Talk:Autofellatio/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Consensus to have photo at top of page instead of drawing?

Closed. No consensus to move or otherwise mitigate the photo. If other photos are presented then discussion can entertain which is best for the lede image. A {{FAQ}} should be installed to address the recurring and circular discussions. -- Banjeboi 09:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is there a consensus that the photo should be at the top of the article, instead of the drawing? The drawing could go up top, and the photo lower down.

As I understand it, the main purpose of the photographic image is verifiability, just like the footnotes, so I don't see a need for either the footnotes or the photo to be at the top of the article.

People may argue that it's "censorship" if the photo is not at the top of the article. However, I feel that it is undue weight to give the photo such prominence, if it's primary rationale is merely verifiability.

The trend at Wikipedia articles like this is not to have any photo of sex acts, because a drawing or the like adequately conveys the information. porn In such cases, the photo recalis gratuitous, and its purpose at the top of this article escapes me, unless it is the usual reason why explicit photos of sex acts are circulated on the internet. Anyway, can we keep the photo in the article, but not at the top?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you're so hellbent on moving/hiding/removing this image? It's so painfully obvious the consensus, in the past and now even more so, is to leave it alone. But you just can't and I'm trying to understand why. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain why it's so extremely important to you to have this picture at the top? I have explained above why I think that's an incredibly bad idea. To repeat myself with slightly more detail: The word "autofellatio" may appear in contexts where there is no clue as to what it means, and people who don't know it are likely to google it when that happens. (I don't know about native speakers, but this certainly makes sense for non-native speakers and for people who are actually looking for information in another language but may still get this article as the first hit.) There are valid arguments for including the picture and there are valid arguments for not hiding it in a toggle box. But the only reasons I can imagine for making sure that the picture is shown even to such casual visitors, before they have even so much as read the definition, are exhibitionism by proxy or an urge to break taboos, both of which are definitely not what WP:CENSORED is about. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'll explain. It's educational, much more so than the drawing. It gives a 3D image of the act, an act that has a mysterious and unbelievable-that-anyone-can-do-it aura about it. A live image dispels that. Additionally, further, because this has long been the consensus of the Wikipedia community, which most certainly trumps your arguments. The community, in discussion after discussion after discussion, has screamed "LEAVE IT ALONE!". Why can't people just do that? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 21:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please concentrate and engage in meaningful discussion. As should be clear from the title of this section, my comment was about swapping the two pictures. (This is also explicitly what Ferrylodge addressed.) Please reread what I wrote, and try again. Perhaps we don't even disagree about this point? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As I commented above, it could be moved under the "Frequency" section, where it talks about the flexibility required to perform the act. In that position the image would be a good illustration of what the text says. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone else besides ALLST☆R opposed to swapping the two images? And why? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See below.. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this page and this discussion and I have to say that I think the picture should be hidden, or at least moved to the end of the article. There is no reason to have it at the top of the article other than to shock or titillate people. The drawing below is much less offensive and just as educational. I agree that it shows verifiability but why show it at the top of the page?

Although this is a slightly tangential argument I have another point about accessibility. Let me start off by stating that: I AM COMPLETELY AGAINST CENSORSHIP! I am currently a school teacher in Kuwait where the government censors webpages that they find offensive. This picture would certainly trigger a block (if the ministry knew about it). I don't want to kowtow to censors but at the same time I wouldn't want to make Wikipedia inaccessible to users (high school students, people in places where the government censors content) to be unable to use and read Wikipedia. By putting pictures like this a the top of pages it de-emphasizes what Wikipedia is - an educational resource on ALL topics of knowledge. I would hate for someone to use a picture like this as an excuse to block access to Wikipedia, something that moving this picture to the bottom of the page might prevent. --Hdstubbs (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from the consensus of the discussion above, and below, this isn't going to happen unless consensus changes in the future. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh geez, Allstarecho, you've done it now. TFMWNCB is not one to be crossed.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What is TFMWNCB? Also, I read the consensus discussion and I think the consensus is definitely not blatantly clear. There is a lot of disagreement about this issue. I think the request for comment was a good idea because, from my reading, it seems that there is a select group of editors working on this page (due it its less to its less than mainstream nature) and I think the consensus that would be reached by the community at large would be different from what has been reached previously as the trend in Wikipedia is definitely not to place images that could be considered pornographic at the front of articles. --62.69.156.125 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the consensus among a considerable majority of the people who edit and/or read this page is to avoid any form of censorship. Would you rather we place a poll on Wikipedia's main page so as to ask absolutely everyone? What about the opinions of the global community? Surely, we should consider everyone's opinions, not just the views of a select group of Wikipedia members? I say we call for a global popular election! The electio autofellatio. But until that time comes, let's respect the consensus established multiple times on this page. Rōnin (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're misconstruing my meaning. I wasn't invalidating the previous consensus, I was just saying that it probably wasn't reflective of a wider population and that I thought the request for comment was a good idea because it would allow for that wider population to comment. Also, the 62.69.156.125 comment was mine while I was logged out. --Hdstubbs (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeking a wider consensus is not an unreasonable thing to do, Rōnin. Rather than posting on the Wikipedia main page, or doing something ridiculous, it would be quite reasonable to post to The Village Pump, relevant WikiProjects, and probably a good half-dozen other project pages. GTBacchus^(talk) 16:24, May 9, 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, seeking to establish a consensus to censor an article, failing, subtly modifying the proposal and submitting it again, failing again, and then seeking to call in reinforcements after the fact in the hope that it will succeed a third time with a different sample of users is a dishonest and statistically unsound way of soliciting users' opinions.

Whoever made the initial proposals to censor this article had the option of consulting the wider Wikipedia community when they made the proposals, and both times chose not to. To continually resubmit the proposal with ever-changing terms in the hope that it will eventually succeed is not acceptable, and will in fact result in both sides making ever new proposals in a neverending spiral of fake polls. Let it go, please, for the sake of our sanity. Rōnin (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too sure that it's helpful to say that anyone is trying to "censor" the article. In particular, swapping the images doesn't easily fit any definition of "censorship" that I'm aware of. I think it is useful in an argument to cast opposing positions in a way that the opposition would accept, e.g., not calling "pro-choice" people "baby-killers" in a debate about abortion. I agree that the returns are diminishing, but if someone needs to find that out on their own, I'm not inclined to stop them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Rōnin, as best I recall, no one made any proposal whatsoever to censor anything. The ugly, unnecessary photo would have remained available in this article according to every proposal I made. As far as seeking input from the wider community, that was pre-empted by RFCs that were requested by editors who want the photo to receive maximum possible exposure at the top of this article (and who consider anything less to be "censorship"). The first RFC was started by AllStarEcho.[1] The second RFC was also started by AllStarEch.[2] I assumed that he notified all of the relevant wider community. If he did not, that's certainly not my fault, is it?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "notify" anyone per WP:CANVASS. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno about "dubya-pee canvass", but notifying relevant WikiProjects and noticeboards is absolutely not a from of inappropriate canvassing. It's strongly recommended that we somehow notify interested parties in a neutral way about a discussion. We're just not supposed to go "door-to-door" with it.

Ferry, that was good work, inserting your opinion that the photo is "ugly" and "unnecessary". Now I know what you think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Porn too. More descriptions upon request.

Also noteworthy is that both RFCs were not only started by one editor (per my previous comment), but were also closed by the same editor.[3][4]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So, are you saying you're planning to do something, or are we just discussing how we feel about each other? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Is there a rush? I've got a headache.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's just that this is an article talk page, and if we're not talking about some article improvement, I'd suggest a change of venue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

All I'm suggesting is that at same point it may be advisable to have an RfC with more input from the broader community during the (normal) RfC duration. Anyway, have a nice weekend.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a "normal duration". 30 days isn't a requirement, especially when consensus is overwhelming. The Rfcs went for 9 days (first one) and 8 days (second one), which is more than the required 7 days for an Afd (I happen to think if any of them should go 30 days, it should be Afd since we're talking deletion of whole articles, not removing or moving content from an article like an Rfc). I also don't recall a rule that says the Rfc starter isn't supposed to be the ender too. Surely you weren't suggesting impropriety there? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

AFDs have nothing to do with this.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure it does, when using it to point out the hypocrisy in 30-day Rfcs. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdenting) - Protip for Allstarecho: If you're about to use the word "hypocrisy" on Wikipedia, then you're about to do the opposite of dispute resolution. Just saying.

Ferrylodge, I recommend putting up or shutting up. If you want a longer duration RfC, I absolutely support that. Make it happen, rather than just saying you support it.

I support the choice of leaving it open for 30 days, and I recommend letting all the relevant projects know about it. Making it very clear what the community consensus really is is absolutely worth spending some extra time. Whatever it takes to convince you that we've truly heard from the community, I recommend doing. Until you do, this really just sounds like "sour grapes", and has no place on this talk page, nor indeed on this project.

Solutions are the only thing we're looking for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think I've said something that "has no place on this talk page, nor indeed on this project" then please be specific about which comment you mean. Perhaps it would be better if you would do that at my talk page. If you'll notice, I was accused above as follows: "seeking to establish a consensus to censor an article, failing, subtly modifying the proposal and submitting it again, failing again, and then seeking to call in reinforcements after the fact in the hope that it will succeed a third time with a different sample of users is a dishonest and statistically unsound way of soliciting users' opinions." Those were some very serious and very false accusations, and they went way beyond accusing me of censorship; I did not start or close either of the RFCs, much less subtly modify them, call in reinforcements, or do anything "dishonest" in any way. Denying those accusations here where the accusations were made seems like an appopriate thing for me to have done. If you think that denying such obviously false accusations is merely "sour grapes" then I suggest you reconsider. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that denying "accusations" that are not going to hurt you or anyone else in any way is a bit pointless, yes. Nobody's making notes on your report card here. You're not going to fail any job interviews in the future because Allstarecho said you were being dishonest.

"The ugly, unnecessary photo would have remained available in this article according to every proposal I made. As far as seeking input from the wider community, that was pre-empted by RFCs that were requested by editors who want the photo to receive maximum possible exposure at the top of this article (and who consider anything less to be "censorship")."

"Also noteworthy is that both RFCs were not only started by one editor (per my previous comment), but were also closed by the same editor."

Those two comments strike me as unnecessary. It's not solution oriented; it's complaint oriented. Even if I'm unhappy with the way something happened at Wikipedia, I don't think the article talk pages are for complaining about that. I think the best plan is to either (a) take action, or else (b) remain silent. You're going to start an RfC that you start, you close, and which is advertised in ways that you'll consider fair. Great; do it. Until then, don't use this page to complain about the last two RfC's, to characterize other people's motivations in a way they never would (a la "baby killer"), or to state your personal opinions of the photo as if they're somehow objective truths. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to complain about me further, please do so at my talk page. And please get your facts straight. It was not AllStarEcho who falsely asserted that I started the RFCs, who falsely asserted that I called in reinforcements, or who asserted that I am dishonest. I do not apologize for trying to set the record straight.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed no, that was User:Rōnin. My bad. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Run another Rfc if you must. And make sure when you go canvassing for it that you include all sides, not just a particular one to fit your POV. In other words, don't run off notifying WikiProject Everytime You Look At Porn A Kitten Dies (lmao), without making sure to also notify WikiProject Pornography. Otherwise, move along. ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get to it in a few days. I'm pretty busy at the moment.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break

The guy in the picture must just be loving all this attention. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, he could be hating this discussion. It's difficult to guess at people's motivations. I have seen at least one guy who removed all his pictures because of the attention. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

<--Arrived (seemingly a bit late) via RfC. I would just note that current consensus on similar articles seems to be for the drawing to be the main or sole way of illustrating a sex act/position/whatever, so perhaps consensus can change, as it seems to now and again. I cannot see where there is censorship in swapping the images around - they both load to the page, they are both visible to someone reading the article. I was disappointed by the boring black-and-whiteness of it all but I'm hardly one to judge..! I would imagine the average reader to be at least a little shocked if they came across this article being ignorant of its contents, and out of consideration and respect for them I suggest the photo should be the lower image. This is not censorship, merely shock-avoidance. If you walked into an 18 rated film you would know what to expect, but if you clicked Special:Random or were trying to learn the definition of autofellatio you might not expect to see these images. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The 2 Rfcs this issue just went through really didn't show anything new. It only re-inforced past Rfcs/discussion that have all held a consensus that the image be left in the article and left where it is. Trying to gauge a new consensus every week just simply isn't productive and I'd deduce that it's borderline disruptive. We are not censored and we provide a way for any user to disable "offensive" images (see the banner at the top). Which incidentally, the banner itself honestly shouldn't be here since consensus all over Wikipedia is that we don't provide any disclaimers other than those built into the Wikimedia software. So the banner being up there is a courtesy. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the "shock test" is that it's inherently subjective. I don't even find the image surprising, much less shocking. Conversely, many Muslims would be shocked and outraged at the lead image in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. We have no objective way of determining the reactions of all or most readers now or in the future. My primary concern with this article is actually expanding its content, rather than avoiding visual "distractions." Dcoetzee 13:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I'm rather stunned this has been recycled again. Community consensus was that the image was non-pornographic, preferable to any illustartion, what one would expect and should be at the top. If we get a second high-quality image then a discussion may be appropriate to determine which is better. -- Banjeboi 09:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close this as well

Community consensus was that the image was non-pornographic, preferable to any illustration, what one would expect and should be at the top. If we get a second high-quality image then a discussion may be appropriate to determine which is better. This same discussion has occurred several times now with the end result to keep it just as is unless and until a better image comes along. -- Banjeboi 09:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Support close as nom. Although please keep this discussion on the page until a FAQ section is added. -- Banjeboi 09:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Support per nom. There is no reason to extend this discussion further, as the two RfC's have spoken. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Support closing the current discussion, and maybe we can have a more proper one in a few weeks. As mentioned above, the two RFCs were started by a single editor who supports having this photo at the top, the wider community was apparently not notified by that editor (another editor did provide a couple notifications about the first RFC but not to places like WP:NOTCENSORED or WP:PORN or the like), and then both RFCs were closed prematurely by that same editor. This is not meant as criticism, but simply as a rationale for having a different kind of discussion in a few weeks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh great, another RFC. That would solve a lot...not really. Besides, the RFC's were placed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment plus community input was asked at the village pump here and at a wikiproject see here. What more does it need? Garion96 (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We can talk about it some other time.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I support Ferrylodge's position. As stated above this has been discussed over and over and over again. I think that this shows that there needs to be some kind of resolution to the issue as the current situation does not have consensus. --Hdstubbs (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - This is becoming a dead horse. Garion96 (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- The essay linked to under "dead horse" has a top-of-the-page animated image of a nuclear bomb exploding, and the resulting mushroom cloud. I find that to be a whole lot more distasteful than an image of any sex act. Do I really have to have the magnitude of man's inhumanity to man thrust into my face just because I want to read a condescending and unhelpful essay about online debates?
  Does someone want to archive this? Is that the custom, these days, for dealing with RFCs that have run their course? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - why does a discussion have to be officially "closed" for people to walk away from it? All it takes is not caring who gets the last word in, and walking away. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- The last RfC wasn't officially or neatly closed so is being used as an excuse to engage in ... another one. -- Banjeboi 16:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  - And because if it doesn't get officially closed people will forever be bringing it up again. By the way, this talk page could probably use a FAQ section like the one on Talk:Barack Obama to avoid just that possibility. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    - You can have motions to close and vaporize and terminate, but that won't prevent people from raising the issue again. This is Wikipedia, after all. I support this motion to close, because we're all sick of talking about it for now. But you can't turn bits and bytes into stone here at Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      - That is all quite true. Close this thing out, but please try not to complain when it comes up again. That's the natural way a consensus-based project deals with a question where there is no consensus (in the strong sense of the word). I long for the day when images of sex or nudity are not considered "taboo" or "dirty", but it ain't here yet, so this will be a recurring issue. If we plan accordingly, we might not become as frustrated. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        I guess when it comes up again, it may be useful to consider whether this is a pro-prude versus anti-prude issue.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        Well, I'm willing to bet cash that some see it that way, and that others don't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Porn versus information

I recently fixed a dead link in the external links section.[5] However, the entire external link was then removed by another editor who called it a "porn site".[6]

Here's what the external link was:

Auto Fellatio: How to Do It... Note: "This website contains sexually-oriented adult content which may include visual images and verbal descriptions of nude adults, adults engaging in sexual acts, and other audio and visual materials of a sexually-explicit nature."

I don't think that images of sex or nudity should be considered "taboo" or "dirty", and would like to give readers a pointer to images and video that they might find informative or instructive, while also giving them an idea of what kind of image they are going to see. So, what's the problem here? If the problem with the external link is the quote about sexually-oriented adult content, is there some reason why it would be more appropriate to show people such images without any advance knowledge of what they are going to see? And thereby deprive those people of the ability to make an informed choice to view or not view the images? I plan to restore the external link (with the quote) unless some further explanation is given.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That link seems to be purely commercial and not educational in nature. I would oppose it's being used solely on that basis. -- Banjeboi 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Images are available free of charge, and they are much higher quality than anything in this Wikipedia article. Do you have a problem with the fact that that website (unlike this Wikipedia article) warns readers that it contains visual images of adults engaging in sexual acts? It's true that Wikipedia normally avoids "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" but the link in question provides a lot of stuff for free. AllStarEcho called it a "porn site" but I don't see why it's any more of a porn site than this Wikipedia article is; after all, the definition of "pornography" does not depend upon whether it's commercial or not.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ferry, I just hope that you really believe that the link is good, and that you are not trying to make some sort of WP:POINT -.- .... --Enric Naval (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The link is fine. It tells people what they're going to see before jamming it in their face.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL, as well as Wikipedia copyright policies, prevent use of such commercial sites - and it is a commercial site.. it plainly says "Pay once, 30 days access". It's a porn site, not an educational or informational site. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What copyright policy is that? I agree that the linked site is primarily for entertainment rather than edification, but so are many sites to which Wikipedia links, such as the Dedham Community Theatre.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ELNEVER for the copyright policy. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that it "violates the copyrights of others" or instead are you saying that it matches "the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site spam blacklist"?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A better section of WP:EL would be "Sites requiring registration". The only image accesible without paying is the title image at the start. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not require registration to see many of the images. Clicking "I Agree" does not constitute registration.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Our external links policy is rather strict but not evenly enforced on all articles at the same time. That said the burden on inclusion rests upon those wanting to keep a link. The test is ... if an article were written to a featured article level does the external link significantly add to our reader's understanding of the subject; for example, a featured article about a sports team would answer most questions but an external link to a site drilling down into statistics and comparisons between all the teams within the same league would be information that likely wouldn't be appropropriate for that article. The external link in that example provides information our well-written article could and should not but may truely benefit our readers therefore is included. Most adult sites are not education-based but commercial. If there is an educational-based one on this topic they actually may be a good reseource here. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Suppose the exact same free photos in the proposed external link were offered by a completely not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization. You would not be objecting now, would you?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Presentation matters. Powers ^T 23:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. Is there some reason why it is better to present such images by surprise without letting people choose what they're going to see? The porn site gives them a choice, and is therefore superior to the presentation here in this Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This might be a good situation for asking the people over at WT:EL (and possibly elsewhere?). There might be similar cases, the consideration of which could help with this one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The proposed external link may be rejected here, or it may be accepted. Either way, I hope people will see that it gives readers some choice in the matter. It let's people know what they're going to see, and lets them choose. In contrast, people will come to this Wikipedia article expecting a typical Wikipedia article, and will instead have no choice but to be looking at a guy sucking his erect penis while displaying his asshole. Are videos next at the top of this article? Many visitors here will not know what the word "autofellatio" means. Some of them will have clicked to see a random Wikipedia article, and some will be trying to get info about a word they have not heard before. Other people will know what the word means, and will be looking for information other than unexpected pornographic photos. The reason why even hardcore porn sites give people a choice in this matter is because the image like the one at the top of this article is not something that a lot of people will want to see, and they should be able to choose. I distinctly do not like the attitude that readers should have no choice. It's an aggressive stance for us to take. The idea that giving them a choice is anything akin to "censorship" is false; the word "censor" implies removal or suppression.[7] I've never suggested any such thing.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I agree that you're not trying to censor this article. I think it might be in the interest of productive discourse if you indicated that you understand where the other side is coming from. Do you see that someone might oppose the hiding or relocation of the image for reasons other than exhibitionism or the desire to disseminate porn? Do you see why someone might think that, in order to be fully on guard against censorship, we must resist any impulse to sanitize or protect our articles?

(Please do not think that I am trying to impute any particular attitude or position to you. If "sanitize" or "protect" is a poor word choice, please replace them with better words. I think you can see the real point I'm making independently of whether I might have chosen suboptimal vocabluary. Can you see any valid point that I might be making?) -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The physical possibility of auto-fellatio could be shown just as well by a toggle box, by an external link, or by moving the image lower in the article where only those deeply interested in the subject will find it. People at this article may be supporting the photo at the top because they see it as some sort of foot in the door at Wikipedia, or maybe because they enjoy thinking that only a prude would treat a photo of sex differently from a photo of rocks, or maybe because they enjoy shocking people. None or all of those factors may be in play. But what is not in play is a concern that deemphasizing this image would be unprecedented at Wikipedia, because this is the article at Wikipedia that is unprecedented. Anyway, it's clear that people do not want any link that will actually give readers any choice in this matter, so I'm through for now. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What does "I'm through for now" even mean, when you post again a few hours later? Why didn't you respond to my direct question? Do you think that your current strategy is likely to lead to a satisfactory solution? What's that going to look like, exactly? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Or they may actually think that; the photo is not that big of deal, much better than the drawing that is still on the article, exactly where the lede image should go and hardly sensationalistic as to cause concern or ongoing disruption. -- Banjeboi 03:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent)It's tasteless and insensitive. Why do you think so many porn sites let people know what they're going to see before they see it? Is it such a bad thing to give people a choice?

Instead of the previously considered external link (which someone else inserted, not me) consider the following:

Gay Selfsucking Guys, “If you are under 18 or offended by male sexual erotica, please STOP.”

Can we include this external link, please? Again, it let's people know they're about to view porn before they view it, and it contains photos of higher quality than those in the present article. And it seems to have little commercial content.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's an adult porn site that would seem to offer nothing but ... adult porn. Could you explain more fully why you feel that meets our external links criteria for inclusion? -- Banjeboi 04:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It contains further photos that are accurate and on-topic, without violating any of the criteria listed at WP:EL. The porn photo at the top of the present article is of relatively poor quality, compared to the porn photos at the external link. Moreover, the external link provides ample information so that people can avoid viewing the photos if that is their choice.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The only thing it seems to offer besides commercial opportunities to buy things is, more photos. Sorry, this seemingly won't ever be allowed by our current policies. It really offers very little. -- Banjeboi 04:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ferrylodge, I clicked on the link, and I see that it links to a commercial site where I'm offered a $9.99 membership to see images and videos of autofellatio. That strikes me as being deeply in the "never link to this kind of site" category. A photo presented next to an encyclopedia article conveys a very different message than one presented next to text that reads "20 downloadable video scenes / 30 days access / just $9.99 one time!"

As for the photo currently in this article - it's not a porn photo. I see it as informational. If we're not even all in agreement that it's a porn photo (and you have been apprised of this disagreement), then how is it helpful to refer to it as that? Do you find that such rhetorical techniques are effective? This is a very serious question.

Is it better to identify and confront the points of disagreement, or is it better to use rhetoric that assumes one's own opinion or judgement as a fait accompli? Why is it better? Is it more effective (in terms of persuasion), or is it morally better, or... what? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus, unfortunately you are looking at the wrong link. As I said, "Instead of the previously considered external link (which someone else inserted, not me) consider the following: Gay Selfsucking Guys, 'If you are under 18 or offended by male sexual erotica, please STOP.'"Ferrylodge (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, indeed. That is a different link. <irony> It strikes me as entirely encyclopedic and informative, with text such as, "If you are seeking gay male sexual entertainment about selfsuckers, then you will like it here. We hope you will sperm in your underwear when you see these hot young men sucking their own beefy cocks." That's so much more wholesome than hosting a picture here, where it's presented alongside salacious text such as, "Egyptologist David Lorton says that many ancient texts refer to autofellatio within the religion of Egypt, both in the realm of the gods and among the followers performing religious rituals.[1][2] According to Lorton, the sun god Ra was said to have created the god Shu and goddess Tefnut by fellating himself and spitting out his own semen onto the ground." </irony> -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not particularly commercial is it? And who are we to frown on an unfamilair vernacular? IMHO, that link is a LOT more respectable and decent than the present Wikipedia article, because it gives visitors some idea of what they will see if they proceed. Visitors are given a CHOICE. I'm sure we could accompany lots of ugly pictures with fancy-sounding rhetoric, but that would not change the pictures.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't know what vernacular is familiar to me. I understand your point - do you hear mine? Do you truly see that site as an encyclopedic resource, or are you engaging in a rhetorical device? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see it as vastly more encyclopedic than this Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you're not willing to say that you see as encyclopedic, in isolation from this current disagreement? That was the question, it turns out. Sorry if I wasn't clear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Images there are encyclopedic, given that they are high-quality color photos (without unnecessary assholes, mind you), and given that they are visible by choice.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I admire your dance moves. You're managing to not answer the question you know I'm asking. Do you expect to fool me? Is that site an encyclopedic resource? I think it's obviously not, because it obviously (in so many words) caters to prurient interest. Do you deny this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If a web site has material X that is encyclopedic, and material Y that is unencyclopedic, I do think that the web site as a whole is encyclopedic as an external link.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I get a yes without a carefully hedged re-statement? Is that site - considered independently of this dispute - an encyclopedic resource? Is the question unfair? If so, please explain how. Please shoot straight with me here, Ferrylodge. Direct question; direct answer. I can take it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't engage in WP:Point. I would not have suggested the external link if I thought it was unencyclopedic for this article. I am open to being convinced otherwise. I don't know how else to make myself clear on this point.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess what I'm specifically requesting in this thread is a "simple yes", without any kind of hedging restatement. "Yes, I consider it to be an encyclopedic resource, full stop," would make me shut up about it, already. I'm not trying to catch you in a trap, I'm trying to figure out what you actually think, and attempting to restate your position in a way that you might agree. If you modify the way in which I state your position, I can only take that as a message that I haven't got it quite right yet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's encyclopedic for this article. I thought that was clear already.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you thought it was clear already. Now I feel confident that I know what position you're taking, and can state it accurately. Before I didn't. If I still manage to get it wrong, I do hope you'll correct me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Ferrylodge, come on. I find it nearly impossible to believe you actually think a link to a porn site is appropriate. I think it far more likely you're engaging in rhetoric to try to equate the picture we have on this article with the porn sites. If you actually think the link is appropriate, perhaps you might at least try to understand why others might think you're engaging in needless rhetoric. Powers ^T 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Disappearing talk page

Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with the disappearing discussions around here? Why is a months-old thread still visible, while recent RFCs are not? Is there any reason to prevent newcomers to this talk page from easily finding out where we are in the conversation? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's part of wp:Beans actually. If you promote that the same circular discussion is still in play you get people repoking an issue that the community has already spent considerable time with no apparent budging from the current position. The next step should be a FAQ to answer the recurring questions. Hopefully those visiting the talkpage would be inspired to improve the article rather than theorize on how and why we should censor an image that the community has supported leaving many times. -- Banjeboi 03:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't buy that. First of all, I don't buy that it's a question of censorship - that's how one side has decided to characterize the opposing position. Ferrylodge and those agreeing with him are no more interested in censorship than you are in exhibitionism. Second, I don't see how WP:BEANS has anything to do with it. The fact of a previous discussion that didn't reach a satisfying conclusion is not an invitation to anything disruptive that I can see. I think the current state of this talk page is very non-representative of what's been going on here, and I see that as a problem. Am I making any sense here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you point but there is a seemingly perpetual effort to remove a photo not because it actually causes any problem by community standard but because they seemingly don't like it. When community-wide discussion occurs and don't go their way? Same discussion 2.0, 3.0, etc. That's not helping sway anyone nor improving the article in any way. Finding creative ways to mitigate the perceived harm here is also unhelpful and has been rejected. -- Banjeboi 04:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, I also understand where Ferrylodge is coming from when he points out that both recent RFCs were opened, evaluated, and closed by those favoring the image's retention at the top of the article. Now, if we really want to get the job done, we might as well do it in a way that's less open to claims of bias. Does that seem fair? I have yet to see a discussion where the "keep" side acknowledges that the "move" side is anything but prudish censors, nor where the "move" side acknowledges that the "keep" side is anything but exhibitionistic porn-mongers. I would like to see a discussion that gets past those sticking points.

All of that aside, I fail to see how removing recent thorough discussions from easy access is helpful to anyone. I don't see a WP:BEANS connection at all. WP:BEANS represents to me the idea that I'm not going to tell you about the incredibly destructive piece of vandalism that I've thought of, because someone might end up trying it. It has nothing to do with stifling or avoiding discussion of encyclopedic questions. I think there's something dishonest about this talk page not reflecting recent activity. None of us call will the issue away - it's here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If I'm a "prudish censor" then I must be the first "prudish censor" in history to try to show people porn sites. :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. Most prudish censors are more well-acquainted with porn than most ordinary porn consumers. The Vatican maintains the world's largest collection of obscene artworks, etc., etc. The point that you're making with the link to the porn site is clear, and only underscores the point that you think we should make the photo less prominent. We're all adults here, with our eyes open. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to have the toggle box at the top of the page. I don't care how prominent the photo is, as long as readers are given a choice, just like any half-decent commercial porn site gives visitors some idea what they're in for if they proceed.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear that your point is essentially that. I think you've been very articulate about it. If you choose to define "prominent" so that a photo hidden in a toggle-box is a prominent as one that isn't, fine. I'll adapt my language accordingly. You want to make the photo less [YOUR WORD HERE]. Thanks for clearing that up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Auto archiving is based on the last time stamp. If a thread goes un-commented on for 30 days, the bot will archive it. If a comment occurs, the time left for display sets back to 30 days. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Auto archiving simply begs the question: why auto-archive possibly relevant threads. I know that we control the buttons to the auto-archive bots. From my perspective, it appears that evidence of the dispute is being spirited away from a place where newcomers will easily see it. I don't think that's anyone's intention, but it's the effect. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If no one even comments on a stale thread for a month wouldn't that indeed indicate that ... it's stale? -- Banjeboi 04:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so why is the old thread still here, and the recent ones gone? This talk page does not accurately reflect recent activity. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What old thread is still here? Every thread currently on this page right now, has had a comment within the last 30 days. And nothing is "spirited away from a place where newcomers will easily see it".. see that big box up there that says Archives? If you can see it, newcomers can see it too. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the thread titled "The issue at hand", which was idle for longer than a month, without being archived, while threads begun and ended while it's been sitting there have been archived. I know how it happened, and that it had everything to do with the timing of when the archive bot was asked to do its thing, but the fact remains that to a casual reader, that appears to be more recent and relevant than something that's in the archives. (Who looks in the archives for material more recent than what's currently visible?) I think that's misleading, and I think the recent RFCs should stay on this talk page longer. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, or blaming anyone for anything. I just think the recent RFCs should stay on this talk page longer. You're welcome to disagree. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that thread's latest comment was yesterday, and there's a discussion going on in that thread right now to close it with 2 in support and 2 in opposition, it is recent and relevant. By all means feel free to manually archive it.. or let the bot do its thing once it's been untouched for 30 days. As for the recent RFCs, they were closed, ended.. which makes them not open for editing by anyone, so no use in them being here on this page, but they can be viewed via the archives. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that I've denied that the thread has revived, nor have I suggested archiving it. I've said that I think the RFCs should stay on this talk page longer, because I think that. I don't think their being visible via the archives compensates for the fact that the current state of this talk page does not accurately reflect recent, significant activity.

I would disagree strongly with the idea that "not open for editing by anyone" imples "no use in them being here on this page". I think that's very inaccurate. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) See that banner at the very top of this page? The very first one. It says, Discussions on this talk page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read the recent comments, or look in the archives or FAQ section before contributing. New topics for discussion are always welcome. I think it speaks for itself. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that the banner is there, and I hear you. I still think those RFCs should stay on this talk page longer. You haven't convinced me to think otherwise. In web design, it's common knowledge that each click necessary to get to particular content loses 90% of readers. It's also common sense that anything still sitting on the talk page is likely to be more recent and relevant than what's already archived.

The note about archives does not change the fact that this talk page does not reflect recent significant activity. I don't think you will convince me that the current state of this page reflects all recent, significant activity. I think those RFCs being visible on this page would be a Very Good Idea. In short, I think the RFCs should stay on this talk page longer. You're welcome to disagree. Are we going to go in circles now? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we will go in circles. There's no point or relevency in a closed Rfc discussion remaining on this page. When it's closed, it's off to the archives. But if it means so much to you, by all means please go to the archives, copy them and bring them back to this page. I mean, damn. You're acting as if someone is trying to hide something, regardless of your statements about intentions - people can read between the lines. They are just as easily accessable in the archives as they are here on this page. I see no good reason that a closed Rfc, in which no one should be editing since it is closed, should be cluttering up this talk page. But by all frickin' means, have at it! - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have any intention other than to do things in a way that seems sensible to you. I understand why you consider a done RFC "old news," and I don't think you're unreasonable for thinking that. I just happen to disagree. I'll look at the archives, and maybe I'll bring them back to wait for their 30 days, or maybe I'll do something different. A clearer pointer would suffice.

I don't think you have any desire to hide the RFCs, but I think that archiving them as soon as they're closed has the unintended effect of whitewashing the talk page of recent activity. If you wish to read between the lines that I'm accusing you of trying to hide something... that's your own reading-in, and not my actual view.

It doesn't mean so much to me, but I am unwilling to agree that my opinion is somehow "wrong". I think my position is not an unreasonable one, and if you tell me that what I'm saying doesn't make sense... then I think about it. If, following reflection, I conclude as I have in this case, that what I'm saying is fairly reasonable, then I'm likely to say so. Each time I say "you're welcome to disagree," it's true. However, if you continue to try and convince me that there is no point to having recent significant activity more visible, then I'll continue to disagree. You're welcome to care about that precisely as much or as little as you want.

I find your opinion to be entirely reasonable; I just disagree. My disagreeing with you is not in any way a judgment about your intelligence or character. Can we be okay with that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I unarchived the RFCs, and I hope I didn't do anything that will mess up the archiving bot. If I did, someone please hit me w/ a trout, and I'll see if I can fix it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So what are you going to do come June 4 - 10 days from now - when the bot archives them again? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 08:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe nothing. Maybe I'll make a little box with links to old RFCs in the archives. We've got boxes that sit atop talk pages indicating old AFDs, for example.

I wanted to un-archive them now because I think it is a good sign of all-around good will, and it doesn't hurt anyone or anything. I don't even see how it "clutters" the talk page.

It might be an entirely empty and unappreciated gesture. I'm willing to take that chance. If any harm is caused by the presence of those things for 10 more days, then I hope you will not hesitate to lay full responsibility at my door. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets say that I had a drawing of Abraham Lincoln

And lets say that I had picture which included Abraham Lincoln, an asshole, a man grabbing his own balls and a vibrator. Why wouldn't I just go with the drawing of Abraham Lincoln?

Folks, the picture in this article is unnecessarily pornographic. While it lends nothing of encyclopedic value it kills our legitimacy. Did you know that Wikipedia is being banned in schools? Shit like this is the reason why.

Why in all creation do we have this filth? Why don't we have a tasteful drawing like every other article relating to a sexual act? - Schrandit (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We have 6 pages of archives that answer your question. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets answer it again - Schrandit (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the main reason for hosting a photo, instead of just the drawing, is that there is a verifiability question, over whether the act is actually physically possible. A drawing cannot answer that question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

While a drawing will not answer the question it is the job of the article to do so. I find it hard to believe that Brent Corrigan is capable of achieving double anal penetration or that blood shot out of Budd Dwyer's nose during his suicide but that doesn't mean we need pictures of these things. No other questionable sex acts have pictures of them.

I quote Wikipedia:Profanity; "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."

Omission of this profane image would not cause the article to be less informative, relelvant or accurate, only less profane. I will remind you that children use this site. - Schrandit (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So what? Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, or anyone else. No child who is somehow harmed by a photograph is going to be any less harmed by a drawing. Furthermore, a photograph is inherently more encyclopedic than a drawing; that's why we use a photograph as the lead image on Abraham Lincoln instead of a painting; a photograph is more authentic and often a better illustration of a topic than a drawing. Powers ^T 13:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit, all your objections have been dealt with in spades. You're not bringing anything new to the discussion, and "consensus can change" does not mean that we revisit the same discussions in a never-ending loop. Wikipedia is not censored, not for children, not for the religious, not for anyone. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

*puts in the old Ratt CD and plays Round and Round* - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as this discussion has covered the same ground repeatedly, I would suggest, Schrandit, that making an argument on this page is unlikely to change much. I would also suggest that, because "consensus can change," we find some way of gauging whether it has changed or not. We've had two RFCs in the recent past, and they both resulted in no change, although I can't say there was a "consensus", in the actual sense of the word. Therefore, having another RFC here now is likely to resemble those two. Schrandit, what do you suggest that's different from what has been done repeatedly in the last couple of months?

For those who are tired of answering the same questions here, I would suggest that a big part of Wikipedia is answering the same questions hundreds, and thousands, of times. If that makes you impatient, you might not be very happy watching this page, or others like it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I suppose part of the problem might be related to the fact that whenever these questions are answered the discussion gets hidden. Anyway, I'll answer again too.... We can have a more proper RFC in a few weeks. As mentioned above, the two RFCs were started by a single editor who supports having this photo at the top, the wider community was apparently not notified by that editor because he mistakenly thought that wuold be canvassing, and then both RFCs were closed prematurely by that same editor. This is not meant as criticism, but simply as a rationale for having a different kind of discussion in a few weeks.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

However, if users wish to participate in talk page discussion, we do expect them to read the archives so they're not simply wasting other users' time. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"What you mean 'we', paleface?" Which is to say, I don't expect readers to acquaint themselves with the backlog, because I've been alive on this planet a little too long to entertain such fantasies. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to read the notice at the top of this very page, which states: "Discussions on this talk page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read the recent comments, or look in the archives or FAQ section before contributing." And I'm afraid I don't get your "paleface" comment. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a punchline from an old joke, about the Lone Ranger. I have read that notice many times; I know what it says. I still know that, based on my experience on this planet, most readers will not heed that advice, and I'm not going to unrealistically expect that they will.

If you believe that members of our species are going to suddenly become good about "reading the backlog", when they normally are not, I think you'll be disappointed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, if users wish to participate in talk page discussion, they're expected to read the archives so they're not simply wasting other users' time. I'm not advocating jumping down anyone's throat because they haven't memorized the minute details of every comment made on a given talk page, but when they're bringing up something that has been discussed to death, then it's entirely acceptable to direct them to the archives rather than rehash it all (as has happened here). Exploding Boy (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I continue to support the article as it stands. I believe both the photo and drawing are useful, and that the photo is (slightly) more useful, as an accurate and informative description of the subject. I may support removing the drawing in this particular case, on the basis that it is too similar to the photo. The characterization of the subject as pornographic is an inherently subjective one, which I do not agree with, and we are not responsible for the ill-conceived banning of Wikipedia by schools. Dcoetzee 18:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(Moved from Autofellatio/FAQ, created by User:Benjiboi

Please see Talk:Autofellatio/FAQ for the current FAQ text. -- Banjeboi 22:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note : Questions are from original poster, I am just moving this to it's proper place. Passportguy (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a pornographic photo on this article?
There are two main reasons for an image such as this. The first is that it verifies that the activity discussed in the article is physically possible. Until people can saw for themselves that it is possible there was continuing doubts that this activity was real or verifiable. The second main reason is that an image can help illustrate a subject more efficiently than any amount of words could. We do however to strive to use the best possible image(s) and are always improving our articles including updating images.
But why is it so prominent? Can't we move it or make a special show/hide feature so it doesn't offend someone?
Wikipedia isn't censored and previous discussions have supported that the current image isn't pornographic and is pretty much what one would expect in a photograph of this activity. Individual users can modify their own web brousers to mask content that they wish.

This was the first draft to get things going, anyone interested pease feel free to help craft some helpful and NPOV verbiage there, if we find we have some sticking points we could then entertain more discussion to see if a resolution can be reached. -- Banjeboi 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And now you nommed for speedy? Please see Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ and speedy that as well if this is a new policy I'm unaware. -- Banjeboi 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before I really don't buy the verifiability aspect of this - in fact, an image is never a reliable source. For verifiability we should instead be citing studies, medical journals, and so on. The purpose of the image is simply to illustrate the subject and inform the reader about it. Dcoetzee 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that for verifiability we should instead be citing studies, medical journals, and so on. The usual purpose of footnotes is verifiability, and footnotes should adequately serve that purpose here too.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Past discussions have indicated that no matter what studies etc are cited it was an image of some actually doing it that has helped silence those who claimed the act was impossible. Certainly we could tweak the verbiage to more accurately reflect that but the point remians this smae discussion part umpteeth has upheplpthat the image is fine, as is, where it is unless and until a better one comes along. Anyone who wishes to improve the written portion of the article has been encouraged to do so since inception just like on all articles. -- Banjeboi 00:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Another footnote would easily address that concern: [8] Dcoetzee is 100% correct that this image is not needed in this article for verifiability. There may be other valid arguments, but that isn't one of them.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I support the inclusion of the photo as strongly as anyone, but I'd rather not hand a frail strawman argument to those looking to remove it. The photo is there for the same reason hippo includes a photo of a hippo, to illustrate the subject. That's really all there is to it. Dcoetzee 00:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, you wrote above: "Past discussions have indicated that no matter what studies etc are cited it was an image of some actually doing it that has helped silence those who claimed the act was impossible." Can you point us to some such discussion? I know the backlog is there in the archives, and I can dig through it as easily as anyone else, but I think that particular claim you're making is one that would be more valuable the more precise it is. I'm curious about this idea that we've got readers who are unconvinced by medical studies, but then satisfied by a photo. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus, why do you think this link would be unconvincing to skeptics:[9]]? Do you really think that the photo in this article is necessary because that link would be unconvincing?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I haven't claimed that any particular link would be unconvincing. I don't think that the photo in the article is necessary, so I can't say why I think it's necessary. I wasn't aware I had come down on that "side". What I'm requesting here is that Benjiboi say where it was that "an image... helped silence those who claimed....," etc. I would still like to see that. Wouldn't you like to see Benjiboi's answer to that question? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I guess that would be interesting. There does not seem to be consensus currently that this link is in any way unconvincing, so I intend to edit the FAQ accordingly unless someone explains why I shouldn't.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping that this short thread between us here doesn't prevent Benjiboi from noticing the question I was trying to ask him. It's actually the question you asked me; I was just directing it to the person who actually made the claim, about people being unconvinced. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why I oppose promoting this argument. It's trivial to dismantle as invalid, and makes it look like the photo is not useful when it's fact it's relevent, informational, and stands on its own merits without having to trump it up with such nonsense. Dcoetzee 19:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know to which argument you're referring. Can you say more, please? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was pretty vague. I'm referring to the argument that the photo is required for "verifiability", which I find to be the weakest possible argument for its inclusion, which is frustrating to me when I support its inclusion. Dcoetzee 22:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see; thank you. I have been under the impression that the verifiability argument was the main one for the photo's inclusion, but I guess not. People I've spoken with off-wiki have basically agreed that it makes sense to host a photo, precisely because of verifiability. I certainly agree that verifiability can be accomplished in other ways, although I'm not a fan of sending readers elsewhere for an image comparable to one we could host here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not? It would give readers a choice whether to go look or not.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that that is an advantage. Why not do that for all kinds of images? Not everyone who wants to read about snakes wants to look at a snake, for example. Some people have pretty bad phobias - I'd rather see a blow-job that trigger a panic attack. Why should this be the only image on Wikipedia about which I have a choice?

In general, I like keeping our article a bit self-contained. Otherwise, why not just link to entire articles that already exist somewhere? I think partly it's because we have editorial control over what we host here, and not over what other sites host. I think this is an idea I've seen around, and not one that I've originated. However, I'm open to the idea of using linked photos as a work-around when someone doesn't like a certain image. Where do you think we would ask to sound out the community opinion of that suggestion? Would you limit it to this photo, or perhaps take the idea back to that other article...? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We've had umpteen similar discussions about hiding explicit images vs having them inline and so forth, and they've never held up. It all comes down to one simple fact: Wikipedia is not censored. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this may be true. However, that's not an argument against letting us discuss what we're talking about. I would argue, for example, that the suggestions made by Ferrylodge do not amount to censorship. If we're not talking about censorship, then "WP:NOT censored" isn't a very pertinent reply, you know? Give us a good working definition of censorship, and we can see whether or not it applies here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I support inclusion of the photo for the same reason that hippo includes a photo of a hippo - not because readers don't believe hippos exist, but because an authentic depiction of the subject is essential to informing readers about the subject. Censorship is a word used too often, but whenever the terms "worksafe" or "offensive" come up, that's what we're talking about - removing or minimizing an image for the sake of "protecting" or "making comfortable" some group, which is never a valid argument. For every reader who may be driven away, there is another reader who is more informed about the topic for having seen the image. Dcoetzee 03:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. FWIW, it's actually documented in literature that people doubt the activity is possible unless they see it for themselves, I guess like many sex stories and claims they presume it's urban legend of some sort. I believe this is touched on in the article. The core issue remains that if the wording in the FAQ should be tweaked to give that information due weight then feel free to do so. GTBacchus, I added searchability to the archive box - if you type in "possible" you may see a few of the relevant comments. Let's stay on point here that the goal needs to be improving the article and rehashing the same discussion(s) doesn't seem to be doing much good. -- Banjeboi 22:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't realize we could make archives searchable like that. How cool! -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  - I've seen a few approaches to archive searching but this method presently seems the most elegant. In a pinch doing a site search via Google is also quite effective. -- Banjeboi 00:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)