Talk:Ejaculation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ejaculation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Wikipedia is not censored.
The images or details on this article may be graphic to some readers. This makes sure this is a quality article and there is full coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer about possible objectionable content.

A fact from Ejaculation appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 4 November 2008.

Wikipedia

"Female ejaculation" article[change source]

Hi, Gwib. I removed the "{{main|Female ejaculation}}" tag that you added, because this article is actually the main article. I created "Female ejaculation" only so that there was a place to park interwikis, and that article has a {{main}} tag to this article. I feel it is better to deal with all aspects of human ejaculation in one article, than splitting it over two articles. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 10:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Female ejaculation is very different to male ejaculation. The function, process and stimuli needed are completely different to male ejaculation and "ejaculation" in general is linked to males. Would it be possible for you to switch around and merge the articles?

I.e. Paste what's on the Female ejaculation article into the Ejaculation#Women, and visa versa, since Ejaculation#Women goes into far more detail. A seperate article is necessary though, as so many variables change. It would be like merging Breasts and (men's) Nipples in the same article. --Gwib^-(talk)- 12:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, guess I could. Wouldn't mind hearing the views of other members of WikiProject Sex and Sexuality on the matter first, though. I'll post a message on the talk page. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 13:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article need to be in the simple version of wikipedia? I thought this is supposed to be the one for children and adults, so therefore wouldn't this article, especially with the video, not appropriate for this version of wikipedia? As the saying go, "At least Johnny can read!" In other words, is it really a bad thing for an adult with limited English to be able to figure out what the English in the main article means?

Also, is there anybody who is a mother on the wikiproject Sex and Sexulaity for this version of wikipedia? Are is there anybody in that group looking out for our children? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzmonty (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images and video[change source]

Hi, Gwib. Hope you don't mind that I reverted your recent edit. Thanks for moving the video lower down in the article. However, I think the anatomical drawing is useful where it originally was as it helps readers to picture the location of the different anatomical structures discussed in the text. For the time being, I've restored the original image of two people kissing to the top of the article. We can have a discussion about what alternative image would be best. I've also reduced the size of the video so it's not so "in your face". — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 13:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the ejaculation video, because the "simple" wikipedia version is for children and adults who are uneducated in English. If somebody really wants to see that video they can go onto the main wikipedia site. You don't need to be able to read English to see the video on the main site. Any adult should be smart enough to realize that more info can be obtained from the regular wikipedia site, and small children should not accidently come across it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzmonty (talk • contribs) 13:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable revert[change source]

I have some concerns about this reverting of an edit this week: http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ejaculation&diff=2090806&oldid=2090805

The rationale "is a very annoying edit" does not seem like a good enough reason, and actually gives the appearance of an attempt to censor facts. The use of the word "penis" is appropriate in this article, as it is the portion of the body that is relevant to this topic. Furthermore, I do not think that it was proper for the IP who introduced the edit to subsequently be warned on his/her talk page. Kansan (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Annoying edit" is indeed a ridiculous reason to remove a correct addition and the warning was grossly inappropriate as it could discourage a positive contributor. If someone has a problem with a particular category of article, they should stay out of it. Don't revert users because you feel it is "annoying". Pmlineditor ∞ 08:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed OR and not mainstream material[change source]

Material about female orgasm and their supposed ejaculation is not mainstream, not on the corresponding En wiki age and mostly OR. As an unproven hypothesis it might be presented on its own page. This page needs to be mainstream. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]