→Images: re+ |
Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) →Images: one is enough |
||
Line 278: | Line 278: | ||
:Disagree. Do you want a discussion on both individually or as a whole?[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 07:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
:Disagree. Do you want a discussion on both individually or as a whole?[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 07:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::I'm fine with either image, as the depiction of the postures and relative positions of the performers arguably does add value, but given that the positions in both images are so similar, the 2nd image does not add anything new. It risks coming across as male locker-room decoration, which is something we should avoid. YMMV. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 11:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
::I'm fine with either image, as the depiction of the postures and relative positions of the performers arguably does add value, but given that the positions in both images are so similar, the 2nd image does not add anything new. It risks coming across as male locker-room decoration, which is something we should avoid. YMMV. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 11:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::One is enough. What is the term for a group of women defecating on men? Is there an article? I want to make sure there aren't too many graphics there too. [[User:Carolmooredc|CarolMooreDC]] ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|talk]]) 14:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:49, 16 February 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Spoken Wikipedia | ||||
|
Index
|
|||
2005 world conference
from above discussion: "a presentation at the World Sexology Conference in 2005 by Dr. Jeff Hudson and Dr. Nicholas Doong [[1]][[2]]"
The relevant part of the presentation is here:
Information on bukkake in the context of it’s actual nature is not commonly available and appear to be found in non scholarly resources such as the online resource web site wikipedia and pornographic web sites focused on bukkake.
Bukkake, supposedly originating in ancient Japan, refers to showering a recipient with semen from one or several men who ejaculate by turns or simultaneously.
Bukkake has been reference to incidents when unfaithful women were publicly humiliated by being tied up while every man in the village ejaculated all over her to show his distaste.
Emphasis added. The article itself has evolved from "[...]all over these girls' beautiful faces. The girls really love this and I know you will too! See it online at <link>" (June 2003) to "Although there is a back story describing it as an ancient Japanese feudal punishment, there is no evidence for this, and the practice appears to be a recent invention of the Japanese fetish pornography industry" (most of 2003), to "It is possible that bukkake was an ancient Japanese feudal punishment. There is a misconception that bukkake is a recent invention of the fetish pornography industry." (Sept 2003) to having the historical explanation removed in Feb 2004, then re-added by an anonymous user on [24 April 2004], describing it with a "theme of degredation" and "feudal" origins. On [28 July 2004], a note added to talk page that the historical origin is an urban myth. Removed from article on [18 Aug 2004], re-added [7 Nov 2004] but describing it as an urban myth, citing the "interesting discussion" on the talk page which was the reason it was removed from the article in the first place! ([Old talk page] can be [so interesting]...) This is probably around when it was used for the world conference.
Changed to "[apocryphal information]" on 13 July 2005, and [deleted] as "nonsense" the same day by a different user. (no edit wars! lol)
re-added again on [4 Aug 2005], but not before someone put [this] up...
Some scholars believe the origins of bukkake is from an ancient ritual practiced during the Pekku era in which bukkake was used during seppeku (ritual suicide). This was known as "Seppukake" and was once considered the most humilating punishment for a nobleman to endure.
Lol.
Anyway, the original speculation removed 26 Aug 2005, reverted 27 Aug 2005, etc etc... so many edits zomg. [16 Nov 2005] the page stated that the historical origin is "the imagination of the writer of a certain adult website, who concocted the story to entice readers to subscribe".
Removed again on [5 Nov 2006], re-added March 2007, re-removed again on [8 Nov 2007].... on [29 Oct 2008] "restore the popular but false theory of its origin"?? -_- 24.19.135.175 (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just looking in after the big controversy. Yes, all the above confirms my suspicions mentioned earlier: A hoax/myth that somehow got mentioned in a scholarly paper (after having been allowed to remain on WP for some time). A glance at the History section as it currently stands seems correct. Any further reappearance of the "Ancient origins" claim should be removed. The only question is whether to mention it as a hoax/myth. But barring a "reliable source" debunking it, just keeping it out seems best. Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Disambig Link
What does folks think about redirecting this page to a disambiguation page with links to both this article and to the page on cold udon. I know that the normal disambiguation guidelines tend to favor the current set-up do the more widespread use of the sexual term in English. That said, I think we might want to make an exception this time. I've gotta say, by the time I manage to make it through the text of the disambiguation link and realize where I should be going, I'm not longer particularly hungry for noodles. —mako๛ 05:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think you'd have a very hard time arguing that the name is ever used for noodles in English, much less that they have a shot at being an equally common usage. Jpatokal (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- NYTimes Dining Section article that brought me to this page:
"The same is true for the bukkake udon ($6.95), smothered with yam foam and cod roe, though some seem to enjoy the gluey texture. The restaurant is from the :::company behind the Beard Papa cream puff chain, but there isn’t much dessert." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/dining/29dinbriefs.html?ref=dining 68.81.146.208 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.146.208 (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think bukkake is being used for noodles in that section; the name of the dish is "bukkake udon", and I don't think it's decomposable in English. The word there is "bukkake udon".--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Images
There's clearly been quite a lot of discussion on this article, which I'm not a party and haven't read all of (I read some). So excuse me for jumping in. Anyway, what I'm saying here refers only to the images and not the article content (which is a different issue).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems (besides the culinary definition) there are or were three reasons for considering this practice notable:
- Old-time Japanese practice.
- Porn genre.
- Actual modern-day practice.
The first seems to have been pretty much dismissed, but if it were to be included, we would want, if any image at all, an authentic old Japanese woodcut or whatever. The images we have now show no insight into old Japan (e.g, is there any reason to believe that the participants were all naked, and so forth). So the image is certainly not appropriate for that.
If illustrating a porn genre, we shouldn't do that. While Wikipedia is not censored, there's no call for specifically including images mimicking scenes from hardcore pornography movies. These are many seriously uh problematic images in the Wikipedia, but I think that most of them at least make the case that they are illustrating real-life sex positions and practices, e.g. double penetration etc. If this is supposed to be illustrating a scene from a hardcore porn movie, it would be the most hardcore image we have in an article on the Wikipedia, I think, and should be removed.
If it's the third, then I also don't think we should have an image, but if we do have an imagew, at least it should show a male as the victim, on these grounds:
- Assuming we are illustrating a consensual encounter, there's no reason to believe that this is a primarily heterosexual practice, and we shouldn't imply that. (In fact it could be considered Heterosexualism bordering on homophobia.)
- And if we are not illustrating a consensual encounter, this would mean we are showing an actual rape/abuse scene and there is no good reason for doing that.
- And anyway, can we give the sisters a break? All or almost of the sex pictures I see in the Wikipedia that show a person in a degrading position show a woman in that position. Would it not be gentlemanly for the dudes to step up and take some of the heat for a change? Herostratus (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see no reason why we shouldn't illustrate a porn genre just like any other article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's more than a porn genre, its a genre of noodles, which is what brought me to this site. One solution would be to do a disambiguation - Bukkake Porn vs. Bukkake Noodles (which predate the porn genre.) Including these pornographic images is like illustrating the article on "trombones" with a graphic cartoon of a sex act. Also, the image serves no educational function, as it does not show a real example, only an illustrator's fantasy drawing. The image of the noodle stand gives evidence of the existence of bukkake noodles to those who may be skeptical that the word has traditionally referred to food. 68.81.146.208 (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.146.208 (talk)
- Not in English speaking countries it's not a type of noodles. There's nineteen hits for bukkake and noodles on Google Books, compared to 600 for bukkake--and many of the first are mentions in passing that bukkake also means noodles. The illustrations show exactly what bukkake means in English. If you wish to object to a specific inaccuracy in the illustrations, then do so, but to object to them being illustrations is absurd, especially as you would react even more vehemently to photos. I find it bizarre to include a photo that doesn't include the word bukkake in it at all, and claim it's a great photo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- This Wednesday's NYTimes Dining Section would beg to differ:
- "The same is true for the bukkake udon ($6.95), smothered with yam foam and cod roe, though some seem to enjoy the gluey texture. The restaurant is from the :::company behind the Beard Papa cream puff chain, but there isn’t much dessert."
- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/dining/29dinbriefs.html?ref=dining 68.81.146.208 (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. It doesn't seem worth arguing over; if you want to put a hat note on the top of the page, or even make it a disambiguation page, I won't object.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I notice that there is a hat note on the top of this page. This is an article about a sex act; go to that article if you want the article to be about food. There's a lots of pictures in Wikipedia that don't go well with food; shall we depicture Intensive pig farming, too?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, but I don't search "intensive pig farming" when I want to learn aboutbacon. I search "bacon", and expect to find food. If someone has named a sex practice "Bacon", that's their right, but the disambiguation should go with the original meaning of the word. 198.17.30.124 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Herostratus. I think the images are unnecessary. The description is already explicit, and the images only appear to recreate hardcore pornography which is unnecessary for the educational purpose of the article. In fact, I was a little shocked and taken aback by the image. Now I understand the irony of that since I was looking up the word in question, but I was actually looking up the origin or "bukkake udon" after a mention in the NYTimes and the images ruined my appetite. Although I don't think it's necessary to have images at all since they add almost nothing to the article, I do think that if images are included, it would be more egalitarian to show both men and women in the submissive role, but I really see no justification for including the images (except for the noodle stand, which I found quite helpful). (Sorry, I do not know how to sign this) 08:15, 29 September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.146.208 (talk)
OK, such defense as there has been of the current image is as in illustration of pornography. I'm not saying that it couldn't be an illustration of a real life practice that people do at parties or during a gang rape or whatever, but that defense hasn't been made. So if it's an image from pornography, then:
- The image is, itself, hardcore pornography. While it's proper to cover pornographic subjects, such as the business of pornography and the social poistion of ponography etc. it's not really a good idea to drill down to the level of showing actual hardcore pornography. This smacks of a fanboy-enthusiast desire to display a stroke picture. While we allow fanboy-enthusiam to permeate our articles on Pokemon and so forth, we need to take a more rigourous approach on the fraught subject of hardcore pornograhy, and demand an especially high level of encyclopedia necessity before showing out-and-out hardcore images.
- The image is degrading to women. Absent an overriding encyclopedic need, we shouldn't show images that are degrading half our potential readership. The Wikipedia has a very serious problem attracting female readership and editorship, and the mileu that supports the inclusion of explicit hardcore misogynist images is a factor in this. This aside, the Wikipedia should not be taking an explicitly misogynist position as a matter of principle; in the war between the sexes, we should remain neutral.
- It's not a still from a pornographic movie, it's somebody's artistic representation of a pornographic movie - maybe the saw such a move and this is their personal recollection of what it looked liked. As such, its veracity may be questioned. Both images tell me, for instance, that the participants are all naked. Is this true? Maybe the usual method is for the male participants to just unzip their pants or whatever. I don't know, and I don't know if the image is correct. At least a still from a movie would be an actual example. Herostratus (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- We don't need an excuse to accurately illustrate a subject, and I think these images are very much the case of a picture being worth a thousand words. The pictures illustrate the subject, and are exactly as misogynist as the subject. Should we delete images of Vietnamese burned with napalm because they're anti-Vietnamese?
- You're setting up a catch-22; there's no way you'll tolerate a photograph, but you'll attack the illustrations for not being photographs. Again, anything can be wrong; the text on the page can be incorrect, and a photograph could be completely unrepresentative or out of context. Criticize the illustrations for being wrong, not for possibly being wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Re Kenilworth Terrace, this is a cogent point. Re Prosfilaes per Catch-22, you are correct. Without necessarily conceding the point, I will say that the image is probably accurate, and that a movie still would also not necessarily be accurate (it could be unrepresentative), and anyway this is peripheral point and the image has more serious problems than that.
Regarding other points:
- "We don't need an excuse to accurately illustrate a subject"
Yeah we do, in this case. Look, there is encyclopedic and there is encyclopedic. There is Theory of Relativity and Raphael and so forth, and then there is say List of villains in Codename: Kids Next Door or whatever. The first two articles are typical of articles that significantly enhance the value of the Wikipedia, and the third is cruft. However, there's no reason not to keep List of villains in Codename: Kids Next Door and any images it might have because there's no downside. It doesn't hurt anyone to keep the article, as Wikipedia is not paper. However, if List of villains in Codename: Kids Next Door contained images that horrified, degraded, harmed, saddened, and drove away customers, then of course the images would have to be deleted because it's not worth it. OK? There has to be a sense of proportion here. Well Bukkake is List of villains in Codename: Kids Next Door for grownups. It's a marginal article about an obscure practice in a few movies that no one has ever heard of. All things being equal, fine, keep the article and its images. However, there is considerable cost to hosting these images, and its just not worth it. Oh, I forget to include "harmful to young people" in the list above. Viewing images such as these is harmful to young people's development into healthy sexual beings. So there's that, too.
- "The pictures illustrate the subject, and are exactly as misogynist as the subject."
If the pictures were accompanied by some discussion of misogyny, you might have a point. However: c'mon. The artist, User:Seedfeeder, is a skilled pornographer and, I infer from his work and writings, not terribly fond of women. These images are not presented to us so that they we may condemn what the represent. They are presented as, not to put too fine point on it, stroke pictures for our admiration. It might make sens to include these images in the article Misogyny in Japan or whatever (although they would still be problematical), but they're not in that article. Context.
- "Should we delete images of Vietnamese burned with napalm because they're anti-Vietnamese?"
Again - the Vietnam War versus an obscure pornography genre. Let's keep a sense of proportion here. Herostratus (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Summary: I just don't like it. Is there any objective criterion that could possibly be set up to distinguish the two categories of image Herostratus wants to use? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- So now we're getting into personal attacks on the artist who drew the images. Great. There's no evidence that anyone has been driven away by the pictures on the page; nor that viewing the images has a great effect that reading the article doesn't. I object to your separation of encyclopedia articles into "important" (high culture) and "unimportant" (low culture; things that occur in day-to-day life). I don't buy your claim that seeing the images are going to be any more harmful than reading the article, and again I find your definition of "harm" to be not NPOV; historically, the legally important form of harm to the child was heresy.
- As for pictures, we have a billion Muslims who log onto Wikipedia and go over to Mohammed and get outraged about the pictures. Why is it not worth removing those images, that provably are losing us editors? I know, you're going to say sense of proportion, but the proportion is that this page is a bee in the bonnet of a couple users, and the Mohammed page is a huge, very real, issue. You want to talk about "images that horrified, degraded, harmed, saddened, and drove away customers", let's talk about images that we know are doing that on a daily basis.
- No, these pictures are not presented so that we may condemn what they represent. Welcome to Wikipedia; I invite you to read WP:NPOV. They are neutral depictions of what goes on in a bukkake scene. That you think they are stroke pictures says more about you than the pictures.
- The sense of proportion I'm interested in keeping is not deleting images because someone claims to be offended and makes big huffy "think about the children" noises, and gets terribly dismissive of an article available on 27 Wikipedias, which 25 more than List of villains in Codename: Kids Next Door, and 8 more than Edna St. Vincent Millay.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the drawings are perfect as is. Recycling a few points made on other articles here:
- Wikipedia is not censored and these provide media which is useful to some readers since no one reads an article the same. Whole essays on and off Wikipedia have been written on that point. They provide a better understanding of the topic when also considering the captions and prose.
- The images are no more distracting than the text since it is a sexual topic.
- The images are simplified so there are no distracting funny faces, sexy lingerie, or distractingly low quality
- Race should not be an issue. It is hard to tell what races or nationalities are portrayed in the second drawing which might be a good thing. The article is part of Wikiproject Japan and clearly points to the pornography industry in Japan in the prose so it should be acceptable to have a subject who might appear to be Japanese.
- Sexual preference should not be an issue. I don't think two images provides undue weight in this article. I do understand the concern to a certain extent but not enough to remove one of the drawings. Removing one of the drawings would come across as limiting content due to what might be an overreaction. This also touches on the race issue since which drawing would be kept if one was removed? Also, no one is preventing someone from uploading an image of a guy.
- Plenty of women enjoy the practice or watching the practice and it should not be assumed to be degrading to women. Plenty of women have no opinion on it. Of course many do feel it is degrading. Adult movies often feature men ejaculating on women and if the images are degrading then the subject is degrading. Removing one of the drawings would again be an overreaction. Furthermore, the artile even discusses the criticism so there is no question that some people have raised concerns. But again, no one is preventing an image of a guy being uploaded.
- The drawings limit any legality concerns based on model release or age confirmation.
- Any discussion on if there needs to be two articles has nothing to do with the images in an article discussing the sexual practice. Noodles and sex are two different topics and need to be handled in two different articles except for any lines discussing a relationship between the two. Wikipedia is not a dictionary where multiple topics can be listed under a common name (disregarding disambiguation pages, of course).
- Like always, the illustrator should be thanked for his work (disclaimer, I have previously supported inclusion of his drawings).Cptnono (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I personally find the images incredibly distracting. Images are far more visually arresting than text. If that was not true, billboards, and all advertisements would
- merely be paragraphs of prose. To deny the power of images seems silly and deliberately contrary.
- "Plenty of women enjoy the practice or watching the practice and it should not be assumed to be degrading to women."
- Would you care to cite your source on that? 198.17.30.124 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the drawings are perfect as is. Recycling a few points made on other articles here:
- I don't see how that's an argument against images in this article in particular. If these images are worth a full kiloword, then that's a good thing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we need two images of bukkake in this article, essentially duplicating each other. I propose we remove one of them. As far as Seedfeeder's work in general is concerned, it is technically competent and informative, and if we look at what reliable sources do, books like Joy of Sex contained similar drawings to illustrate sex positions etc. I also sympathise with people who say it is pornography, and understand the concern that an article about pornography should not be pornography, but it's a very delicate balance, and I'm narrowly on the side of those who say that his illustrations may be a good compromise between having no illustration, or having an actual photo of the act, which to my mind would actually cross the line to the article being pornography.
- If there is a danger of people looking for noodles ending up here, then we should create a disambiguation page, according to the principle of least surprise, and move this page to Bukkake (sexual act) (and write an article on the noodles!). --JN466 01:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I note that Bukkake udon is presently covered in the article Udon, so I guess it might make sense to move this page to Bukkake (sexual act), as suggested above, and make this a disambiguation page pointing to Bukkake (sexual act) and Udon. --JN466 02:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, User:Prosfilaes makes some cogent and reasonable points. This is a fraught subject about which people are likely to have entrenched opinions, so I can't say I'm convinced. Without addressing all of his points at this time, a couple of responses to specific points:
- Re "I just don't like it" - it is true that I don't like it, and it's reasonable to take this into account when addressing my points. However, my points go well beyond that, in my opinion.
- Re personal attacks - although I can see how it could be taken that way, I don't see any personal attacks. But another editor made this claim on my talk page, and when I addressed his concerns, his response was "Well, since I'm right, I couldn't be bothered to read your response". So I'm not inclined to discuss this further if it's just going to be typing into the void. But whatever, moving on.
- Re the Muslims and Muhammed, in my opinion this is a red herring, and it's two different things. It's an interesting point, and one that could stand much more discussion, which may be forthcoming.
- Re NPOV, I would say that as the article stands it definitely takes a position via juxtoposition of text and imagery. User:Cptnono claimed that "Plenty of women enjoy the practice...", and this is a reasonable inference from the way the material is presented. And if that isn't true, we shouldn't imply it. However, perhaps this can be corrected by the presentation of text rather than removing the images, and I'll address that in a separate section below.
User:Cptnono's point that "Plenty of women enjoy the practice" illustrates one of the problems here. In fact, this isn't an accurate statement as far as I can determine. But it is understandable that, if a person is a consumer (or addict) of pornography, one could be led to believe that it's an accurate statement, given human nature to tend to accept the veracity of imagery, on a preconscious level as it were (a thousand words, and all that). But at Wikipedia, we shouldn't be abetting this false idea through strategic use of imagery, nothwithstanding that we have many editors who are consumers (or addicts) of pornography. We are not supposed to take sides in the war between the sexes.
Perhaps an RfC is in order. But before going there (any other editor can of course initiate one), let's see if we can effect a compromise by chaninging the way the images are presented with the text, so I'll start a separate section below about that. Herostratus (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
re text, and references
The article lead sentece (at this writing) is "Bukkake is a sexual practice that features a person being ejaculated on by several men." And there are six references given. So lets look at them.
All six of the references are not online, but in two of them, Google Books lets us peek inside to the relevant entry. There are:
- The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. The small section that is shown doesn't show what its references are, but the namesake author Eric Partridge is a respected slang lexicographer and Taylor & Francis is an established publisher of academic works. The definition is is A photograph or video depicting multiple men ejaculating onto a single woman. OK, not a "sexual practice" but "a photograph or video".
- Fantabulosa: The Dictionary of Polari and Gay Slang. I don't know who the author, Paul Baker, is, but Continuum International Publishing Group is described as an academic publisher. The small section that is shown doesn't show what its references are. The definition is "A term found in pornography..." Again, pornography. (FWIW, the book's cover and title (there is a 2002 book Polari: The Lost Language of Gay Men) indicates that it probably applies primarily or entirely to males.)
So the two refs that we can see are about porn. What about the others?
- The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English. Routledge is an academic publisher. The author, Tom Dalzell, is also one of the authors of the book The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. The book's Google Books page includes a review from Library Journal of 05/01/2009 volume 134 issue 8 page 104, which says Dalzell... here "extracts" from the New Partridge those words and short phrases that are clearly American... (I have no idea why there are scare quotes around the term "extracts".) So it seems likely that the definition in this book is probably just a republishing of the definition in The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, (although this is not certain) and, if so, again would refer to pornography.
- A book titled Pornified: How Pornography Is Damaging Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families. Judging by the title, this book is also about pornography.
So four of the refs are about, or probably about, porn. Now to the last two.
- Another reference is, in its entirety, "La palabra y el hombre. Issues 125-128. Universidad Veracruzana. 2003." I'm not sure what to make of this, since citing three whole issues of a journal is not conventional or very helpful. The University of Veracruz describes this journal as its flagship publication, and it was founded by the accomplished Sergio Galindo. But he was a novelist. And it seems be mostly a literary journal, although it also covers culture and politics. Anyway, no author is given, no title is given, no indication of the provenance or content is given (it could be in a short story for all I know), and citing three issues is pretty close to saying "Here is the name of a Mexican journal, somewhere in there is the reference to my edit" This is a malformed reference and, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence regarding sources for contentious assertions, I'm deleting it.
- The final reference is a book, The Illustrated Dictionary of Sex. I Don't know about this one. Lotus Press publishes new-agey titles on alternative healing and tarot and stuff like that; it's an arm of Lotus Products, which makes new-agey natural health and personal care products. Nothing wrong with any of that, but this is not an academic publisher and you have to wonder how much rigor went into verifying the entries in this book. It's not possible to get this book from most libraries, since libraries generally carry books that have scholarly value, or are popular, or are of high quality, or have other worthwhile attributes. But this book presumably doesn't meet any of these criteria, so its not reasonably obtainable. So we have no reasonable way of checking what it says (it quite likely also defines the term as a porn term). The assertion that "Bukkake is a sexual practice" accompanied by two images indicating it's a heterosexual sexual practice is highly contentious, and per Wikipedia:Verifiability for contentious material that reference must "clearly support the material as presented in the article", and should be from a source with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and so forth, this is not a good source, so I'm removing it.
Not to get ahead of myself, the seventh source given in the article (and it is cited six time altogether) is an abstract of a lecture titled "Bake a Cake? Exposing the Sexual Practice of Bukkake". I don't know who the authors/presenters (Jeff Hudson and Nicholas Doong) are, what any of this has to do with Dr Doong's Surgery, Burwood, NSW, Australia, or what the World Congress of Sexology is, but this is quite a poor reference. For one thing, a good chunk of it is apparently taken from, not just Wikipedia, but from what turned out to be a hoax on Wikipedia. If this doesn't call the authors' rigor into verifying their sources into serious question, I don't know what would. The remainder of the abstract is quite unclear what is supposed to be referring to pornography, what is supposed to be referring to real life, and what (if not indeed all of it) is just fairly outlandish stream-of-consciousness riffing. Certainly we would need much better references for assertions that the "practice has grown worldwide with organized groups" and so forth. So I removed this ref also, again per Wikipedia:Verifiability.
So that is three references removed, and, with zero references supporting the assertion that this is an actual heterosexual sexual practice, the lead sentences being refactored also. Obviously there is much more to do but that's a start. Herostratus (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't too hard to find "La pornografía: ficción y violencia simbólica sobre los cuerpos" by Alba H. González Reyes in "La palabra y el hombre. Issues 125-128. Universidad Veracruzana. 2003." The definition of bukkake is on page 81. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, excellent! I wasn't able to find it online, but I obviously didn't try hard enough, and I thank you for your diligence. I can't Spanish so I can't tell much about the article, but it's a respected magazine from a respected university so that's good enough in my book. It should be restored, and I will do this soonest. From what I can tell, it also seems to be about pornography (the title, as near as I can puzzle out, means "Pornography: Fiction and Symbolic Violence Against the Female Body", is that right? "los cuerpos" means "the bodies" (I think), but Spanish is gendered and "los" is the feminine, so using "los" instead of "las" makes it refer to females, I guess. And the definition given on page 81 refers "mujer". If this is not correct, then I guess it should be just "Pornography: Fiction and Symbolic Violence Against the Body". Thanks again for finding that. Herostratus (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The last sentence of the lead paragraph: "There is debate on whether to class bukkake as a paraphilia such as hygrophilia, sexual arousal from contact with bodily secretions." This doesn't make sense to me as sexual arousal is not an issue, these are actors. If nobody does it (except for the camera) how can it be a paraphilia? Either the sentence refers to the audience, or it's an artifact. At any rate, it's not cited, and I think it should be removed. Herostratus (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I restored the Hudson/Doong ref, but only as a citation showing that the sentence "The 17th World Congress of Sexology in Montreal in July 2005 included a presentation on bukkake" is true. I don't think the text of the abstract is reliable or should be used for any other purposes. A program or something from the congress would be a better ref. Herostratus (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Order of sections
Just as a disclaimer, let me say that while I'm opposed to the images, I'm not against the article itself, provided that it's accurate and the sources are good (both of which appear to basically true), and I'm not operating some agenda, not to imply that anyone has suggested this.
OK. To my mind, putting the "Etymology" section immediately after the lead makes the article less clear. It is true that etymologies are often included up front, and putting it at the end would be unusual. But this is a long etymology and it breaks the flow, in my opinion. The inclusion of an image of a noodle stand in the middle of an article about pornography is somewhat confusing, in my view.
Actually we really don't need an etymology section, or the one we have could be shortened instead. The etymology section doesn't really shed light on the topic, or a one-sentence version ("it means 'splash' in Japanese") would be sufficient. But it's not harmful, and it would seem a shame to throw away all that good work. But in a way it's a little bit like a trivia section (though interesting) and putting it at the end seems appropriate to me. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- It could be reduced easily. I still see no reason to move it though. There is a precedent to have etymology sections after the lead across the project. They are not trivia on other articles and it is not trivia here.Cptnono (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, no on else has jumped in, so it looks like it's you and me. I'd rather move than reduce it. Would you be willing ask for and abide by a WIkipedia:Third Opinion? I will if you will. Herostratus (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would prefer to move it to the end. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Reasoning, Kenilworth Terrace? I like third opinions but thought I would take it somewhere specific. The MoS project has some editors that keep up on this sort of thing so I made an inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout)#Etymology.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. I think the etymology section should be after the lead. Because the word "bukkake" is only a porn term in Japan and not a standard word. A lot of Japanese do not know its pornographic usage. Bukkake has big wings in English. So the etymology is needed at the top to let readers understand the word correctly. That is the role of an encyclopedia, isn't that? The usage of the word in English reminds me of totally incorrect use of the word hibachi. I suspect the reason that the word spread this widely in English speaking world is it's a foreign origin and, unlike cum shot, there is no psychological resistance for native en speakers to utter the word. It seems to me a kind of a whitewashed expression and, as a native ja speaker, I even feel a racial slur in the word's popularity in English. Oda Mari (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't exactly agree with that reasoning but it is similar to another editor's thoughts made over there. Basically, it makes it clear at the top and should be kept in mind. Of course, we could go with a disambig but I would still keep it at the top since it is common and a quick note makes it even better.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. I think the etymology section should be after the lead. Because the word "bukkake" is only a porn term in Japan and not a standard word. A lot of Japanese do not know its pornographic usage. Bukkake has big wings in English. So the etymology is needed at the top to let readers understand the word correctly. That is the role of an encyclopedia, isn't that? The usage of the word in English reminds me of totally incorrect use of the word hibachi. I suspect the reason that the word spread this widely in English speaking world is it's a foreign origin and, unlike cum shot, there is no psychological resistance for native en speakers to utter the word. It seems to me a kind of a whitewashed expression and, as a native ja speaker, I even feel a racial slur in the word's popularity in English. Oda Mari (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Reasoning, Kenilworth Terrace? I like third opinions but thought I would take it somewhere specific. The MoS project has some editors that keep up on this sort of thing so I made an inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout)#Etymology.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would prefer to move it to the end. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, no on else has jumped in, so it looks like it's you and me. I'd rather move than reduce it. Would you be willing ask for and abide by a WIkipedia:Third Opinion? I will if you will. Herostratus (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I have made a reply to Herostratus on his essay that is relevant reading for those here [3]. Regarding etymology, it's true that it's a common word for things like food (rice splashed with egg, tamago bukkake meshi), so the etymology is more relevant here. Gigs (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Term not limited to Pornography
Bukkake "It appears over time the act of bukkake has gained wider interest across the world and has gone from cult like status to an accepted sexual practice for some."
"Countless active groups have formed world wide on the internet that have a shared sexual interest in bukkake, each with its own variations within its country, group dynamics and individual preferences. These groups through forums and chat rooms advertise for members and promote bukkake events"
Atom (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The focus of this article should be describing the *act* called Bukkake, and not the film Genre. It had previously been edited as if ther act only existed within the context of film Genre. I have not asked that editor to "prove a negative", but rather, if he wishes to assert that Bukkake is limited to a film genre (and does not exist independently) that he provide a reliable source and reference that says that, so something like that at least.
I think it is given that the term Bukkake did originate from Japanese erotic film, and then gained explosive growth (as an interest) in the Western world as a film genre. The activity depicted in the film Genre certainly is one that exists outside of the realm of film, and to suggest that it doe snot would be ludicrous. I provided a reliable source and quotes above that says precisely that. "...has gone from cult like status to an accepted sexual practice...".
Also, I think it is pretty likely that men have ben giving women facials, and multiple men giving a women facials, as long as humans have been having sex. For a really long time.
For one editor to suggest that the act itself did not exist prior to the film Genre, is like a 16 year old thinking that he invented the cowboy position. We (those of us living) didn't invent sex -- it has been around for a very long time. Pretty much every sexual position and act that we can imagine has been tried ten thousands years before any of us was born. Also, there is evidence that the act of several men ejaculating onto a womans face as an act of domination and humiliation existed in Japan prior to the film Genre, and in probably in every culture long before that. No one has been able to provide reliable sources for that, which is why nothing of that sort is stated in the article.
But common sense should tell most editors that although the act of what we now call Bukkake may have been a relatively rare thing in history, that it has happened throughout human history as long as men have dominated women. To suggest that prior to the film genre being invented in Japan that the act had never been done, and is currently now done *only* for filmaking and not independently is about as believable as that same editor telling us that he has never masturbated. Or suggesting that "group sex" only occurs on pornographic videos. So if an editor wants to change the article to say that the act only occurs within the context of pornographic film -- then I say, please provide a reliable source for that statement. Atom (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- (See also this thread] on Atom's talk page for some preliminary discussion on this.)
- OK. Jeff Hudson is not a reliable source. This is has been discussed and incontrovertibly proven in some of the sections of this talk page, above. See for instance the section "2005 world conference" etc.
- For instance, In Mr Hudson's "Bake a Cake" lecture (which he cites as one one of his "references" in the citation you give) he states "Theory has it that in ancient Japan, women who were found to be unfaithful were publicly humiliated in the town center by being tied up while every man in town ejaculated all over her to show his distaste."
- His reference for this? Wikipedia. And not just Wikipedia, but a hoax on Wikipedia, inserted by a troll. Again, all this is discussed and proven above. Obviously Mr Hudson is not only not any kind of scholar, he is an idiot. Or a provocateur, if you prefer.
- So, you know, when you say "[T]here is evidence that the act of several men ejaculating onto a womans face as an act of domination and humiliation existed in Japan...", you are not just promulgating a lie, you are promulgating a racist lie. There is no such evidence.
- I won't speculate on your motives, but your use of Mr Hudson as a reference (and he is your sole reference) basically places you outside the pale of serious-minded and scholarly persons, and casts a shadow on anything else you might have to say.
- You asked for a reference, and I provided one. I was not surprised that you did your best to shoot down the reference. We have indeed discussed this source before, however that was in the context of the origins of Bukkake. To suggest that a scholarly reference from a paper given at a world recognized conference by a recognized expert is not a reliable source is silly. Yes, we decided that since that scholar had referred to Wikipedia as a source for the origins of Bukkake, and that we could find no other for that "myth", that we did not feel comfortable keeping the origin explanation in the article. That decision on our part, however, does not suddenly make Dr. Jeff Hudson "not any kind of scholar, he is an idiot. Or a provocateur" (your words). The context I was quoting him on in this case was in reference to his opinion that Bukkake "has gone from cult like status to an accepted sexual practice". Indicating that it is a sexual practice and not just a film genre. In short, just because we Wikipedia editors chose to be conservative about using a sole source as foundation for supporting the existence of Bukkake in ancient Japan within our article, does not suddenly make a recognized scholar into an unreliable source. I suspect any other further sources I come up with you will object to on the grounds that they are unreliable, because you do not agree with what they say.
- So, when you say "I think it is pretty likely that... multiple men [have been] giving a women facials, as long as humans have been having sex", that tells me something about you. But it doesn't tell me anything about actual verified human sexual behavior. I don't actually much care about what you, personally, do or do not "think is likely" and I don't consider you to be a reliable source. Appeals to "common sense" in lieu of references also do not generally cut much ice on the Wikipedia.
- I am not asserting that, in the course of human history, this has never happened even once. But what we are looking for here is a notable level of prevalence in some populations, backed by reliable sources.
- Again... your statement "[I]f [Herostratus] wishes to assert that Bukkake is limited to a film genre (and does not exist independently) that he provide a reliable source and reference that says that" is asking me to prove a negative - the "does not exist independently" clause gives this away. I cannot do this. It is logically impossible. I have explained this now three times, I think (including on your talk page).
- Tell you what. Rather than continuing to fight over this, why don't we go to mediation, either formal or informal? I'm willing to if you are. (Unfortunately, User:Cptnono has joined in the revert war, probably more on general principle than anything else, so he is also a party to this dispute now, and would also have to agree to mediation, or to step aside. He probably won't listen to me (doesn't seem to like me much) but he might to you.)
- So do you prefer informal mediation, formal mediation, or some other method of resolving this dispute? Herostratus (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- @Herostratus -- I respect you and your editing (in many other places) and I would be happy to talk further or RfC if you would like. So much discussion over something so simple. The article is about an *act*. That is to say, an activity that people have done in the past, and continue to do. The article is not limited to discussing the *act* as a film Genre (Although, of course, a section discussing the *act* as a film genre is certainly welcome.) The intro paragraph should help the reader to understand what the act is. When you change the intro article to focus on this act as being exclusively a film genre, you change the basic nature of the article.
- This specific act has existed for a long time, but giving it the specific name of "Bukkake" is relatively recent. So, research based on the use of the word will naturally bring up primarily references to the film genre. I can appreciate your desire to have "a notable level of prevalence in some populations, backed by reliable sources" we are on the same page. Clearly the fact that an entire film genre has exploded regarding this act, it is notable.
- It should be obvious to you that your position is untenable. Consider if you were to rewrite the intro on the cowgirl position article or the rusty trombone or Facial (sex act) articles to say that they were limited to pornographic video's, and tried to suggest that these acts never happen outside of the context of someone making a video. Other editors with their own life experiences (personal knowledge that you were wrong) would laugh at you. They would ask you to cite your rewrite (that the act was limited to porn videos) as an effort to get you to realize that it was not possible, since it is not true.
- Sources, sources, sources. There either are sources discussing bukkake (the English term) as a sexual practice outside pornography, or there are not. --JN466 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Where the sources are required is for the editor proposing that this well known act is only limited to Pornography. It is an interesting premise. So, if he wishes to make the bold statement that Bukkake is limited to Pornography, he needs to provide a source for that theory. Merely stating that theory or opinion as fact and changing the article to state that is not sufficient.
- As for sources discussing it as a sexual practice -- I provided one, I am sure there are more. There is no problem here in determining or documenting whether the sexual practice actually exists. The hundreds of porno films that exists are only part of the evidence of that. This article is to describe that act, not the film genre. User:Atomaton|Atom]] (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- The source you cited actually said that bukkake has not been investigated as a sex practice and is not discussed as such. There are some sources describing it as a practice, but it seems to be a practice in pornography: [4], [5] (this is an interesting one for the article, saying it is more than 50 years old), [6]. Most sources are like this one. I found a few erotic novels and the like talking about (fictional) bukkake parties, as well as a few self-published books describing it as a group sex or swinger club practice. There may well be more in google books; I haven't gone through the entire listing: [7] --JN466 00:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- As for sources discussing it as a sexual practice -- I provided one, I am sure there are more. There is no problem here in determining or documenting whether the sexual practice actually exists. The hundreds of porno films that exists are only part of the evidence of that. This article is to describe that act, not the film genre. User:Atomaton|Atom]] (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Another attempt at a correct Intro
The intro paragraph should be a short paragraph to describe the topic. In this case the topic is the act of Bukkake. The origins of the term or word, as well as the places it may, or may not be found to exist, are best placed as sections later in the article. I have modified the intro to do just that. To briefly describe the act. If another editor wishes to have a sub-section describing the frequency of occurene of that act in film media, or outside of flim media, that is certainly clearly acceptable with supporting citations.
The article has not been written to focus on a specific type of film genre in the past, and attempts to change that are not appropriate.
As I have writen before, a section discussing the prolific use of the term within Pornopgraphic film, and the origins of the term itself from within Japanese Pornography seems perfectly fine. It is just that the intro paragraph should focus on what the act is, not on where it is predominantly done. Atom (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I do not think the lead needs to pigeonhole the scope but also think some mention of porn is appropriate. Is that acceptable to you? I think some mention increases the understanding and the lead is supposed to be a stand alone summary.Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fine. In fact, because porn video has played such a stroing role in bringing the sex practice into the limelight (apprently not even having a name before that) I have left that in the intro. "The practice is a relatively prevalent niche in contemporary pornographic films." Atom (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
@Herostratus You reverted a recent edit that is discussed above. You offered no commentary here. It read "Bukkake refers to the act of a woman being ejaculated on by several men.[1][2][3][4][5] Bukkake is similar to a related term used in pornography, gokkun, in which several men ejaculate into a container for the receiver to drink.[3] The practice is a relatively prevalent niche in contemporary pornographic films. Some authors have argued that bukkake involves the implied or overt humiliation of the woman involved.[6] There is debate on whether to class bukkake as a paraphilia such as hygrophilia, sexual arousal from contact with bodily secretions."
Five sources are given for the first line, which seems to back that sentence up. These sources have been used for a long time.
You changed it to say "Bukkake is a term used in pornographic productions. It refers to scenes featuring a person being ejaculated on by several men.[1][2][3][4][5] Bukkake is similar to a related term used in pornography, gokkun, in which several men ejaculate into a container for the receiver to drink.[3] The practice is a relatively prevalent niche in contemporary pornographic films.[citation needed] Some authors have argued that bukkake involves the implied or overt humiliation of the woman involved.[6] There is debate on whether to class bukkake as a paraphilia such as hygrophilia, sexual arousal from contact with bodily secretions.[citation needed]
Could you be specific about what problem you have with the text I used from the citations give? Are you asking for additional citations or what? Your edit summary said "Per talk, sources are required for contentious assertions of fact." As sources for the facts *are* given, and it seems like an accurate description, and the change was discussed several times prior to the change, what is your issue? As discussed, the article is about the sexual act, and not about a pornographic genre. Your continued effort to force your words without any attempt to reach compromise, against at least three other editors is tendentious and unwelcome. Atom (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Herostratus is edit warring against two other editors. Consensus appears to be against her. Anyone mind if I revert? More discussion is fine but we should not simply allow her to force info in when there has been a fine agreement between us in this subsection.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with what Herostratus has boldly written. Clearly Bukkake is both a sex act and a genre of pornography featuring that act. Equally clearly each of these meanings is well sourced. I prefer the wording "is a term used to refer to a woman being ejaculated on by several men" found here. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Images
I propose removing one of the drawings. The two drawings are very similar, and the second one is redundant. --JN466 06:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree. Do you want a discussion on both individually or as a whole?Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fine with either image, as the depiction of the postures and relative positions of the performers arguably does add value, but given that the positions in both images are so similar, the 2nd image does not add anything new. It risks coming across as male locker-room decoration, which is something we should avoid. YMMV. --JN466 11:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- One is enough. What is the term for a group of women defecating on men? Is there an article? I want to make sure there aren't too many graphics there too. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fine with either image, as the depiction of the postures and relative positions of the performers arguably does add value, but given that the positions in both images are so similar, the 2nd image does not add anything new. It risks coming across as male locker-room decoration, which is something we should avoid. YMMV. --JN466 11:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)