Talk:Autofellatio/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

RfC: Should the human image be placed in a drop-down/toggle box

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should the human photo be placed in a drop-down/toggle box like this? Support toggle box. For reasons explained above.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Support toggle box. I think that the article already shows a clear drawing/illustration, and that the real photo should be 'optional'. I don't think it is suitable for nor right towards all to see the photo without firstly agreeing to see it.--EmpMac (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose - From my statement in the discussion above: The debate over images in this article have been going on forever and a day. The consensus has always been that WP is not censored and it's always pointed out that users have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that one may find offensive. Just like with the article Muhammad, we don't remove or hide images just because some may find them offensive or unacceptable. Do you rip out pages with offensive images in a real encyclopedia? Do you fold pages with offensive images in a real encyclopedia? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Note - I also posted a link to this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex. I guess both categories fit. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Support toggle box —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.72.22 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Note: This is the user's only contribution on Wikipedia Support. It's not merely a question of "offensive", there are also elements of NSFW (or the equivalent at home) and perhaps more importantly, images like this are so attention-grabbing as to distract from the text. Ergo a toggle box is a great idea that should meet everyone's needs (unlike telling people to fiddle with their Wikipedia settings, or whatever, which is clearly something editors might do, but not the average reader). NB It's not censorship, since the image is clearly flagged and only a click away. Rd232 talk 19:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Support box – very good idea. Does not censor, and doesn't withhold information. TheAE talk/sign 21:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Anyone who finds the image offensive or unsuitable for work shouldn't be reading about men sucking themselves off, frankly. There are numerous topics, not just images, which many people would not want to be exposed to or to be seen reading in a public place, but if someone goes looking for them or spinning the random article bottle then that's what they could end up with. Would you want your boss seeing you reading about dog fighting or the Klu Klux Klan? I'm damn sure what (might?) be a genuine dogfighting image is a lot more offensive than a photo of a guy with his own cock in his mouth. The photo is relevant to the subject matter, and considering what the subject matter is it couldn't be a lot more tasteful. It's black and white which always puts a different slant on an image, you can't see anything except the shaft since he's cupping his testicles and actually dealing with the business-end. He isn't giving the camera come-to-bed eyes with semen dribbling down his chin. No, sorry but this seems to be about second-guessing what may or may not be suitable for the world's population when we know the entire subject will be unacceptable to X amount of people. If anyone is distracted by the image then they should click on it and have a good long look before hitting back and getting on with reading the article, as I did, curiosity satisfied. Another alternative is to move it to the lowest section of the article, without an infobox there doesn't need to be an image in the lead anyway. Someoneanother 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Support I should have given more consideration to above posters and those who would not wish to see the photo without at least some warning. Since a more acceptable drawing is already included and will be in plain sight, only those who actually want to see an example photograph need bother, the illustrative purpose and functionality is fulfilled. My not being personally shocked/offended shouldn't come into it, my apologies. Someoneanother 00:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Support. Since the image will still be viewable, it's not censorship. Wikipedia has been so successful because of its immense capability of adapting itself to users' needs. There's a sizable element of the population, including parents and educators, who will be more inclined to use and allow their children to use Wikipedia if some measure of separating out essential material from material which is sensitive enough to be viewable only by those who make certain effort (i.e. clicking an additional button) to do so. Wikipedia will become stronger and more widely used if we are able to meet the needs of the widest population. Imagine the strength of Wikipedia if all the schools in the world used it (or even a fraction of all schools)--we can ensure this by installing measures that make it slightly more appropriate for educational settings. --71.111.230.71 (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose - What's next? This image in a drop down box? Or this image or this image?. Garion96 (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC) We're talking about the article Autofellatio. If the box is implemented here that doesn't mean it needs to be implemented anywhere else. WP:NOT a legal system or a bureaucracy. Rd232 talk 02:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC) True, but a slippery slope argument can still apply. There's no guarantee that the principle enacted here will be applied as precedent, and there's no guarantee that it won't. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC) That, unfortunately, is indeed a certainty. Garion96 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose - We are not censored, that's the end of the matter. If you have a problem with Wikipedias policy on censorship, take it to the appropriate venue. — R2 02:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, this is the appropriate venue. Wikipedia policies are determined by lots of case-by-case choices, not the other way around. Odd, but true. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC) No it's not. These individual disputes on each controversial page have got us nowhere. If there is going to be change to the censorship policy it will have to take place at a central point. Not an obscure article about men who can live without girlfriends (or boyfriends) because of their unique ability to self pleasure. — R2 03:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Hey, I'm just talking about my experience watching Wikipedia policies and guidelines grow over the years. They do, factually, come from the bottom up, not from the top down. Check out WP:PPP, which talks about this very idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Wikipedia is not censored. This is an article about autofellatio, and it has an image illustrating it, that's not so hard to understand, isn't it? We are going down a bad path if we take illustrative images out because people find them offensive, this brings to mind the images of dead people at Holocaust, the portraits at Muhammad. (Finally, please notice that anyone browsing sex-related articles in wikipedia during work is only to blame himself if he gets caught while reading a sex-related page. And, indeed, why is he reading wikipedia at work in the first place instead of working... and there are worse pages in the internet that you can be found at, mind you :P ) --Enric Naval (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Policy at WP:NOTCENSORED says it all, MOS:SCROLL explicitly prohibits the suggestion in question here, and Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles has more to say on the underlying intention of the suggestion. The options are clear: either the image is appropriate for inclusion in the article or it's not, and whether some people find it offensive has very little to do with that decision. "Include with a disclaimer" and the like are simply not an option. To those who think the image is not appropriate for inclusion in the article, your best bet is to try to reach a consensus on that instead; the final paragraph of WP:NOTCENSORED could be a good starting point for that discussion. Anomie⚔ 03:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC) I believe the argument that applies to that paragraph is that, since this topic involves a bit of a contortion, there might be some doubt as to whether it's possible. The photo demonstrates that in a way a drawing cannot. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Srong oppose. WP:NOTCENSORED is pretty clear and fair. Personally I may be offended at seeing people who aren't engaged in autofellatio - does that open the door for these convenient masking tools to be employed on every photo I can rally a group for? No, this will only lead to more arguments and splitting hairs and the community has somewhat reasonably sided to avoid images that are more pornographic for ones that are encyclopedic and prefer images of real people than the, IMHO, usually inferior graphics created. Apologies to the editor(s) who work on them but many are, inferior. There also may be some accessibility issues here but the policy of not censoring renders almost every other concern moot. -- Banjeboi 03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC) oppose per Anomie. Wikipedia makes it clear in the general disclaimers that you may find content you consider offensive. We simply do not censor this site to appease people who choose to be offended. Not for Muhammad, not for Virgin Killer and not for this. Resolute 04:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Strong support: This page is the first Google hit for the word, and people who merely want to find out roughly what it means are likely to come here. The correct way to defend a liberty such as freedom of speech is to use it reasonably, not to abuse it. Many European cities have parks in which public nudity in the summer is perfectly normal and acceptable, but an exhibitionist in such a park will still be arrested. That's because the exhibitionist is only motivated by an unhealthy urge to break a taboo. If people continue to use WP:NOTCENSORED as the main reason and motivation to include offensive material, making a point with disregard of the encyclopedia's reputation, then WP:NOTCENSORED will have to be, and will be, changed by a central discussion, widely advertised, and leading to a global consensus of WP editors, rather than a local consensus of editors who edit sexual topics. Proposed compromise: "No censorship" is a valid argument to include illustrations that explain the topic. The photograph does this slightly better than the drawing, because it seems to prove that this is even physically possible. But I can see no reason to include the photograph and the drawing, with the photograph on top. The photograph needs to be moved down as far as layout considerations permit. Then if/when the article grows, it will move further down so that only readers who are sufficiently interested in the article to scroll down will see it. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC) I don't see that "freedom of speech" has anything to do with this issue. You're certainly the first person to mention it. The freedom of speech to which I'm accustomed is the one that says my national government can't restrict mine. I don't see that being a problem here. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC) I didn't mean to say it's about freedom of speech. I see now that the "such as" can be misread that way, but I am not sure how to fix that. Quite a few people seem to think that censoring photos that break sexual taboos puts us on a slippery slope that will lead to censoring illustrations that break religious taboos. What I am trying to say is that the best way to defend the right to show Mohammed pictures is to make sure that WP:NOTCENSORED need not be watered down to confine its abuse for "because we can" taboo breaking. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC) To an extent, sexual taboos are religious taboos. What does the word "Puritan" mean? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC) The Content Disclaimer says in big, bold letters that "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE". Simply put, Wikipedia's "reputation" is not at issue here, but this attempt at hiding an image runs counter to Wikipedia policy, and the request is quite simply nothing more than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Arguing that the image is redundant to the drawing is one thing, wishing for it to be removed because someone got offended is a non-starter. Resolute 21:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Which part of "'because we can' taboo breaking" didn't you understand? Where are the big, bold letters saying that "WIKIPEDIA MAKES USE OF EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO BREAK TABOOS GRATUITOUSLY"? Who reads content disclaimers anyway? --Hans Adler (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Once again you enter the slippery slope problem. So we decide we don't break taboos gratuitously. Who's taboos? Do we start hiding all images of a sexual nature? Lets face it, if we go with your argument, we're hiding both images on this article. Do we hide all images that cause religious offence? Do we hide images that are politically or culturally sensitive? Why stop at images? What other content should we hide because some soceity somewhere considers it taboo? Like I said, this path is a non-starter. Resolute 05:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Is this actually "breaking taboos gratuitously", or is it "showing an image to illustrate something that is otherwise difficult to believe possible"? IMO, that's a separate discussion, as the stated topic here is whether a collpased box is a good idea. Anomie⚔ 12:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Comment: I can't help feeling that the oppose votes are very much coming from an Editor perspective, rather than a Reader perspective. This includes a sort of legalism (it's "prohibited" by a guideline is it? A guideline which is a style guide focussing on the difficulty screenreaders have with reading collapsed text?), irrelevant legalistic copouts (it's in the small print - read the disclaimer) and a reliance on WP:NOTCENSORED to the point of dogma (it might be offensive to some - so we can't hide it in case that's censorship, no it has to be immediately visible). WP:IAR: what's best for the readers of this encyclopedia? Rd232 talk 23:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC) The same of course could be said about support votes. All depending on one's POV. Garion96 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC) "The same of course could be said about support votes" - go on then. Make an argument and you might change my mind. Rd232 talk 03:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I already made my argument, you don't agree with it. That's because we both have a different POV (or opinion if you like). Garion96 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Your argument appears to be "What's next? This image in a drop down box? Or this image or this image?". Others have made the slippery slope argument better, and others have criticised the slippery slope argument, not least for being contrary to the practice if not the spirit of Wikipedia. Anyway, my basic point was that opposers are looking at the issue with Editor goggles, not from a Reader perspective, and I was hoping you would say something about that, rather than mutter unhelpfully about differing opinions. Rd232 talk 04:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC) A civil discussion is difficult for you isn't it? Garion96 (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC) LOL. I'm sorry if describing your remarks above as "unhelpful muttering" seems uncivil to you. Though really, given how much more effort you've put into this entirely unhelpful exchange as opposed to further elucidating your views or even responding to my arguments in detail, it hardly seems inaccurate. Rd232 talk 16:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC) In every normal discussion the use of "unhelpful muttering" is not civil. But perhaps it's different wherever you're from.... My comments really are not so difficult to understand, of course I care about the reader. That's why this image, and every other image in Wikipedia, should never be hidden. I care that a reader goes to a page and sees every image immediately which editors wanted to include in the article. I care for the readers that Wikipedia will never go on a slipperly slope and decide what image should be in a drop box and what image should not. I also don't disagree that you care about the readers. I just think you're wrong. Garion96 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose: The users who "accidentally" reach this page from Google can presumably speak for themselves. We should not censor a page to humour the sensibilities of certain editors.Rōnin (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC Oppose: that is exactly what we expect readers to expect from this sort of page. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Arbitrary section break Comment - Policywise, I think it's abundantly clear that the picture is permissible. We can move right past that issue, and ask whether it's a good idea to have it un-hidden and above-the-fold. Many things are permissible, but still are not good ideas. If someone wants to argue censorship, I think they should state some other disadvantage than a speculative slippery-slope argument. I sympathize with that argument to an extent, but I don't think it's a particularly strong one. What actual harm would result from having the picture hidden? Just the slippery-slope, or anything else, too? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I for one don't care if the editors of this article decide to remove the image (or both images, for that matter) for sound reasons, or to move it below the "fold". But I see no reason at all to go against the community-wide consensus reflected in WP:NDA by "hiding" the image, nor any reason to not follow the Manual of Style's prohibition on collapsible sections in articles in this case. As for actual harm from hiding it, the slippery slope is enough IMO. Some people already want to add spoiler warnings (including collapsed sections just like in this proposal), remove images and text their religion doesn't like, remove any mention of opposing viewpoints or criticism they disagree with, and so on. We resist that with WP:NOTCENSORED clearly stating "We don't do that." If we change it to "We don't do that, except...", what is a good argument to say no when the POV-pushers want to add yet another exception? Anomie⚔ 01:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC) That's a pretty darn well-articulated version of the slippery slope argument, as it applies here. Nicely done. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think it's a particulalry well-reasoned argument. First of all, it's false that WP:NDA is applicable here; WP:NDA says "For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages." No one is suggesting any disclaimer here. Second, it's false that toggling is prohibited in infoboxes. Per Wikipedia:SCROLL#Scrolling_lists, "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references." Third, it's false that WP:NOTCENSORED applies here; no removal or omission of content is being suggested. Using a toggle box is analogous to moving an image to the bottom of an article, which certainly is not censorship. As far as the "slippery slope" argument goes, pretty soon we may have a big high-res photo of someone screwing a corpse at the necrophilia article, and a vivid close-up of someone getting his head sawed off at the beheading article. I suggest we consider each case on its merits and decide what is best for this article, instead of deliberately doing what is not best for this article because of some fear that it will start a trend at other articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC) While an explicit disclaimer has not been suggested here, the purpose of the suggestion is to duplicate the third bullet point of Wikipedia:Content disclaimer by hiding an image some find objectionable behind a "click-through" of some sort. Your claim that MOS:SCROLL does not apply is plainly fallacious, as this image is in neither an infobox nor a navbox; further, while it's not clear from the present wording, it has been my understanding that the intention of the "infobox" exception is for cases like the "Release Date" entry in this article. While a strict reading of WP:NOTCENSORED may not apply, the main supporting argument for this proposal is based on a direct contradiction of the text of WP:NOTCENSORED, specifically the statement "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so". Why not actually suggest moving the image to the bottom of the article, which is a valid editorial decision that does not go against any existing policy or guideline? The difference between your "slippery slope" and mine is that mine points out a very real possibility of using this as a precedent for the resumption of various activities that the community has rejected, while yours is pure appeal to emotion with no basis in anything that is at all likely to happen. Note in particular the final paragraph of WP:NOTCENSORED: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." Both of your examples are highly unlikely to pass that criterion; whether the image in this article does or does not (and therefore, whether removal is or is not "best" for the article) is a matter for a separate discussion, in which I do not care to participate. Anomie⚔ 12:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Ferrylodge, that was a very lawyerly response. Your suggestions about decapitation and necrophilia do not take into consideration the primary argument for our showing this image: namely, to show that it's physically possible. The idea that it would take a photo to show that necrophilia is physically possible is... silly. Similarly for beheading. Those aren't physical acts of contortion. Also, nobody is suggesting photos for those articles (at least not that I'm aware of), and until they do, I don't believe the comparison is worth much. People have suggested hiding the cartoons of Mohammed for example, and people often do attempt to argue from precedent, which tends to give a little bit of weight to the slippery-slope argument. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I have heard that when the French used the guillotine, the severed head would, for a period of several seconds, remain alert, and try to speak, with eyes looking around, facial expressions, et cetera. An ogg video of such a thing could certainly be included at the top of a Wikipedia article to show that that phenomenon really occurs. And some people may doubt that a live human being would actually have any interest in screwing a corpse, and could physically reach orgasm in the process, so an image of that would certainly dispel doubts. I just think that all of this hulabaloo about censorship is extremely selective, and inapplicable to boot, as a reason to not use the toggle box. If anything, the censorship policy requires that the photo not be displayed as it is now: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, you've made this argument before. I thought it was weak then. Imagining how a person could bring themselves to screw a corpse is a world away from imagining how a man's back could bend enough for his mouth to reach his cock. I think you know that. Notice I have not mentioned, and never will mention "censorship," so if you're replying to my post, discussion of censorship is pretty much off-topic. I see no censorship happening here no matter what is decided. I think that argument sucks. So... who are you talking to? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC) There's also the fact that nobody has suggested such media for decapitation nor for necrophilia, so we've got speculation versus reality. Weak. Lawyerly arguments will work against you here, Ferrylodge... I don't know if you know what that means, but I'm honestly telling you for your benefit. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Plenty of people have made a censorship argument here at this talk page (including the second person who commented at this thread), and my comment was directed toward them. I'm also making a censorship argument myself: the censorship policy requires that the photo not be displayed as it is now, as explained above. As far as necrophilia and beheading are concerned, of course no one has slid down that slope yet; the whole nature of a slippery slope argument is to contemplate possibilities that have not yet occurred, so I don't understand why you compliment slippery slope arguments that others make, while repeatedly accusing me of acting like a "lawyer" (gasp!) for trying to demonstate how empty those arguments are, by counterexample. When this RFC is over, and the image is retained exactly as it is, then you may attribute that outcome to my "lawyerliness" (just like people may attribute the blatant censorship in the abortion article to my "lawyerliness"), but I think the simple fact is that a lot of people like poking people in the eye whom they perceive as prudish or overly religious...if thatcan be done by promoting or emphasizing the information then the information will be promoted or emphasized, and if it can be done by removing and omitting information then the information will be removed or omitted.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC) People like poking in they eye those whom they perceive as prudish or overly religious... yeah, I agree with that. It suggests a certain pragmatic strategy, but I don't wish to wander off-topic. Here's why the slippery-slope argument is different, in my mind, from the decapitation argument (it turns out, I did think about this!): I've seen a lot of arguments made on Wikipedia. I've seen a lot of people argue, "if we made an exception for such-and-such article, then why not for this one, too?" That's a common, common argument. However, I've never seen anybody argue for an image on the grounds that other articles have images. I find it entirely credible that someone would say, "since you used a collapsing box on Autofellatio, then why not on Abortion?" Oh, wait... that was me. I made that argument, thinking this article still had the toggle-box (which I still haven't opposed! I'm undecided). If someone were to argue that a toggle-box was used in one place, so why not in another, then I'd be inclined to listen to them. If someone said there was an image at Autofellatio, so why not have one at Decapitation?, I'd be inclined to laugh at them. Therefore, to me at least, there is a huge gulf between those two arguments, namely, the gulf that separates credibility from absurdity. As for the lawyer point... you should probably ignore me. Knowing about an element of your style that's likely to rub at least 3/4 of Wikipedians the wrong way sounds like something you wouldn't want to know about. At least, not in an environment where success relies on persuasion. Forget it; knowing things like that is for chumps. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC) A little reverse-psychology, eh? Seriously, I would guess that less than 10% of Wikipedians are really open to persuasion, which makes the whole thing somewhat frustrating. I don't go to a whole lot of trouble to massage and prettify arguments: I just lay them out in black and white so that anyone who is actually interested can read them, but if they want to be romanced and coddled and entertained and charmed then really I don't care to do that here. It’s kind of funny that there’s so much concern about civility at talk pages, but not so much concern about civility at articles, where it’s perfectly fine to put someone’s asshole in your face. You mentioned that you’ve “never seen anybody argue for an image on the grounds that other articles have images”, but that's exactly what was happening at the recent abortion RFC. If a toggle box is used at this article, then it might make it more likely that it will be used in some other articles, but so what? That doesn’t seem like any reason to not consider this article on its own merits. I suppose that several years ago an image was moved down below the fold at a Wikipedia article for the first time, and that had no horrible slippery slope consequences.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC) (<-- Unindent) Heh... If I look up "asshole", I expect to see an asshole. If I look up "autofellatio," I expect to see something right next to an asshole. The point of my previous post was that I don't find the comparison to "necrophilia", for example, credible, because I've been around here, and I've seen a lot, and I just don't buy that there's going to be an issue over a corpse-fucking video. I don't buy it! Not in this world. Maybe after 2012. Maybe after the lobster-aliens take over. I dunno. It seems to me to be a strained comparison, because I've seen nothing in reality that makes me believe in it. Not on the Abortion page; not anywhere. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC) It's no less credible than the assertion here at this talk page that using a toggle box here in this article may lead Wikipedians to "remove any mention of opposing viewpoints or criticism they disagree with." We are on a slippery slope here to making more and more absurd slippery slope arguments, and I suggest we all stop. Please note that immediately after bringing necrophilia into this discussion, I said above: "I suggest we consider each case on its merits and decide what is best for this article, instead of deliberately doing what is not best for this article because of some fear that it will start a trend at other articles." Slippery slope arguments are very often fallacious, and at their core is a very poor concept: let's do something wrong here, because doing something right may have adverse consequences elsewhere.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think anybody making the slippery slope argument believes it involves doing something "wrong". This is an issue where I find it really easy to identify with either side, and I really don't buy that anybody is suggesting we do something they find "wrong". The fact remains that I buy one slippery-slope argument, and not the other. Maybe my notion of reality is broken - I'll accept that possibility - but I can't claim to believe anything I don't believe. I fully acknowledge that you and others will have different notions of credibility than I've got. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC) You really buy the argument that using a toggle box here might lead Wikipedians to "remove any mention of opposing viewpoints or criticism they disagree with"? I've already agreed that using a toggle box here might lead to its use at other articles, but that's not a slippery slope IMO if the use at other articles is appropriate (e.g. to include information that would otherwise be completely excluded).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC) No. I think it could quite likely lead to toggle-boxes elsewhere. I think Anomie's argument made that case well, which was my original point in this particular thread. People will say, "it was done there, so why not here?" That makes sense, right? Based on the experience of history, it's likely to happen at the Mohammed cartoons article, for example. I think that would be an unpleasant can of worms, but that article is made of unpleasant worms no matter how you cut it. I think that people try to remove things they're offended by regularly, and I don't know how to draw the line that says "this is reasonable, that isn't." I'm in favor of showing everything, for pretty much that reason. Um... is there any way to wind this thread down? I'm tired of autofellatio right now. I know you can go back and forth all day - can we please, please call it off, though? I'll say I'm entirely wrong if it means this particular conversation can end, in fact - there. I've struck it all. I don't care about this one bit. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Sure, no problem. This is no huge deal to me. I think we can all agree that the image is porn, in additional to being factual and informative. I have no problem having this image at the top of the article if readers are given a chance to bypass it. But most editors here disagree. No biggie. (striking to end conversation)Ferrylodge (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 'Nother section break Strong oppose: If we sacrifice the basic WP:NOTCENSORED principle here, what next? Slippery slope down which we should not slide. – ukexpat (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I kind of object to this constant reference to WP:NOTCENSORED here, when, as the definition of Censorship would suggest, it refers to the removal or inclusion of material, not the nature of its presentation. Rd232 talk 03:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Show us something more than a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument then. Wikipedia makes it abundantly clear that it does not hide objectionable content because someone might get offended. Resolute 05:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I haven't drawn on the argument at all that people might get "offended" in the sense that they would rather not see it at all. To summarise: Images like this are so attention-grabbing as to distract from the text. This is not merely conjecture or based on offense; studies show graphic images of sex and violence elucidate physical responses and change mental responses to unrelated stimuli. This is unhelpful for the reader. NSFW (or the equivalent at home - possibly involving kids). Less so the actual Somebody Else Seeing It, as the reader's concern that they might, preventing them from reading the article at leisure. Driveby readers clicking a link in Google not knowing what it is (it's not that common a word) needn't be confronted with a graphic image. It's argued that readers come here knowing what to expect, including expecting a graphic image, but that isn't necessarily true - especially if they don't know what they word means. Ergo a toggle box is a great idea that should meet everyone's needs (unlike telling people to fiddle with their Wikipedia settings, or whatever, which is clearly something editors might do, but not the average reader). It's not censorship, since the image is clearly flagged and only a click away. There is no slippery slope issue for religious and political images, because the arguments are not based on offense per se. (And in any case "slippery slope" applies to just about anything - that way paralysis lies. Also if the worst were to happen and every image on WP that any single person found offensive were in a togglebox, would that be undesirable? Probably. A disaster? No. So it's not even a particularly worrying slippery slope.) Rd232 talk 16:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC) PS To clarify my personal view: the image does not offend me, and it should be in the article. However I don't want to see it while I'm reading the text, for the reasons specified. Rd232 talk 16:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah... I identify with that feeling. When reading this article, image-in-place, I scroll down to get it off the screen. It's not that offended, but I dunno... That guy's asshole staring at me just feels kind of weird when I'm trying to read. I know I'm an unconventional guy, but this must be a reasonably common sensation, right? I know I'm not a prude; try me. Still... I'm kind of torn. I don't like the toggle-box, as an idea, but I see that the image is slightly problematic, just because we're not actually there yet. The world isn't completely open to everything, and I don't think it's cool for Wikipedia to tell people who are a bit more old-fashioned that, sorry, they don't get any consideration here. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC) How much more old-fashioned must one be to stop getting consideration, then? Powers T 11:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC) I really don't know. -GTBacchus(talk) 12:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Nor does anyone else, and nor do we have any objective way of determining it. Thus the problem. Powers T 14:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Strong oppose. We cannot and should not be making a determination regarding what readers might or might not find offensive. Without an objective measure of some sort, we must either hide all images or show all images by default. Hiding some and showing others by default is a violation of our NPOV policies (again, absent some sort of objective measure). Powers T 12:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose WP:CENSORED. Dlabtot (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Neutral. I find the photo to be more exploitative than helpful considering there is an alternative image that displays the act just as well, in my opinion, but I fear setting a disrupting precedent of whether to do the same with other controversial images. I suggest another compromise, either switch the two images (move the photograph down to the bottom of the page and have the drawing at the top) or just remove both images altogether and be done with it. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 22:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Note: Similar discussion going on at Talk:Goatse.cx#Image -- OlEnglish (Talk) 18:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Strong oppose: we don't remove images just because someone finds them offensive, even if they were created to offend. NOT#CENSORED is clear on this: censorship of material runs against our mission of becoming a free encyclopedia that includes the sum of human knowledge. I should point out that Template:Linkimage was deleted because it was ultimately used for page "sanitation". Sceptre (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC) How is it removing an image if Wikipedia still provides the image?[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Because the linkimage solution is a false compromise. Sceptre (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC) A "false compromise"... What does that mean? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Because linkimage was deleted because its mainspace usage was always used to fly against the content disclaimer. Sceptre (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC) What is "linkimage"? The present proposal is to present the image here at the top of this page, not somewhere else.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC) What? Sceptre, what language are you speaking? Can you please tell me what a "false compromise" is? Please, help me understand what you're saying. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Why are we still talking about this? Exploding Boy (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Ooh, I know this one!... It's because there's not a consensus, and good-faith editors disagree. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC) No, it's because certain people fail to understand basic ideas like "not censored." This debate has been going in circles for years; it's become ridiculous. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose I'm not going to argue "not censored" as that shouldn't be used as a catch-all for every offensive image under the sun. There are circumstances where images should be removed because they are offensive, particularly when it can be replaced with a better one. With this article, the image is the best we have and as such it should be displayed. With no offense to the creator, the drawing doesn't seem anatomically correct (almost like an M.C. Escher optical allusion where things come together when they really shouldnt). The photograph, while a little porny, adequately demonstrates the subject in question with a much better respect for anatomical accuracy. ThemFromSpace 23:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Are you aware that the photo would remain in the article, under the current proposal?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Of course I am, but that wouldn't be accessible enough. We don't hide relevant pictures. As I explained, its the best picture for the job, and as such it should be prominently displayed. ThemFromSpace 23:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Okay, I just wanted to make sure you were aware. Certainly the photo would be made available in a very prominent way, according to the toggle box proposal. We often de-emphasize information using techniques like putting it lower in an article, or by linking to it instead of including it directly; the present proposal seems like it would not de-emphasize as much as using those other techniques.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Themfromspace... what is the accessibility issue you mention? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Being able to see the image when you view the article. We should make all information accessible instead of hiding our most representational material. Putting the cards down on the table, so to speak. ThemFromSpace 01:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see. I guess I was thinking of "accessible" in the sense of "ability to access". I thought you were arguing that some readers would be unable to view the image. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC) That too. IE6, I think, has a major problem with dropdown boxes. Sceptre (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Like, they don't work? They don't collapse? They don't open? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC) It sticks in its default state. No hide/show. Sceptre (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC) That strikes me as possibly significant. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC) My understanding is that it sticks in "show" and will not "hide".[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you! I knew this had come up before. Sceptre, do you have specific information that supports your claim, that it's stuck in "hide," in cases where that's the default? The more detail you can provide the better. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Considering that there are a thousand + configurations any web browser could be set in, that it's more than plausible that what Sceptre says can happen. Software, including browsers, only do what owners tell it to do. Tools>Options>A million settings to choose from. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Sure, it's plausible. I'm interested to know about existing, documented accessibility issues. Plausible ones are interesting too, but less significant in deciding my opinion. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Notwithstanding the existence of a second image here, the drawing, the photograph is illustrative of information that the drawing and prose are not. This more than compensates for its ability to offend some proportion of readers. Unlike others who have favoured replacing photos with drawings in the past, I don't believe sexual images deserve a special status, as long as they are relevant and non-redundant - if the article on hippo can have both drawings and photos, so can this one. If this were the article on, say, camels, relevance would come into play - but you want to know about autofellatio, you can reasonably expect to see autofellatio. It's also important to keep in mind that dynamic elements are inappropriate for many access methods, such as print versions, digital ink displays like the Kindle, browsers with Javascript turned off, and so on. Dcoetzee 07:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Note:Articles such as fellatio, Cunnilingus, oral sex, Deep-throating, Facial, which are all related to this subject do not include any real photo. But they do include sculptures, paintings or drawings. I think that someone should try to make a better drawing and putting an auto-hiding photo, as proposed, for people who want an additional image.--EmpMac (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC) This comparison is problematic, in that it doesn't address the chief reason for keeping the photo, namely, to demonstrate that such an act of contortion is physically possible. No drawing can prove that, and those other topics you cite don't really tax the imagination in the same way. I would support a good drawing as the main image, and a less prominently-featured photo. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I haven't seen that reason (i.e. showing that it's physically possible) cited by many of the editors here. Maybe by one? And skeptics who do not believe what Wikipedia says (assuming that such heathens actually exist) can be accommodated by footnotes, links, and even by (yes) a toggle box. I don't think WP:V says anything about inserting an image at the top of an article merely for verifiabilty, which seems to give undue weight to the opinions of skeptics. Additioanlly, though you may not see the comparison as valid, verifiabilty could in principle lead to images at guillotine that show a head making alert facial expressions for a few seconds after the blade falls, and images at necrophilia that show a corpse can have a hard-on. While such images may not be particularly likely right now, just wait a few years for the devolution to occur. And of course I could give less outrageous examples as well, like an image that shows how a penis-pump can enable auto-fellatio for people who would otherwise not be capable. Etc. etc.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know why you're repeating this to me, Ferrylodge. I know about the comparisons, and I don't find them credible. This isn't something that repetition will change. Are you trying to repeat a conversation from earlier? Why? I'm not even opposing the toggle-box. What are you doing? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I guess you're referring to the latter half of my comment. I don't think I previously mentioned anything about a corpse having a hard-on, or anything about a penis-pump being used to make auto-fellatio possible. I wanted to add that.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I guess. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Support use of collapsible box. It prevents the more sensitive people from being surprised because they didn't expect it (note that most WP articles about sex use drawings), but at the same time, no information is lost. I think it's the ideal solution. Cheers, theFace 18:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Btw, I suggest this. - theFace 18:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC) So you not only want to hide the image, you want to move it to the bottom too? Seriously? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose, either it is acceptable to have the image in an article or it isn't. I don't see there being an effective middle ground that could be maintained throughout the encyclopaedia. Bottom line - if you don't want to know about Autofellatio, don't read the article about Autofellatio. Guest9999 (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose - Hiding it would be a violation of not censoring, as well as not having disclaimers. Further, Wikipedia is not a democracy. If doing something violates policy, it violates policy. Period. We're not here to babysit people and we're not here to coddle readers' delicate sensibilities. If they don't want to see a picture of a man performing autofellatio, they probably shouldn't be reading an article about autofellatio. --132 16:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Comment Regardless of censorship and offense issues, why is this specific image being allowed at all? If you go to the creators commons page, you can see that his user page has been deleted twice, the second time for vulgarity, and that he has uploaded images of his penis several times prior. Are we all fine with some whacko getting off on having us all talk about him sucking himself? Cause thats what is happening. I'd rather just delete the thing, rules and guidelines be damned. Beach drifter (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The user's page being deleted on Commons has what to do on the English Wikipedia? Absolutely nothing. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

- ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should the human image be moved down

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{RFCmedia | section=RfC: Should the human image be moved down !! reason=Should the human image be moved down? !! time=03:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)}} Now that consensus has been reached via this Rfc that the human image should not be placed in a drop down/toggle box, and since that Rfc didn't include the issue of where the image should be within the article, the question is, "Should the image be moved down from its current location"? Oppose - Neutral -Surprise! Actually, I don't give 2 flips about where the image is located within the article. I do think this is still just another form of censorship (let's kick it to the bottom so hopefully no one will notice it!). I also think moving it down is just a stepping stone to "Well, it's really not noticeable, let's remove it altogether." But as much admiration as I have for any man that can do this to himself, it's still just not that real important to me as to where the image is displayed, as long as it's not removed. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Having read opinions below, I am changing to oppose. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Support - per my statements above. I think this solution satisfies all parties. I also envy that man. :) -- OlEnglish (Talk) 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Neutral with a slight preference for the photo. Simply because I always prefer a photo over a drawing. If the photo is moved down then I totally oppose it if a drop down box like in this edit is used. Even if the photo was not standard hidden. Garion96 (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC) No worries on the drop down box as consensus in a previous Rfc above has ruled out that option. I started that Rfc because that's what was initially wanting to be done - hiding it in a drop down box. Once it was obvious consensus was against the drop down box, people on the "losing" (for lack of a better word) end of the consensus decided that since moving it down wasn't technically part of that Rfc, they would move it down anyway. Hence this second Rfc specifically dealing with where the image goes. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC) That's what I thought but since this edit came basically after the RFC... :) Garion96 (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Support per above.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Support for the reasons I have given in the previous section. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Neutral Don't care where it's located, as soon as it's not removed. Try moving it under "Frequency", as it illustrates the topic quite well. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Support Keep it as down as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpMac (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Object to the hiding of the previous RfC, and the opening of this spurious, disruptive attempt to ignore consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) The previous Rfc is still on this page, it's just been collapsed for better use of this page. I agree about this Rfc being out of line but since some folks wanted to get technical and wikilawyer about how where the image is actually located in the article wasn't technically a part of the original Rfc, this was the only other option. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Strong oppose This is disruptive now, the last RfC seemed to support leaving the image as is. It's a quality image that is neither pornographic or of low quality. No reason to mask, move or otherwise mitigate. -- Banjeboi 01:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC) This RfC is disruptive? Wow. As I conceded above, there is a valid reason to prefer the photo to the drawing (proof of anatomic possibility), and there is a valid argument against hiding the photo (slippery slope). These reasons don't convince me, especially since the slippery slope argument cuts both ways (see [3] for an example; unfortunately you can't see the photos any more, as they have now been deleted). At least they are valid. But I have seen ZERO valid arguments for putting the photo in the most obtrusive position. Before talking about the disruption by people who don't agree with you you could at least present a single valid reason why they should agree with you. Did anyone claim that the photo is pornographic or of low quality? It breaks what is a deep-rooted taboo in most societies: Open display of the male genital in a sexual (masturbation) context. That's the problem. That alone is not sufficient reason to remove it, but it's more than sufficient reason to be careful about its exact placement. Unless you manage to find a rational argument the relevant policy link seems to be WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC) I should have rephrased that better as I think ASE wanted to definitely get this resolved now rather than be RfC 2.0. This seems to boil down to you want the photo removed despite consensus but if it has to stay you'll work to hide it move it, switch it or otherwise impose your will against consensus. As for "putting the photo in the most obtrusive position"? That's your POV likely because you WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. The lede image of an article goes right up there, in the lede, at the very top. To do otherwise fails the WP:Duck test for censorship. -- Banjeboi 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Well said. I thought the Rfc would have been it.. but wikilawyering technicalities of what was part of that Rfc and what wasn't left no other choice but Rfc 2.0. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 00:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose per Benjiboi. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose for the same reasons I opposed the other proposals. Rōnin (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose as another attempt at censorship. There has been no valid reason given for moving it down that doesn't either violate policies or show one's POV (that is, it offends them). This is just another attempt to protect some person's delicate sensibilities, despite the fact that the photo is far better at conveying this topic than the drawing is. Just leave it be and stop causing disruption. --132 16:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC) That makes absolutely no sense. How exactly is it censorship to not have this particular image at the top of the article? What specific policy would it violate to move this image to some location other than at the top of the article? I think it's your POV that's showing here. Anomie⚔ 17:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC) How does it not make sense? Those trying to get it pushed down are offended by it and are trying to replace a decent photo with a crappy drawing at the top simply because they find the photo offensive. That is a form of censorship. They don't like it, despite the fact that it is a better image and should be shown before the drawing, and are trying to get it pushed as far down as possible so their poor, delicate eyes won't have to see it unless they deliberately go looking for it. Further, those above who support it being pushed down, minus OlEnglish (who was "neutral" before), all supported completely removing it/hiding it prior to this. They're simply trying to get the image as gone from this page as they possibly can. They didn't succeed to completely remove it/hide it, so now they're trying to get it in a location as difficult to notice as possible. This is what's causing the disruption to the project. Instead of just letting it go, they keep fighting it and I'm sure they won't stop after this either. This is just a pattern of trying to find loopholes to censor something they don't like. And since, supposedly, my POV is showing, what exactly is my personal POV regarding this issue? Or are you just making assumptions? --132 22:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC) I am one of those who support hiding the photo, and it's simply not true that I am offended by it. In fact, I have shown the article with the picture to some other people who I knew would also be amused by the photo. But this doesn't prevent me from keeping the big picture in mind. Please tell me specifically which policy my reasons for removing the picture break. And before replying with WP:NOTCENSORED, read what it says. You may find that it does not say what you think it does. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC) WP:NOTCENSORED was not my only reason for opposing this. There were several other reasons I mentioned along with WP:NOTCENSORED (which I think RD232 explains well below). In fact, the main reason I opposed it was because the photo is better (more accurate and more detailed) and should be shown first, not second, definitely not at the bottom of the page, and especially not for frivolous reasons. --132 05:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Consensus has established that we're not going to take into account any of the reasons given for hiding the image in the previous RFC. Unless it's explained how this is something other than a weaker form of hiding, it's just the same thing rehashed. Incidentally, can I draw people's attention to a suggestion I made at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#WP:NOTCENSORED? Rd232 talk 18:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Does no one else find it ironic that we're having this discussion below a NOT CENSORED banner at the top of the page? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose just as with any other article, a picture (real one) is preferable to schematics or drawings. Just because we are dealing with human sexuality, which in some cultures carry taboo's doesn't put that guideline out of force. I'm rather surprised that people (apparently) think that something is less taboo just because its drawn with a pencil - but well so is life :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia's surgical procedure articles are generally not illustrated with "gruesome" pictures of the procedures themselves. Likewise, Wikipedia articles about many acts of violence, and about many sex acts, are not illustrated with graphic photos. Maybe that all should not be the case, but it is currently the case, so treating this article "as with any other article" would not necessarily mean that the graphic photo should be included. I personally have never argued to remove the graphic photo from this article, so I guess I've been going against the grain. But I would not go so far against the grain as to say this graphic photo needs to be at the very top of this article where it will receive maximum possible exposure.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Graphic too is in the eye of the beholder, I look at and think - hmmm he seems flexible - am I offended, not really but neither am I offended by many photos of people engaging in sexual activities. I also don't want to be the sole person who decides what other people should be allowed to see. This rather ungraphic photo is of good quality and satisifies what one would expect to see on this article. It also satisfies a concern raised previously - that one can actually do the activity described as it defies some logic. Scott O'Hara was featured in several films for this very skill. If you have several photos a reasonable discussion would be do we need more than one for a short article and if only one, which one. That is not the issue here. -- Banjeboi 22:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose It's a guy sucking his own cock - big deal. Is it related to the subject? yes. Is the license ok? yes. The end. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Support - Having the photo at the top is gratuitous. Many of the other sexual-related images on Wikipedia articles are drawings at the top. I agree with having the photo lower in the article for verifiability. ~PescoSo say•we all 22:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC) See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. If you don't want to see an image of a man performing autofellatio, don't go looking for an article on autofellatio. Wikipedia is not censored, Images of Muhammad are not moved down the page, images of Baha'ullah are not moved down the page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Comment. Generally, the lead image (like the lead section) should illustrate the main topic briefly as a whole, while supplementary images should illustrate either related topics, a particular aspect of the topic, or the topic in a particular context. On the other hand, as in this case, sometimes supplementary pictures are just additional pictures of the main topic (this is common, for example, in biographical articles). These images are less valuable, but still often better than no image. I argue that the photo should be up top simply because it is in this case a slightly better and more authentic depiction of the topic - but the difference between the two images is so slight, it scarcely makes any difference. It would be far better to illustrate it from a different angle, or show an X-ray of the guy, or something. Dcoetzee 01:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose Stealth censorship  Chzz  ►  07:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC) <sarcasm>I think this photograph should be at the top of every Wikipedia article. Anything short of that is obviously censorship.</sarcasm>Ferrylodge (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Comment. If the photo is going to be kept and in the lead, what does the line drawing add to the article? Isn't it completely extraneous? Or should it be moved further down, so once the photo is scrolled away from ,an informative image is still on screen? Having both show on the screen at the same time seems pointless. I have no problem with the photo staying (where it is), but it is really obvious that the current situation has been achieved by continuous adding/removing/moving images around.Yob I'd suggest removing the drawing - it's very similar to the photo and the photo is slightly superior. It'd be like having two copies of the same artwork in Queen Elizabeth's article. Hopefully in the future we can obtain a significantly different image to use in its place. I think it was at least valuable in the context of this discussion, in helping to answer the question of "is it appropriate to use a photo when a similar drawing is available?" Dcoetzee 17:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC) I'd support keeping the drawing, but maybe more separated from the photo. That way people will have a choice of which image they want to focus on. I think that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the photo, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest much more than the drawing. So why not allow people to look at the drawing instead of the photo?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

- ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)