Talk:Gokkun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial comments

Eww... Do you really think that picture should be there? What if a kid finds it by accident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ??? (talk • contribs)

Its pretty gross, man. >>puke<< —Preceding unsigned comment added by ??? (talk • contribs)

I don't exactly find most BDSM practices all that sexy either, but since Wikipedia is NPOV, personal oppinions aren't much of a factor in what makes a valid entry and what doesn't. --Ashmodai 16:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

If this is a version of bukakke then how is it mistaken for bukakke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ??? (talk • contribs)

Actually as far as I know it's not a VERSION of bukkake, although it can be included as a practice in bukkake porn -- just like you can mix anal sex with group sex.

From what I know Gokkun only refers to the actual act of drinking/ingesting large quantities of semen, so I suppose the kind of flics in which you can see some girl consuming a large glass full of semen is ALWAYS Gokkun and only SOMETIMES part of Bukkake, just like a facial money shot isn't always part of a oral sex scene.

However I'm not all that familiar with the original Japanese porn, so I don't know how correct my assumption really is --Ashmodai 16:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Either way, it should be merged with snowballing. Exploding Boy 17:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. It's a seperate and unrelated practice. Snowballing is mouth-to-mouth, gokkun is usually container-to-mouth and usually deals with way larger quantities (consider how much an average man ejaculates and consider how much is inside a container as it is often used in gokkun porn). -- Ashmodai 03:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty fucking gross. Super gross. Is that picture necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ??? (talk • contribs)

Really, if it is that gross, just stay the hell away, simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.216.193 (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture

No point of view policy or not - I must say that while it is fine to feature articles of all kinds of natures, YET the display of sexual material rated anything above PG-13 should be kept to adult-only paysites and does not really belong on this platform as an educational basis for many - and this includes adults of age as well as MINORS.

I hereby request a removal and will go ahead to delete the image myself unless anybody protests with a wikipedia regulation or some very good reason.

Thanks for keeping Wiki clean. :-) Open for discussion is: Boereck 23:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got a very good reason for you: Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. Deal with it, get used to it; it won't change any time soon. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your inerest and effort. I need to disagree, please refer to Wiki's guidline for profanity and see that the illustration of this article does not function as a piece of information that the article is based on. Let me quote: "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not"! The article itself is - in my eyes - not necessary but it is protected by the clause above, the picture is NOT. In case you have further questions, please let me know, I willing to review this matter and read into it. But until you have convinced me with a clause confuting the guideline for profanity, I reconsider after having educated myself more or we receive more opinions, I will go ahead and remove the picture. Thank you for your understanding: Boereck 19:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The picture illustrates the article. You're welcome to nominate the article for deletion, but as the picture clearly serves to illustrate a foreign concept, I see no reason for its removal. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 22:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do, and if you want to, we can play this little game of removing and reverting... Boereck 00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we cannot, as that would violate WP:3RR in a rather short time. Since we obviously won't come to an agreement on this on our own, I suggest calling a straw poll to determine what other wikipedians think about this issue. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nightstalion is misapplying WP:NOT. That policy does not say that editors are restricted from removing content that they feel will harm the purpose of the encyclopedia. In other words, we can choose to remove a picture like this without running afoul of WP:NOT. If we want Wikipedia to be taken seriously as a reference, we have to follow scholarly norms. If we want Wikipedia to reach the widest audiance possible, we need to take measures to make it safe for use in schools and in the workplace. That means either removing images like this, or putting them behind a warning link so that people can read the text of the article first, and then make an informed decision to see the picture. Let's stop using WP:NOT like some sort of mandate to be deliberately provocative. That's not what its about. Johntex\^talk 17:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There is something that ends disscusion:

This means that the picture will come back unless there is another reason. However, I am adding this banner to the top of the page now. --75.88.127.62 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture

No point of view policy or not - I must say that while it is fine to feature articles of all kinds of natures, YET the display of sexual material rated anything above PG-13 should be kept to adult-only paysites and does not really belong on this platform as an educational basis for many - and this includes adults of age as well as MINORS.

I hereby request a removal and will go ahead to delete the image myself unless anybody protests with a wikipedia regulation or some very good reason.

Thanks for keeping Wiki clean. :-) Open for discussion is: Boereck 23:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got a very good reason for you: Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. Deal with it, get used to it; it won't change any time soon. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your inerest and effort. I need to disagree, please refer to Wiki's guidline for profanity and see that the illustration of this article does not function as a piece of information that the article is based on. Let me quote: "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not"! The article itself is - in my eyes - not necessary but it is protected by the clause above, the picture is NOT. In case you have further questions, please let me know, I willing to review this matter and read into it. But until you have convinced me with a clause confuting the guideline for profanity, I reconsider after having educated myself more or we receive more opinions, I will go ahead and remove the picture. Thank you for your understanding: Boereck 19:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The picture illustrates the article. You're welcome to nominate the article for deletion, but as the picture clearly serves to illustrate a foreign concept, I see no reason for its removal. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 22:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do, and if you want to, we can play this little game of removing and reverting... Boereck 00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we cannot, as that would violate WP:3RR in a rather short time. Since we obviously won't come to an agreement on this on our own, I suggest calling a straw poll to determine what other wikipedians think about this issue. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nightstalion is misapplying WP:NOT. That policy does not say that editors are restricted from removing content that they feel will harm the purpose of the encyclopedia. In other words, we can choose to remove a picture like this without running afoul of WP:NOT. If we want Wikipedia to be taken seriously as a reference, we have to follow scholarly norms. If we want Wikipedia to reach the widest audiance possible, we need to take measures to make it safe for use in schools and in the workplace. That means either removing images like this, or putting them behind a warning link so that people can read the text of the article first, and then make an informed decision to see the picture. Let's stop using WP:NOT like some sort of mandate to be deliberately provocative. That's not what its about. Johntex\^talk 17:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There is something that ends disscusion:

This means that the picture will come back unless there is another reason. However, I am adding this banner to the top of the page now. --75.88.127.62 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This image is present on cs.wikipedia.org, da.wikipedia.org, de.wikipedia.org, es.wikipedia.org, fi.wikipedia.org, it.wikipedia.org, it.wiktionary.org, ja.wikipedia.org, sv.wikipedia.org, and zh.wikipedia.org.

Moreover, the photo for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal%E2%80%93oral_sex, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki-analoral.png, was approved by Wikipedia administrator Black Falcon. His commment is seen in the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anal%E2%80%93oral_sex#photo. This image is also on 20 different language Wikipedias.

Similar vector renditions of sexual acts are also approved and located on these pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_(sexual_act), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkake, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowballing_(sexual_practice), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal%E2%80%93oral_sex, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot. The images for these pages are also located on various language Wikipedias.

As my last point, Wikipedia is not censored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTCENSOR#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. This image is not vandalism and it is appropriate to illustrate the sexual act of gokkun. 68.34.31.108 (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

This poll is not a final decision-making process of any kind, but only meant to determine what the general opinion on this issue is; as such, there is no pre-determined deadline, but I suggest that the voting run until at least one week hence, i.e. 2 April. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Adult material is fine by me if it ADDS something to the content. As much as I like porn, a generic Japanese adult model consuming large portions of ejaculate does NOT need this kind of photo illustration to get the point across. If we assume that all readers of Wikipedia have seen a human (if only on Wikipedia) and all of them have seen a liquid (if only on Wikipedia -- the consistency and looks of sperm would belong in a different article) and assume that our readers have basic combinatory skills, they should be capable of putting one and one together and end up with their own mental gokkun scene. Look at the second paragraph of Eating if you don't get it. -- Ashmodai 03:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC) | Moved this from AGAINST and rephrased my objection. I don't think illustration would be pointless per se, I just don't think a photo akin to the current one serves its intended purpose. -- Ashmodai 04:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In favour of including an image (not necessarily the one currently used)

1. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
2. The current image is actually rather tame until you read the article and figure out what it is. If it gets a lot of complaints maybe it should be linkimaged, which is a courtesy to readers, not a form of censorship. Ashibaka tock 00:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
3. "courtesy to readers" is censorship. The Psycho 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
4. This seems to be a plain attempt at censorship, as illustrated by the "YET the display of sexual material rated anything above PG-13 should be kept to adult-only paysites" comment above. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Obvious censorship attempt. --Jqiz 07:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
6. I would agree that an image is useful in this article, but I also think that perhaps it should be linkimaged, just because of the fact that we are obviously having some disagreement. I don't see why that middle ground is that bad at all. aubrey 00:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
7. The current image is certainly illustrative. Tomyumgoong 18:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Vote re-entered. The image may be revolting, but censorship is also revolting. DanielDemaret 18:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Wikipedia is not censored for content, calling such images gratuitous or unscholarly is an attempt to obfuscate a personal dislike. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
10. I am against any kind of censorship. Photo's make things easier to grasp, you can just look at the picture and the text will make more sense immediately.Otherwise we will make these things harder then they are.HichamVanborm 18:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
11. If this article can't have a picture then wikipedia shouldn't allow pictures in any other articles. Pictures are used to illustrate the article, so why not in this article? In my opinion a gokkun picture can be used that shows a nakid woman (or man for that matter) digesting a great quantity of semen. In case a picture is used that shows men ejaculating into a bowl a woman is holding then I would say the picture should be shown as a link similar to the picture in the autofellatio article. See also Wikipedia:Pornography. Ik.pas.aan 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
12. A picture says more than a thousand words. I don't want Wikipedia to be censored because of people with stupid believes. Extremist moralism is not something that Wikipedia should strive for. Ran4 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Those against in my opinion are against out of personal disgust, etc.....which is NOT up to editor standards of neutrality. Any responsible parent can block out any and every page on bukkake, gokkun, whatever they don't want jr. to see, it's up to them. Wikipedia is neutral, no censorship, so let's not legislate personal beliefs here folks :) (Jerry the Cowboy (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC))
14. The picture should stay. Joevicentini (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Against using any kind of image to illustrate this article

1. Ditto. Totally gratuitous, the text is (marginally) educational, the picture is simply not required - I am fully in favour of freedom of expression and against censorship - but putting up stuff for the sake of shock value is counter-productive unless the authour really wants wiki to get a reputation in educational & parental circles as a porn site. Bridesmill 04:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   And remove image to avoid shock value is censorship. The Psycho 04:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   I agree that removing an image for its shock value alone is censorship, but the question is how much an illustration is needed and how much the particular picture fulfills the illustration purpose. Even more so, the image has to be encyclopedic. It's difficult to find a picture of a sexual act that meets these requirements, but finding that kind of pictures is what helps improving an article's quality. Using a picture which does NOT meet these requiremens, does the opposite. -- Ashmodai 04:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Well, you know what I think about the image but I want to thank you guys for the effort and dedication you have shown to find a solution! :-) - Boereck 10:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
3. If anyone's interested what Gokkun looks like he should just enter the word into Google (and turn off content filtering). There should be a choice if we want to see this or not, and after reading the article (and figuring out what this actually is) I certainly wouldn't want to see a "sample". If you really want to keep the image, at least put it behind a link, but do not display it directly.
4. Just waving the "OMG it's censorship!" flag is not an argument. Please explain how this (or a similar) picture materially aids the scholarly mission of the encyclopedia enough to override the damage (loss to Wikipedia's reputation, hurting reader's feelings, possibly losing some readers, possibility of institutions blocking Wikipedia down the road, possible fund-raising issues for some potential donors, possibility of attracting the wrong kind of editors, etc etc etc). I do not find "deal with it, get used to it" and the like to be convincing scholarly arguments. Herostratus 18:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

   Why isn't that an argument? The removal of the image because it offends people is in fact censorship. --Jqiz 04:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   Agreed. And your point is...? Herostratus 04:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   Point: Wikipedia is not censored, any image or graphic rendering possesses an intrinsic illustrative value. Also, why should Wikipedia cater to potential donors? And why exactly would an image attract the "wrong kind of editor"? ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

5. While wikipedia is not censored, doesn't mean it has to be the opposite - that is, just because we do not censor, doesn't mean we're obliged to put gaping assholes on the goatse.cx article or some gross picture from consumption junction to illustrate decapitation. On the other hand, there are several pictures of penises illustrating penis. Also relevant is, as WP:NOT describes, the fact we are making an encyclopedia; "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named 'whatever', ask yourself what a reader would expect under 'whatever' in an encyclopedia." On balance, I think the picture shown is more towards the 'goatse' end of the scale than the 'penis' end, on account of the big bowl of semen. Therefore, I have to say I'm against including a picture in this article. Mike1024 (t/c) 16:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Let's stop waving the "censorship" word around in an attempt to scare people. Censorship implies central (usually government) control. If we decide due to editorial reasons not to show an image, that is not censorship. This photo does not belong in a tool such as Wikipedia. It should be removed, or at the very least, it should be linkimaged so that people can read the text and then make an informed decision to view the picture. Johntex\^talk 17:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
7. This article doesn't need any illustration. --Stehfun 19:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

   The above is the first ever edit by User:Stehfun. Johntex\^talk 20:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

8. It is a big mistake to interpret 'no-censorship' as 'no editorial standards'. The verbal description is more than enough. The picture has no infomative value. It should be removed from the article. Resid Gulerdem 11:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

=re: hijinks

• I notice someone has been removing some of the 'votes against' - curious if these are the same people who ar eso vehemently against censorship???? Would removing kiddieporn pics from wiki be considered 'Censorship'? Bridesmill 22:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a bit strange: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gokkun&diff=next&oldid=45615330 DanielDemaret 13:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Odd. That edit doesn't make sense, I'd assume that it was a software glitch. That does happen, it happened to me once. Perhaps that's what caused Bridesmill's phantom problem in the first place. Herostratus 18:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Er, Bridesmill, I couldn't find evidence of that... what happened is, Ashmodai moved his comment from the "against" section to up above the voting area, leaving the first against vote to read "Ditto..." Perhaps that confused you? Anyway Ashmodai's move was made in good faith, no hijinks here.
  • I'm not aware of any other modifications to the AGAINST section other than mine and mine was made because I decided to abstain because I don't think that this article should have absolutely NO illustration at all. I just don't think the current photograph is very good at doing its job (which could be equated to having rotten.com photos in articles on types of death). -- Ashmodai 08:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ya, remove child porn is censorship.The Psycho 22:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If we're not removing it because we are breaking the law, then yes, I'd imagine so. --Jqiz 03:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I personally never found the "actually not technically in violation of any actual law, technically" defence very edifying. For that kind of statement is why we have congressmen... =) Herostratus 04:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Regardless, getting back to the topic, this picture is not breaking the law. --Jqiz 17:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Er, isn't that kind of a low standard for an encyclopedia? I mean, I haven't seen advertisements along the lines of "Brittanica - It's Not Illegal To Subscribe!" or "Subscribe To Encarta With The Assurance That You Won't Be Arrested!". Shouldn't we be aiming a little bit higher than that?Herostratus 17:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Higher than what? Who sets the standard? Who decides what offensive and what isn't, and yet still compile with WP:NOT. When is it too far? A picture of cleavage? Instead trying to set decency standards, we should be questioning if it is informative. Do you think the current image illustrate the act of the article?--Jqiz 18:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Well, you have a point there. When is something going too far? I mean, I've embezzeled over $100,000US from my employer, because, you know, who sets the standard? What is "too much"? Taking a box of staples? A single paper clip? Any standard you set is by definition totally arbitrary. The other day I picked up a baby by the ankles, swung it around, and POPped its head against a wall. You ever smash a pumpkin? It was kind of like than, only red. Kid's mom was all like Now that's going too far! but I had the answer for her, you bet. Too far? I said. Who decides that? Is cutting someone off in traffic going "too far"? Littering? You just can't set some arbitrary standard and say that's going "too far". Because, you know, we're all morons here without the sense that God gave sheep. Herostratus 07:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
              • WP:NOT does not prohibit us from exercising editorial control and discretion. It merely puts people on notice that we can't immediately remove 100% of all vandalism, so we can't 100% control what they will see. It also puts them on notice that there may be nudity, profanity, etc IF we find it appropriate. Instead of making slippery slope arguements that claim "Oh, don't take out a picture of a woman with cum all over her because then someone may want to take out ___" - let's just deal with each issue using common sense. No mainstream research source would have such a picture as this. I think it hampers our credibility in the mainstream media, with school administrators, with donors, etc. Whether you like it or not, that would be harmful to our mission. Johntex\^talk 01:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why Bridesmill deleted my vote from the poll? Any ideas?DanielDemaret 18:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Software glitch, I think. The software is not perfect. I think your vote was deleted by another editor or possibly by the software itself. Just re-enter it. Herostratus 18:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Image replaced

For those of you who didn't notice, Boereck went off and IFDed the image due to copyright issues on March 24 - Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 March 24 - just before the objection above, without even bothering to announce it here. The image was then removed quietly by an admin.

Let me comment on that matter: Well before this "incident" became an "issue", I went ahead and did what Nightstallion advised me to do: request deletion of the image! So I did nominate it due to its incomplete copyright information on March 24th. After that day I did not do anything. Now - as I believe - my request upon deletion (due to unclear copyrights!) went through. In case you think I went behind the back of the strawpoll, I need to appologize but remind you guys that I did not list it for doubtful content and that I have no influence over how fast images are reviewed and then deleted. I really feel sorry for such an end to this democratic way of solving the "problem" but it wasn't my intention! Furthermore let me add that the admin that went ahead to "quietly" delete the image most likely did not apply himself or herself to the issue we were discussing here but only saw the lack of copyright information and then just went ahead and did what was right. Boereck 20:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. We weren't discussing exclusively this particular image in the poll, but whether to illustrate the article at all. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with you requesting deletion of the image, I just felt that you'd gone behind the back of the discussion here by not mentioning it (which likely wouldn't have made a difference if the copyright was problematic, admittedly). It was mostly a lead-in to the next paragraph. --Fuzzie (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The replacement image of a DVD cover seems fairly irrelevant to the article, and is it even fair use? This certainly isn't any kind of 'art', so I don't think you can argue that angle, and theres's no rationale provided, just the generic template which only applies when you're discussing the DVD in question. As such, I'm going to tag it as disputed unless anyone objects. --Fuzzie (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A movie is a movie, so I don't think whether or not it is 'artistic' matters. The examplary qualities of such a DVD cover on the other hand seem rather low (especially if the article is not supposed to be ONLY about Gokkun movies) and the fair use was indeed doubtful. I don't think DVDs solve the purpose to illustrate this particular article any better than the prior attempts. -- Ashmodai 20:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

link removed

I removed the link to the "content source" since it is either a teaser page for GGG/John Thompson or a bait page for paid porn services. Rsling 18:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I seriously ask that anonymous editors stop adding links to porn sites or porn link sites. They will not be tolerated [[1]] Rsling 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC) EDIT: If it happens once again, it will be time for "sprotect-banneduser" Rsling 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

New image

I have added an image to this article. It is an image of my own creation and released to the public domain. If you would like to make suggestions for an alternate image, or request an image for another article, please see my user page. Thanks.--SeedFeeder (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the merit of images of the kind User:Seedfeeder has been producing. Without encouraging censorship for its own sake, Wikipedia must follow scholarly norms to have as great a usability as possible, including in schools. This image, consisting as it does of an attractive, naked woman, consuming an fantasy amount of semen, with it dribbling down her chin, is designed to be deliberately erotic. It is neither a necessary nor useful illustration, but another contribution by a person who focuses his energies on producing highly eroticised pictures which serve little function but to exercise his own fantasies. As stated above, deleting this pointless picture has nothing to do with WP:NOT, and everything to do with respecting scholarly norms, and being a useful resource. --Che Gannarelli (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My deletion of this image has been reverted without comment by an anonymous user at 90.208.55.75. Rather than revert again, can I now encourage a discussion of whether this stays or goes,? For my part, I think the image serves no useful purpose, satisfies only its creator's fantasies and desire for exposure, and harms Wikipedia, reducing its usefulness by reducing the audience for whom it is appropriate. WP:NOT does not apply, as this is not an attempt to removed useful but challenging content, but a request that this page not become a venue for User:Seedfeeder to publicly indulge his fantasies. There are more suitable fora for that. --Che Gannarelli (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To me, the image does not appear to be designed with subtle eroticism in mind. Neither the woman is naked (you simply cannot tell that having so little of body depicted), nor she is overly-attractive or seducing; sperm dribbling down her chin is merely a realistic detail. Erotic or not — let the reader decide for themselves. Speaking of appearance, why do you attribute 'attractive' with negative sense here? Would you withdraw this particular point from your statement should the woman be depicted ugly? — I believe that it is natural to draw good looking humans for illustration purposes, so I'm not going to elaborate on psychological aspects here.

Any article benefits from relevant pictures, this one is no exception. It does not violate any applicable laws or policies whatsoever, and, taking the NPOV principle into account, we should not differentiate editing standards for articles based on their category. The image fits the article just fine, in my opinion, since it gives an instant visual idea of the subject, which is a convenient alternative to plain text for those seeking generic and superficial information.

Moreover, I think it is safe to assume that people looking for information on topics such as gokkun or bukkake are usually informed of the subject's pornographic nature: either advised by the category when browsing articles, or by the specific use of the very 'gokkun' term (porn titles, search results and other context of clear nature). To address the same point, it is also sufficient to note that Wikipedia has its disclaimers, which visitors are encouraged to read prior advancing to relevant encyclopedic material. Any possible offense caused by illustrations is excused with reader's implied acceptance to the disclaimer.

And finally... Why so much trouble around a single drawn picture in such a little article? — No way it is all about some ethereal "scholarly norms". As aforementioned, please do not project your personal believes upon supposedly neutral material. — Aleksey Gerasimov (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re your comment that we should not differentiate on the basis of catagory, that is flatly contradicted by the guidelines on profanity. Such images should be be included " ... if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." So the guidelines explicitly state that there is a value judgement to be made, which will very much depend on category. --Che Gannarelli (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have had no response to this last point. It is my opinion that it is manifestly the case that WP:Profanity covers this matter. Absent a compelling argument to the contrary, I shall remove the picture in a week. --Che Gannarelli (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow your points here, but the crux of your argument seems to be (a) you think the image is smutty and provides no benefit to the article, and (b) you think Seedfeeder (talk · contribs) creates and releases the copyrights to his or her work for some sort of self-gratification (despite the lauds received).

You don't see merit in libre imagery provided to replace non-free content? This image, consisting as it does of an unnaked woman, consuming a large amount of semen, with it dribbling down her chin, is designed to be deliberately erotic. Yep. This is apropos, as the article is about an erotic act. You don't find an illustration, depicting the subject of an article, useful? When it comes to smut on the English Wikipedia, this image should be—by far—the least of your concerns as to what consensus has decided suitable.

See WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with regards to commenting on content, not on the contributor. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to. Wikipedia is not created specifically for you. You also don't own the article. In exactly the same way that a picture of a bird is included when discussing a bird, it makes sense that a picture of an activity be used for a description of an activity. Whether or not it offends your sensibilities, there's a picture of people playing baseball on the baseball page. That's the point. A picture is far more evocative than vague descriptions, and in this case helps separate the act of gokkun (which is *specifically* what is illustrated) from the generalized act of bukakke.

As well, what you say about seedfeeder drawing pictures to get attention could be used for anyone who creates custom vector art for the public domain, or any art whatsoever, for that matter. Since those contributions are the only way wikipedia ever gets access to images for it's articles, I wouldn't be so quick to bash people who do so, even if they create imagery that you don't agree with. I could draw a very easy comparison between this argument and depictions of the muslim faith and Allah or Mohammed.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it an invalid addition to the article. I mean, there isn't even any exposed nudity in the image. It could just as easily be a glass of milk. Stop trying to force your own viewpoints on wikipedia. 71.173.95.12 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)