Talk:Pearl necklace (sexual act)/Archive 1

message: Is this a PORN SITE? :-(
:Since the world is full of porn and since Wikipedia isn't censored, I guess parts of it have to have porn :P Sonic3KMaster(talk) 22:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH :-(

message: Publicgirluk.  I don't think that's the best representation of a pearl necklace.  It clearly seems to be a second facial picture.  Perhaps you could generate another pearl necklace picture which would isolate the deposition of semen on the neck area.  Kudos to you for being so generous though.
:I agree that the image, while enticing, is not actually a perfect depiction of a pearl necklace. I would suggest that another, more accurate image is in order. If you find yourself uncertain as to what image might be best, feel free to email a dozen or so to me and I'll be happy to sort through them and post the most...appropriate...one to this article. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would offer to help you with the selection process, but my wife just doesn't understand what I see in such pictures (oh wait, maybe she does understand ...) -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture selecion

message: Found a poll on this topic. Shawnc 09:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: First, I decided to be bold and remove the image, since we're all at least in agreement that the image doesn't really demonstrate the act in the article.  If we need an image, let's grab one that actually demonstrates the act.
Second, I see someone tossed a  on the article.  I won't revert it at the moment, but I oppose it, and hope we can all actually expand it a bit instead of just leaving it at its current stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the  tag.  It specifically says "If the page can be re-written to be more than a dictionary entry, please do so and remove this message."  It was the best way I knew to get that on there.  =)  I don't particularly mind removing the image, although it does seem to show a pearl necklace (in part).  I just object to the  template on general principle.  Powers 14:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, the irony. Someone else replaced it and I have just removed the image again (after being sure I downloaded it to my drive).  I agree that the article needs a more accurate image. Also, as much as I enjoyed this...educational photo, the Linkimage still seems a good compromise. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 14:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still feel strongly that any image should be linkimaged.  Doing so is far more helpful than any harm it creates (as I explain verbosely above).  I have a mild preference to leave the existing image there (as a linkimage) until a better one is found.  I think it does illustrate the general concept.  But I'm not strongly opposed to removing it, either. Johntex\talk 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. Since badlydrawnjeff removed it I'd wait for his input. Perhaps he's doing the kind of in-depth-research that will provide a more accurate image :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 16:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go along with whatever you guys ultimately decide, but a) I don't think the image is a good enough illustration, b) I'm opposed to putting the image behind the block regardless of the photo, and c) I have my doubts that we can find a worthwhile free/fair use image to illustrate it anyway.  Honestly, it doesn't matter much to me, I'm more concerned about expanding past the stub than whatever we do for an image, so I won't touch the image if someone puts it back. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  And I feel strongly that showing images is far more helpful than any harm it creates, plus it has the advantage of conforming to precedent.  =)  Powers 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several precedents for using linkimage with pornographic photographs.  For instance, the linkimage solution has been accepted at Ejaculation for months.  To my knowledge, there are no pornographic photographs on Wikipedia that are not linkimaged.  There are some clinical-style drawings of sexual positions, but no photographs. Johntex\talk 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't support its usage there, either.  By precedent I was refering to the copious photographs on articles such as penis, vulva, erection, circumcision, sex in advertising, breast, nipple, pubic hair, semen, and numerous others.  The image in the Ejaculation article has been removed in favor of a video (linked because we can't imbed videos).  Powers 13:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I regard myself as being very strongly against censorship of any kind, I can easily acknowledge the difference between a flaccid penis or an isolated breast, and an image of a smiling young lady dripping with semen. The former are clearly "academic interest" while the later is...titillating.  FWIW, I've actually requested that Brad Patrick clarify this if possible, largely because there is significant reasonable concern about the topic. Until then, I continue to support the use of Linkimage for those things which might generally be regarded as "pornographic" as opposed to "academic". --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 14:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Doc Tropics.  Those are my thoughts exactly.  None of the articles listed by Powers contain images that would be considered titilating or pornographic.  They are purely academic in nature. Showing nudity is one thing, showing pornography is another. Johntex\talk 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not quite certain how we can have an image illustrating the subject of this article that someone wouldn't consider pornographic.  Powers 20:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I tentatively agree with the IP 128's comments; especially "you work with the tools you have". I'll go ahead and put it up again (Linkimaged), but I really won't object if someone decides to move it. Color me ambivalent. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And again I must strongly object to the use of linkimage.  It's ugly and unencyclopedic.   Powers 20:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Doc, I think you did the right thing.  While not perfect, this image is a better educational tool than no image, so I think it good to have it linkimaged until/unless an even better image comes along. Johntex\talk 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. —Nightstallion (?) 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image and wiktionary 

message: I strongly object to this edit summary by Dalbury: .  There is no consensus for linkimage here, that I can see.  I see a few on one side and a couple on the other.  Powers T 17:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If what you say is true, then there would be no reason to remove the linkimage then, because there is no consensus to have the image displayed inline.  The linkimage is a compromise position between people who want to show the image in plain view to all readers, and those who wish to see it deleted entirely. Johntex\talk 05:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point?  I never said there was a reason to remove the linkimage.  My point was that there was no reason to revert the removal either.  Powers T 12:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  linkimage, again 

message: I've move these two sentences back here while waiting for sources to be provided.
*Usually, the anterior neck or upper chest are involved, but depositing semen on the back of the neck can also be considered as creating a pearl necklace. 
*There is some debate about whether this act is truly different from a facial.
-- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced factoids 

message: I have removed the Witionary tag. This article is a stub but clearly encyclopaedic, and potentially more than a dicdef. Bridgeplayer 22:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The version as of September 9 is nothing more than a definition. --24.8.117.81 23:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of the tag was appropriate as the article was already transwikied to wiktionary, but the tag was accidentally left in place.  --Xyzzyplugh 13:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiktionary 

message: Shouldn't the image be removed and a link to the image be added. Or could the image be moved to the bottom of the article with a warning at the top? This image could be disturbing to many. -24.92.41.95 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.  Powers T 02:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning?

message: Strait, please do not remove requests for citations until the citations have been provided. At the very least, you need to specify when (how many minutes and seconds from the start) in the movie or TV episode the reference occurs. My personal opinion is that this sort of trivia should not be included unless 'it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself' (to quote User:Uncle G/On notability), but then, it wouldn't be trivia, I guess. However, I will settle for enough information to find the reference without having to sit through the entire film or episode. -- Donald Albury 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really like "popular culture references" sections, but if we have one, we should be sane about it.  Minutes and seconds from the start of a movie?  C'mon. Show me an article where the book or article references give page and line numbers.  If it references a particular movie or episode of a TV show, that's specific enough. --Strait 04:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point of the section in general, though? Where's the importance of listing all references? How does that help build an encyclopedic article on the subject? -- nae'blis 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It helps show that the term (and perhaps the act) is (are) common enough to be notable (WP:V).  Because people are reluctant to talk and write about sex in matter-of-fact ways, it's often hard to find better sorts of references. --Strait 17:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that saying a bit of dialogue is referring to a specific term verges on original research. I think we ought to be requiring a reliable source that says that bit of dialogue is actually a use of the term in question. -- Donald Albury 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Specifying how far into the film or episode (OK, seconds may be a little much, but at least in minutes) is equivalent to specifying the page number in a book that supports a citation. This is done in other articles in Wikipedia. It is unreasonable to expect someone who wishes to verify a citation to sit through an entire film or TV episode to catch what is often an isolated reference without an idea of when to expect it to occur. -- Donald Albury 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for Popular culture section 

message: I came here to find out if there is a technical term for this act. I see no mention of it. Is there an ism to describe this?
:Not that I am aware of.  I will keep an eye for the use of one and will add it to the article if found. Johntex\talk 04:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Term