I appreciate your help in fixing my picture. Crowdedcar 00:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have one issue with this picture (pre-ejaculate.jpg), namely that the fluid looks distinctively white, like semen, while the article states it is clear and colourless. Either the picture is not representative of the subject, or information about the variation of translucency should be added to the article. Since, from what I know, clearity is indeed one of the main differences from semen, I have changed the picture to Precum.JPG, which also has a higher artistic merit, in my opinion. Alatius 09:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Inline image proposal

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Second picture

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The second picture seemed fine to me, about the same level of palatability as the first. It also showed that there is variation in "normal". I don't see any reason to remove it, but a recent edit (diff) said the picture needed to be discussed on the talk page. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a picture of a natural high flow variation of pre-ejaculate from bulbourethral (Cowper's)glands. This is valid representation of a genetic variation in a natural human male population. BigBoris 10:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is it really that difficult to revert the occasional vandalism this page gets? It's nothing on the order of what condom gets, for example, and that page is only rarely semi-protected.

While the vandalism is annoying, constructive edits are also made by anonymous editors - such as the spelling correction just two days ago. I believe avoiding having to revert a few edits a month by anonymous users (I count four for the entire month of June) is not worth forgoing the constructive edits such users make. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not "temporary", it was constant edit-warring over the presence of the links to images. Which, incidentally replaced actual images that themselves had generated terrible edit warring. Circeus 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

...I guess I just don't see four edits a month as "constant edit-warring". Lyrl^Talk _C 01:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Testimony

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found it necessary to include here this testimony of mine about the use of this page, as there seems to be much problems about if to use the picture or not. First some background: 1. I am highly educated male with 30-40 years of age. 2. My native language is not English.

Some time ago I decide to find out what makes the liquid that under certain circumstances comes from my penis so slippery. I simply wanted to find the chemical composition for it. However, I did not know what that liquid is called in my native language or in English. The internet was the most easily available source, so I used it. But without exact word it was pretty difficult to find what you are looking for. After I found the English word pre-ejaculate in a rather fitting context, I guessed I was getting close. However, the word did not exist in my dictionary, so I needed to look more. I had no idea what the Cowper's glands were, so several places where I found some kind of explanations WITHOUT PICTURE, did not make me sure that I had the right word. But when I figured to check the word from Wikipedia I knew I got the right word. And I was really helped by the (original?) picture on the page, which was at the time directly seen as the page opened.

My point with this testimony is that the picture was really useful for me. Maybe my case is not the most common one, but anyway it is a case. After I knew the word and was sure it was right, getting my hands on the chemistry was not that difficult at all. So whatever you decide, please do not remove all the pictures or links to pictures from the page. Eeeerio 14:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture discussion August 2007

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ok, i am not saying the pic (i think its 2) is "GROSE!!". The only thing im saying is the fluid doesnt exactly look like precum. It just looks like regular ole cum. Discuss.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.174.137 (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2007

OK EVERYONE PLEASE SEE Wikipedia:Content disclaimerBlacksmith^talkEditor Review 08:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Linkimage template removed

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

The images in this article were hidden with the linkimage template, which, when used, causes images to be hidden with a text link, requiring readers to click the link to display the image. There is no reasonable rationale for hiding these images. See Penis, Foreskin, Vulva, Vagina, Clitoris, Labia, Labia majora, Labia minora. The linkimage template is not used in any of these articles. These body parts are clearly visible. Hiding the images that show a bodily fluid that is issued during sexual arousal is a form of censorship and it is inappropriate for Wikipedia. If the genitals can be shown when they are unaroused, why cannot they be shown while aroused? The genitals are acceptable, but sex is not? Ridiculous. 68.163.219.59 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In this diff, User:3tmx reverted the removal of the linkimage template, without any explanation. I encourage this user and others to engage in discussion rather than reverting without comment. 68.163.219.59 22:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually i did just explain it on your talk page. 3tmx 23:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

1) I did not receive any response other than in the context of a vandalism warning, which is inappropriate. See below. 68.163.219.59 12:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a warning about not altering the template, plus a substantial ongoing discussion. Your edit looked like vandalism to me 3tmx 23:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As stated at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings, the vandalism warning templates are not to be used in content disputes. Clearly, this is a content dispute, and 3tmx's usage of the vandalism warning template is entirely inappropriate:

It is clear that my initial edit was not vandalism; and I explained in the edit summary exactly what I did and why. 3tmx then immediately reverted without an explanation, giving only the word "undo" in the edit summary, with no mention of their action on the Talk page. I reverted, and asked for clarification on the Talk page (the four intermediate edits are mine). 3tmx then issued a vandalism warning in response to the content dispute.

Yes, there was a discussion in May about whether Linkimage should be used to hide the images, and whether images should be used at all. No consensus was reached. In fact, there were strong opinions on both sides, including strong arguments supporting inline images, as I do. In the absence of a current discussion, I instated what I believed to be a logical edit, with an explanation. 3tmx has reverted without explanation and inappropriately warned me against "vandalism", which is described as "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."^ref I want to ask that 3tmx will stop framing constructive edits as "compromising the integrity of Wikipedia". Perhaps then we can get to, I don't know, discussing the content, perhaps. I have already made my points and look forward to a response. 68.163.219.59 11:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The following was included in the vandalism warning template:

Theres obviously a substantial ongoing discussion about uses of images at pre ejucalation (plus a warning not to change thew template) so its best to discuss changes on the talk page before going ahead and making them!

First of all, the "warning" on the talk page is a form of WP:OWN. Clearly, there was no consensus as to what to do about the images on this page, back in May when the main discussion occurred. I do not think that an interval of weeks or months since comment constitutes a "current discussion", this edit was not made during a content dispute; it was left unresolved and had not been discussed in weeks. The final edit in the dispute was to leave a warning within the article not to edit the article, which is silly; anyone can edit the article, particularly in the case of a content dispute where no consensus was reached. 68.163.219.59 12:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"The following was included in an edit summary::

undid. Actually i did give a reason on your talk page. there is a warning not to tamper with the template, and as i have stated an ongoing discussion. Participate in the discussion , get consensus, th) (undo)

My talk page is the wrong place to discuss a content dispute. There is no current "discussion" in which to engage. This is a form of bullying and attempting to strongarm the version that you would like to see in place. Please respond to my original arguments. 68.163.219.59 12:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason i did not explain was that i assessed this as vandalism - i don't have to give a reason if i believe its vandalism and I gave a reason on yr talk page, which i would say in the first instance is an appropriate place for discussion. As for Bullying? Preposetrous, and definitely bad faith. One I have had no involvement in this page until last night when i was monitoring changes by unsigned IPs. Saw the warning not to change the image links, lengthy discussion on the talk page,given the attention pages like this get from vandal/trolls I have to make a fairly quick assessment about the nature of the edit. You seem quiet familiar with policy for an anon 3tmx 13:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the Pre-ejaculate article? I would appreciate it if you would respond to the arguments concerning the content. The above is far more appropriate for a personal talk page. 68.163.219.59 13:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Of the eight articles you cited, only two have graphic images on the first screen of the article. On the other six articles, when a reader loads the page only drawings and text are seen. To see the graphic images, one has to scroll down in the browser window. As I have stated repeatedly before on this talk page, if this article is expanded to have multiple screens of text/drawings/etc., I would have no objection to having the image in-line lower in the article. I do object to having a graphic image be the first thing that loads, and I strongly support use of the linkimage template in the current article.

Furthermore, because this has obviously been a contentious issue in the past, and there is an explicit note to come to the talk page before changing the linkimage, changing the article without first discussing it here is reasonably considered vandalism. I appreciate that 68.163.219.59 is here now, and I glad to see them making a good-faith effort to explain the changes you have made, but I do not believe 3tmx has done anything wrong. Lyrl^Talk _C 13:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

On consensus - there are obviously a number of people unhappy with the linkimage. But the fact that the article has been most stable with a linked image over a period of a year and a half is, to me, strong evidence of consensus to have the image linked. Lyrl^Talk _C 13:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert your changes because of any preference as to the content of the page nor am I attempting to 'strong arm' a particcular version of this page - it was becasue the template was ignored and no attempt of discussion made beforehand . In fact I resent the accusation of bullying as i made the revert in good faith. 3tmx 14:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

What if, as Lyrl said, we were to include the images inline, lower in the article? I support this idea. 68.163.219.59 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The entire article, down to the navigation box, fits on one screen on my monitor. The article needs to be expanded before this would work. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Now what?

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The linkimage template has been deleted (Deletion discussion). What should we do with the images in this article? I see three options:

Put the images inline (this seems to be what the "delete" voters in the discussion of the template had in mind)
Remove the images (it has been argued previously that they do not add sufficiently to the article to justify their inclusion)
Leave the template substituted here (I'm not sure how this fits with policy as the community has deleted the template)

Others may have other ideas, too. Hopefully we'll come to a consensus fairly quickly. Lyrl^Talk _C 14:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how User:Radiant! could close the debate and say the result is "delete" when: (a) the image has been unsuccessfully TFD'd more than once prior [1] [2] with a "keep" result each time, combined with the facts that (b) the discussion this time was far less comprehensive, involving fewer people, (c) unlike the prior TFD, no one bothered to mention that TFD on this talk page, in spite of the original call mentioning this article, (d) the two previous TFDs weren't linked, nor were their arguments revisited, and (e) most importantly, User: Radiant! totally ignored the discussion and the lack of a consensus view (and, in fact, a pro-keep majority among non-anons — there weren't any anons in the debate), instead citing his or her subjective interpretation of policy. This interpretation ignores the very definition of the word "censorship" — if "censorship" is requiring one click for relevant information in the main namespace, then not linking to the previous TFDs in Wikipedia namespace was super-duper-censorship! It could also be argued that Radiant!'s edits violate WP:COI, since he closed a discussion, the prior version of which he or she had voted "strong delete" on. As stated in WP:DPR, "People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest." This seems like a good candidate for WP:DRV. The process seemed extremely flawed here, and requesting a false result be overturned might be more productive that delving into another debate about whether or not this image helps this article. (For what it's worth, I say that the image shows nothing regarding the subject of the article that couldn't be described in a handful of words.) Calbaer 20:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Listed for review at Wikipedia:DRV#Template:Linkimage. I welcome the opinions of both those who think the process was flawed and those who think it was properly handled. Please comment on the process rather than on what you wish the outcome had been; thanks. Calbaer 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The DRV failed, and, once again, the process was contravened by a single administrator who ignored process, believing that he or she knew better how to interpret policy than everyone else. Anyway, I'm done with this article; any more involvement would just remind me that Wikipedia is not the policy-driven consensus-based venture I thought it was. I still believe the pictures add little to nothing to the article, but I doubt consensus would agree, and I think it would be the best tribute to what I think Wikipedia should be to let the real consensus win the day in any debates about the photographs. Calbaer 15:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

source of fluid

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The current description says that the fluid is both "secreted by the urethra" and "secreted by the Cowper's glands". I'm no expert on pre-ejaculate, so I don't know which one it is, but I sure don't think it's both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.217.108 (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

come on guys

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I came to read the article, but since I can't quickly collapse the two images of penises IN ANY WAY, I'm not going to read it. Before I go however let me just say: I'm an adult, over thirty, and have no problems with obscene images on Wikipedia. But the closeup of a penis as I'm trying to read text about a specific fluid? Give a guy a break, will ya? At least make it POSSIBLE to read the text. I seriously doubt anyone who comes here looking to read the text from beginning to end, as I did, will makes it through.

If nothing else, how about a "readibility link" (a la disambiguation links) that says "For a version of this article without images, click here:", so that after glancing at the images I can read the article without looking at a closeup of a penis.

It might be hard for you guys to see, but it's like reading a medical textbook with your roommate's dick hanging over it and onto the page. Not my cup of tea.

There was a discussion that collapse image should not be added. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever tried reading a medical textbook covering some sex-related topic? Many of them have images, just like this article. I agree that sometimes they can make it more challenging for the reader. I have no problems with this article, but to get through a page on STDs I often have to cover the pictures up.

The reason you had to COVER UP what you were reading is that NO MATTER WHAT, a paper textbook could NOT have included a statement "(apply pressure here to mask the photos on this page)" (or anything of the sort). They would have had to change the whole printing method (including cardboard masks every second page) or doubled the relevant page count (see "pp. 1822-1825 for this section sans photos"). They don't have a choice, and the poor medical student has to make do. But luckily we're better than that.

So, I think we should leave them in, since 1) paper sources do it and 2) different readers have different levels of distraction/disgust. ^L_Wizard @ 16:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

1) YES! And, since Wikipedia is NOT paper, we can make it more useful than paper! A simple link will suffice. 2) the ones who aren't bothered won't be by a disambiguation-style link. The rest will be greatly served (the difference between being able to read through and not, as I wasn't -- I came DIRECTLY to this talk page to reply).

When i was in school. They never taught of such things. We just had 1 or 2 pages about reproduction organs with 2 images that to in black and white images and teachers ignored those chapters and continued with other. As for me. I learned about sex-related topics on net. School books taught me nothing. Worst of all sex is a big taboo in India. No one speaks of it in openly. To be honest i don't think anything should be disgusting or any distraction. It is best that image is not closed and seriously there is nothing to hide. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We have in the past had the images default to collapse with the option to open, and the community (in a controversial decision) decided to delete that template. I think what anonymous is suggesting here is a new idea: having the image default to open, but with an option to collapse. I like that idea, and would be willing to play with code to see if I could make a template or something for it if others are willing to try it. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have created such template but is it worth doing it or will we undergo similar decision?. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks! try it and see what happens... even if it gets reverted, at least I'll be able to get through the article.... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.209.97 (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The !vote on the linkimage template was exactly 50-50, and the decision was made by the closing moderator. In deletion review, the !voting for relisting was also 50-50, with the decision again made by the closing moderator. Because that decision was so close, I think even a small change (such as defaulting to open instead of defaulting to collapse) would make the community decision swing the other way, to keep. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I cant really understand why you gentleman bother so much about the images, well actually for me is like seeing or reading a medicine book or wathching a TV show based on breast implants or something like that, have you ever see how they only cover the woman nipples and leave all the rest open to the view of everybody, well is very simple, the human body is like that, this is all about what we really are and what we actually do, please the pictures are very important, I remember when I was a teenager did not know nothing about all this and if I would have and image to explain me what it was it would be more clear, but as an adult now, I have to say that I dont really mind about seeing the images, it is not disgusting if you think that the human being is a sexual creature, morality and estetic are out of this matter, I will not feel bad showing my children the article to explain them about the human fluids and the risks of AIDS, seeing the things as natural as they are you will not find it so bad, at least that your opinion about sexuality would differ from the natural and simple points of view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.241.57.206 (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Utterly unconstructive comment here, just pointing out the rather relevant and no doubt unintentional double entendre in the title of this comment. *snicker snicker*. Un-logged in here for obvious reasons. 63.195.55.210 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Risks > HIV

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I changed the wording from "Studies have demonstrated the presence of HIV in pre-ejaculate" to "the pre-ejaculate of an infected person" because it seemed to imply that HIV was always present in the pre-ejaculate. I don't think anyone would think that it was, but still, it reads better that way.

86.14.41.79 (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed offensive images

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I've read this talk page, and there's a clear consensus that the graphic images are totally disgusting to most readers, and prevent people from reading the article. There is absolutely no justification for this. I can only suspect that whoever keeps reinstating the images is just having a bit of fun.

Personally I wasn't willing to read the article until I'd got rid of these pictures.

If any serious contributors feel strongly that these images provide useful information (I highly doubt this), they can upload them to wiki commons (if that hasn't been done already, I can't bring myself to check) and provide links to them.

Please do not revert this change - it's highly selfish to hi-jack an article for your own fun and games. People may genuinely need the information here, and firstly won't be able to open such a page in the workplace, and secondly don't want to be put off their dinner.

Be more considerate.

Palefire (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

While the images are at least bothersome to many readers (I do not see any evidence for "most"), they are very useful to others. The utility of the images justifies continuing to include them in the article.

The community has banned linking to the images (see the discussion about deletion of a linkimage template above): either they have to be inline, or not included at all.

I have placed the images at the bottom of the page. I hope this will turn out to be an acceptable compromise: the images do not appear immediately on the screen when someone opens the article, but they are still available to readers who find them useful. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We do not censor images here, for the same reasons that we don't censor photos at Penis and Vulva. Whether or not both photos are necessary is another issue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The evidence for "most" is in the long-running discussion above. Discounting unsigned posts, which could all be by the same individual, there are more posts against than in favour.

So much has already been said on this issue, and all conceivable arguments seem to have been put both ways, so I don't see any point in continuing a discussion on the rules and technicalities of whether or not these images should remain inline.

But rules aside, I would like to reiterate my point - these pictures are revolting, and made me feel sick. A child could easily stumble across them. The presence of these images offends people, while their absence will offend no one (even those who believe they should be there).

I'm not going to get into a revert war, if for no other reason because I have no wish to return to this page. I'm personally convinced that certain users' insistence on keeping these images is motivated by something other than constructive neutrality.

I would encourage any visitors with a moment to spare to keep deleting these images. That's the last I'll say on the subject.

Palefire (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Page protection is an easy solution to your edit-warring suggestion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The presence of these images informs people, while their absence would inform no one. Fixed that for you. ^L_Wizard @ 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Pictures again.

Why do we need to see dicks along with the precum? This is not an exhibit for people's excesively lonely activities. Change pictures for more objective, scientific ones and seek mental help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.150.207 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of picture September 2009

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed the picture that was added yesterday. First, it did not add additional value to the article: watery pre-ejaculate and higher-flow pre-ejaculate are already pictured. Second, the photograph was not composed in a way that made the pre-ejaculate the focus of the picture. The two included photographs show only the end of the penis in focus, and the pre-e fluid takes up a significant portion of the photographs. The picture added yesterday shows both legs and the entire male genitalia in focus, and the pre-e fluid - in addition to taking up a comparatively tiny portion of the photo - is out of focus. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

New pictures?

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Hi! I recently uploaded three high-resolution pictures to Commons, in which I have tried to capture the nature of this fluid:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate1.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate2.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-ejaculate3.jpg

I have tried to be more artsy than pornographic, and I think I have succeded pretty well. Feel free to add any of them to the article: I won't do it myself, since such edits seem to be controversial. (And seeing that they are my pictures, it's only fair that someone else should judge their merit.) I would propose that one of the first two could be a leading picture. In particular Pre-ejaculate2.jpg is, in my humble opinion, of good quality, informative, and above all tasteful, and so would fit there. Pre-ejaculate3.jpg could be added to the gallery, and replace Precum1.JPG which is not very representative. (Honestly, that looks like semen to me.) --Quaterego (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't someone just draw it with ink? And really, an image is quite unnecessary as "clear, colorless, viscous fluid" describes it completely. Adding a dripping penis seems to be just an outlet for exhibitionists. Angry bee (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am just a regular old wikipedia user who basically never contributes. In my opinion there's no need for the picture. I was shocked by it. Not because it's pornographic: it may or may not be, I don't know, and I wouldn't really be shocked by pornography as such. There's just no need for a picture of an aroused, dripping penis in an encyclopedia. The article describes it fine. 68.52.132.98 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely those looking this up are quite familiar with anything graphical shown. Why browse for such a topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.154.129 (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Extremely bizarre statement. Why would anyone browse any topic at all? Because we are curious. And if someone has seen a million images of pre-ejaculates, why would they come here? Just to see another one? Angry bee (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

'Finding something useful' is a much weaker emotion than 'shock' and is unlikely to inspire a post. The fact that we do have a testimony of usefulness speaks to the fact that the picture is useful to many readers. This article has had pictures for many years; there is a well-established consensus for it. Having a picture is also consistent with Wikipedia convention in this type of topic: all the anatomy articles have pictures and the ejaculation article has a video.

As for the new pictures, they show pre-e fluid on an uncircumcised penis, which our current pictures do not. I do not see any need to include more than one of them, but can see an argument for replacing the first picture in the gallery. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now changed the illustration to the second in my list, since there was some support and no objections to this picture. If someone considers reverting this change, please first consider which of the pictures are of the highest quality, both with regard to informative value and clearness/sharpness. Quaterego (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

We have plenty of penis pictures already. We don't need yours. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)