Talk:Autofellatio/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

The Issue at Hand

Ladies and gentlemen, the issue should'nt be whether the photo is a fake, but whether it is appropriate. Now, if you look at many health websites, images of sexual organs/acts are covered by a 'click here if you want to see' sign before the picture will be displayed on the page itself. Is it not at all possible to do this on Wikipedia? I profess I am ignorant of such technical qualities.- Anonymous

It used to be like that. I'm not sure what happened, but there's an "Archives" link at the top of the page I'm about to click. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and on the topic of the previous post, I'm not here researching autofellatio. I'm here researching 'click here if you want to see' boxes! :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've inserted a toggle box.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I support this edit. I've actually encountered teenagers at a public library referring to this page as a "shock site" because of that image. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 23:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is that a problem? Teenagers saying stupid things, I mean. Isn't that just normal? If teenagers are shocked by something, does that mean we shouldn't show it? What's going on behind this comment? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Just bothered me that people in general, not just teenagers, are going to Wikipedia to be shocked, rather than informed. I thought the collapsible box was an acceptable compromise between censoring and informing, considering there is an alternative image that displays the act just as well without being exploitative about it. But anyways this has all been rehashed over and over and now you know my opinion on the subject. And I'm not for censoring Wikipedia at all, so I don't want to get in a big pointless argument over that either. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I remember being a kid. I liked paper encyclopedias. We had one at home, and there were several at school. I would use them for various things. Sometimes, I would look in the encyclopedia for shocking things. They were there, but they were also presented dryly and informatively. I think experiences like that helped me develop a sense of perspective. Seeing a picture of a breast, or a penis, just there on the page, to inform me, helped teach me that body parts don't have to be thought of as dirty or hidden. Those kids in the library, they might realize that even subjects such as autofellatio can be treated calmly and soberly in a reference work. That's not a bad thing, in my book.

Anyway, this is all off-topic, I'm sure. Hope I'm not bugging you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that having this photo at the top of the article will have the practical effect of causing many readers, who would otherwise read the article, to get quickly grossed out and quickly leave. It's hard to test that hypothesis though.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. We might be alienating the "want to read about autofellatio, but don't have the stomach to look at it" crowd. I'm having a hard time seeing actual harm in that scenario. Most people who get past the definition and want to keep reading are probably gonna be okay with the image. I could be wrong... -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've undone the hiding. Wikipedia is not censored nor is it hidden. If we do it to this image, there are hundreds if not thousands more that will need it done and that's not going to happen so just leave it alone. Take a cue from the discussion about the Muhammad images. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Although I sense a bias after seeing these particular userboxes on your page: User:Allstarecho/autofellate, and User:Allstarecho/gp.

I won't contest it though I must say I'm not surprised you undid the hiding. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 01:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because I suck cock and like to see guys who can suck their own cocks? You could try a dose of WP:AGF instead of drinking so much stereotype Kool-Aid. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Allstarecho that the preceding comment was in exceedingly poor taste, and irrelevant to boot. Ugh. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I take it back. We both share the same goal, improving Wikipedia, and my thoughts on another editors actions based on his lifestyle outside of Wikipedia are indeed irrelevant. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 21:09, 28 March 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. --Hdstubbs (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• As for the offensiveness of the image, clearly, wikipedia is not censored applies here. The image is completely pertinent to the discussion, and unless a drawing or diagram is given that would meet the quality of the image, the current image should stay. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close this

This has been discussed to death. A FAQ at the top of the talkpage may be helpful as community consensus is that photos are fine and the top is where it goes. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nom. -- Banjeboi 09:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Has been discussed continuously since January 2005! That's gotta be a record. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 05:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If this has been discussed since '05 then obviously a consensus has NOT been reached. --62.69.156.125 (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • — 62.69.156.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Who cares if it's an SPA? What s/he said is perfectly valid. There's clearly no consensus on this matter. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually the discussions show a consensus has been reached in most, if not all cases, the recurrence of a circular discussion is more evident of a cultural taboo about this subject hence a FAQ might more adequately address this. -- Banjeboi 09:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I would disagree that what we've got is a "consensus", because it's clear that not everyone's concerns are fully addressed. We have, however, got a situation where no consensus seems likely to emerge, so we're going back to an uneasy peace, for a while. I agree that a FAQ is an excellent idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose As indicated in the discussion that has been hidden in the next section, I support closing the discussion for the time being, because it's been talked to death recently and everyone is tired of it. However, a FAQ at this time would probably just extend the discussion further and raise issues of how it should be worded. Also, as indicated in the discussion hidden below, the past two RfCs were started by people who support having this photo at the top of the article, and were closed prematurely by the same people who said (incorrectly) that alerting more of the community would be canvassing. Again, I say this not to criticize, but merely to explain why this issue is not yet resolved.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Allowing readers to make the article work-safe

Does anyone have any objection to this?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is the subject matter itself "work safe"? Why would anybody be reading an article about autofellatio at work in the first place? And if they were, would hiding the image make it any more appropriate as workplace reading material? Exploding Boy (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If a co-worker walks by, there is a huge difference between seeing text, and seeing a porn (or porn-like) photo. As for whether people will visit this article at work, people waste tons of time looking at the internet at work when they "should" be working.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, but should Wikipedia really be concerned about trying to protect people who want to view non-work-appropriate material at work? This reminds me irresistably of those fake Mad Magazine covers that said "Composition," but were upside-down. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it hurts to give readers an extra option. Even people who aren't at work may well be grossed out by the photo; why not give them the option of hiding as an alternative to leaving this article altogether? This is an unusual situation, because most Wikpedia articles about sex acts don't have explicit photos at the top (given that there's no skepticism about whether they're really possible); so, when people come here they're probably not expecting an explicit color photo in front of them, and they may find it a distraction while they read, whether they're at work or not.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I can think of one good reason: because Wikipedia isn't censored, and this is potentially the top of a very slippery slope. Once this happens, what's to stop someone arguing that the image should be hidden by default? And then that it should be removed altogether? And then that any potentially "offensive" image should be removed? The assumption is that everyone who is using Wikipedia is an adult or is being supervised. We have content of all types that might be offensive to everyone, and we don't try to protect anyone from it. I don't see any reason to start now. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea that this censors the article in any way is utter nonsense, and I consider it a personal attack. The creation of Wikipedia may be considered a slippery slope as well, since it opened up the possibility of articles about various subjects (other than this one) that propagate lies, slander and misinformation. Is that a reason for deleting Wikipedia? I am very weary of bogus slippery slope arguments accompanied by personal attacks. Can you see why they might be extremely irritating?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you what irritates me, Ferrylodge: spurious claims of being personally attacked. This has nothing to do with you personally, and my friendly suggestion is that if you are starting to take it personally, you might need a break from this discussion. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're irritated so much, then perhaps a long break would be helpful for you too. Accusing me of censorship is a personal attack. Nothing remotely like censorship is happening here.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) New photo! Is your suggestion that we the toggle-box, defaulting to open, or are you suggesting that we change the photo as well, or both? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The photo is new because the photo currently in the article is new. Yes, I'm suggesting to default to open. This gives readers greater choice than they have now, and gives them an option instead of leaving. Many readers will otherwise leave, either because they are at work, or because they are simply grossed out. If they are interested in this subject, why force them to keep displaying the image?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that solution is acceptable to me, but the last 12 solutions have been acceptable to me. I'm not the person you've got to convince. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just fine with having a box for it that is open by default - however, this runs the risk of causing conflict over which images should get them and which should not. A universal solution - some magic button that hides all images on any article - would be preferable. Then again, wouldn't we just be recreating browser functionality at that point? It's a question of usability. Dcoetzee 03:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I am. Besides my comment above, this box actually draws more attention to the image, making it more conspicuous with a giant border and huge image title. I also think the decision to change it was made far too hastily with hardly any discussion, and it should be undone until some actual consensus can be reached, possibly with broader input. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dcoetzee, one razor for limiting this principle would be this list of images.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Obviously. And consensus from a month ago doesn't seemed to have changed much. Sorry, Wikipedia is not censored. We have a multitude of information that will offend someone which to me fails the WP:Duck test of Think of the children. Guess what? Anyone looking at Wikipedia is hoping for encyclopedic content. A photo of a sexual act has been deemed to fulfill that need. That certainly feels liek another round of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT so I'll do everything I can to get rid of it including Stonewalling to wear down the opposition. If you really feel there is a bigger issue here then this article's talkpage is not the the venue. Numerous discussion to censor sexuality-related images have generally resulted in better replacement images being found. In some cases inferior graphics have been introduced which is generally a net detriment to the quality of information. From WP:What Wikipedia is not;

“ However, some articles may include text, images, or links that some people may find objectionable when they are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. ”

I've yet to see any relevant reason why an article about an activity wouldn't have an image of that activity on it that actually applies to the image we have. The rest simply has been discussed and consensus has been not to mitigate or otherwise censor this image an any way. -- Banjeboi 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is utter nonsense. This was not proposed a month ago. Surely you must realize that.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi.... what does "censorship" mean? Does it mean "providing alternative formats to allow readers to collapse images" or "making it possible to separate text from images"? Is that what censorship is? Is giving people more options really censorship? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break 1

• So long as we're being very clear, I'm also opposed to this proposal. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, wow. I just looked at the box and it's much too strong. A subtle box, more like our existing "thumbnail" frames, would be alright. However, I continue to express concern about it leading to conflict, and think it duplicates browser functionality, so this is not a support but a concession I'll only make if consensus is for the change. Dcoetzee 03:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how to make the box more subtle, but am willing to give it a try if and when I have time. Regarding duplication of browser functionality, I do not understand that point. Can you elaborate?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • All browsers support functionality to turn off loading of images. This is already discussed in some detail in at WP:NOSEE, linked from the top of this page. This is better politically because it doesn't require subjectively dividing images requiring hiding from those that don't. Admittedly though, the box makes it easier - it's usually kinda buried. Dcoetzee 03:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
        • As I understand the complicated procedure at WP:NOSEE, there is no way to disable all images like the one at the top of this article. To disable this image, a user would have to create a page at Special:Mypage/monobook.css and add detailed code there specifically directed toward this image. We already subjectively divide images all the time (those we use versus those we don't use, those we put at the top of an article versus those we put lower in the article, et cetera). The hide option empowers editors and it empowers readers. I would not advocate it in most instances, but the present situation is unusual. Even if the hide option is used promiscuously, what's the harm? Users will simply choose not to click on "hide".Ferrylodge (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As if it's any surprise, I'm opposed as well. Per the same reasons we discussed a month ago. This latest attempt is nothing more than an effort to circumvent consensus, just like how we had an Rfc on removing the image, but another Rfc was wanted about where the image should be presented in the article. I'm just annoyed to the hilt with this article. I even made a compromise and changed the image to one without a dildo laying on the bed and the guy's brown eye winking at you.. and that's still not good enough for, obviously, the only 1 editor who won't give it a rest. There are 6,824,150 articles on the English Wikipedia at this very moment. Surely you can find a different one to devote some of your energy to. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You know AllStar, it's possible to disagree while still being civil and assuming good faith. You say "another RFC was wanted." But it was you who started both RFCs, you who failed to notify the wider community (which you incorrectly said would be "canvassing"), and you who closed both RFCs prematurely. I did not want either one of your RFCs. And regardless of all that, the present proposal is obviously unlike what was previously proposed.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I started the Rfc's because you wouldn't shut the fuck up about the image. I did it for your benefit, to give you some sort of peace of mind that we all aren't crazy running through the town streets screaming "Consensus has already been had.. a million times!" It's not my job to run around screaming, "Hey! There's an Rfc! Come look!" when in fact, that is handled by the Rfc bot that lists any Rfc's on a single page. It's up to users to watch that page. Anything else to draw attention, is canvassing, period. We've been on this page for over a month now.. after many months of quiet.. because of you. And I'm even more amazed that you can't take a hint and leave well enough alone when the consensus is standing on your head. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The best thing here is to respect WP:NOTCENSORED and leave matters as they are. This is a mature subject, appropriately illustrated. It is not an editorial concern to protect people from the results of their actions when they type 'autofellatio' into a search line without reconfiguring their browser settings. If we prioritized such issues it might also be argued that the sight of this page might prompt readers to stop goofing off and get back to their jobs, or inspire others to take up yoga. That's the readers' concern and I hope it improves their careers and health. Durova^Charge! 03:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I do respect WP:NOTCENSORED. The idea that keeping the image plainly visible at the top of this article, while allowing users to hide it from themselves, is obviously not censorship. I hereby bow out of this article. Feel free to substitute the image at the top with an ogg audiovideo. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

OPPOSE-WP:NOTCENSORED, it exists ofr a reason. The days of the Spanish Inquisition are over, now, stop trying to police morality and go write an encyclopedia! ;). Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how Ferrylodge's suggestions constitute censorship? I don't see that. Am I using a different definition of the word than everyone else? Censorship is where to try to prevent people from seeing things. Ferrylodge hasn't suggested doing that. Not once. He's suggested providing different formats by which one may view, and then not view, an image. That's not censorship, by any sane definition. Who is prevented from seeing what? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec, to Ferrylodge) In the time it would take to recognize and use a collapse bar the image would probably have had full effect. Interesting suggestion about an .ogg file. It would take more than yoga to accomplish that feat; I'm female. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 04:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly you could contribute one to the Autocunnilingus article? Exploding Boy (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well waddyaknow, we don't have one; I was sure we used to. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it got deleted after 3 different deletion discussions. Apparently no one could find a reliable source that it was physically possible and the article died on that. So Durova, feel free to help resurrect that article.. with verifiable proof of course. lol - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that violate WP:NOR? I can't believe we're discussing this.Durova^Charge! 16:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

An image isn't OR, it's proof. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And Jimbo cavorts with nymphs. Images have never been manipulated. ;) Durova^Charge! 00:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it hard to swallow too. --WebHamster 16:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

haha!! - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Has no one ever seen a contortionist? Exploding Boy (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

/me is nominating Benjiboi to make, and star in, the ogg video file. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I know you're female, Durova. Are you now adding to your false accusation of censorship another false accusation: that I suggested an image of you in this article? Let me get out of here in peace, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any unintentional offense; the references to yoga were purely intended as humor. These were not meant to malign or belittle, and I certainly didn't suppose you were acting inappropriately. On the serious side, was thinking of the precedent a couple of years ago the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy: someone introduced a collapse option, which was eventually removed per consensus interpretation of WP:NOT. I was one of the people who supported the collapse option, actually, deferred to consensus and respect its rationale: it's really better to leave such matters entirely on the reader's side. Once Wikipedia assumes responsibility for that even a little bit, it could be used as a wedge issue by actual censors (which I certainly don't accuse you of being). Durova^Charge! 16:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never understood the rationale of apologising because someone else was humour-challenged and didn't get the joke. And I disagree, Ferrylodge is doing a damn good job of impersonating a censor. --WebHamster 16:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason is simple: text-only environments often lead to misunderstandings because tone of voice, facial expressions, etc. are absent. Humor is a tricky thing, and I certainly didn't intend to impugn Ferrylodge. Courtesy costs nothing; I genuinely am sorry for having hurt the fellow's feelings. There's no reason not to say so. Durova^Charge! 16:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break B

I saw a post about this at WP:AN. I've been hearing about this article for years and looked at it once, a long time ago. This is not a big deal or worry to me as a reader (I look up topics here almost every day without going near the edit button). As an editor, I think a neutral line drawing would be far more helpful and encyclopedic: A photo like this is straightforwardly and needlessly over the edge, even nettlesome, for lots of readers: This is because it has the look of commercial pornography but this article is not about commercial pornography. More to the pith, a photo verifies nothing, contortionists can do all kinds of stuff most folks can't, for starters. The only meaningful verification can come through reliable text sources. Thanks for reading what I have to say and cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for registering your opinion, Gwen. Interestingly, someone recently noted here that, empirically, it was a photo that put real, live doubters to rest, in real time. I'm not sure where or when this happened, as the thread got away from that topic before the person who claimed to know could respond. I agree with what you say in principle, but I'm still interested in this alluded-to history. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a work safe option would address the arguments for inclusion while doing away with unnecessary profanity. I strongly support the idea. - Schrandit (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen so much bollocks in one place before. WTF is "work safe" supposed to mean anyway? You're supposed to be at work to work not to be editing adult subject matter. It's no-one's responsibility but your own to maintain your 'work safety' so practise some self-discipline whuilst at work or in a situation when non-adults will see. If your 4-year old or your boss should see you working on/looking at this article then that's your problem, not Wikipedia's. Take some responsibility for your own actions instead of trying to censor a public access site. --WebHamster 15:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• "oppose" we are not censored - we don't police browersing habits for anyone too feeble to manage it themselves. Those types of proposals don't fly at the prohpet Mo article, they don't fly here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • How does any proposal here amount to "censorship". Nobody has suggested preventing anyone from seeing anything. What does "censorship" mean that makes the provision of an option to hide or show a photo "censorship"? I don't see it. Nobody has suggested "censoring" anything, according to my dictionary, anyway. No material is being removed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Censorship doesn't just include total removal. c whether it's removing something or whether it's just hiding something. It isn't up to either Wikipedia or us editors to decide on something as subjective as "obscenity". WP is all about objectivity, and on that the question is whether the image is appropriate for the subject in question. Once you take out the abstract notions of morality and obscenity there's no difference between this guy sucking his dick and sucking his finger. It's his, he's attached to it and he can suck it for as long as he likes, meanwhile it does an excellent job of demonstrating the subject matter. Let's be realistic here, the likelihood of someone visiting this page without some clue as to what it is is highly unlikely. All the bullshit being spouted about not being "work safe" is total and absolute crap. No-one in their right mind should be editing this article whilst at work (unless it's a porn studio of course, in between fluffing sessions) and if they do then the crap they get into with their boss is their problem and responsibility, no-one else's. This is just another bible-belter tactic to get the world to come round to their narrow-minded thinking. Quite frankly I find that far more obscene than any sexual related picture. --WebHamster 20:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your thoughtful reply, WebHamster. I don't appreciate your characterization of others' good faith arguments as "spouted bullshit", and you're appropriately blocked for that kind of crap now, but I'll go ahead and respond to the substance of what you said.

        "Let's be realistic here, the likelihood of someone visiting this page without some clue as to what it is is highly unlikely." Actually, it's 100%. It's certain that it will happen - indeed, that it happens regularly. I looked at some stats regarding our "random article" button, and it gets hit often enough that any particular article pops up when that link is clicked... roughly once every 24 hours. Even ignoring that, it's not any kind of stretch to think that some joker will get some naïve "noob" to click on a link that takes them to that page. If you think that won't happen, then I can't think you've been on the Internet much. Ever been "Rick rolled"?

        "Censorship involves group A deciding what group B can see". What group B can see. According to every suggestion so far made, group B will still be able to see it. If I don't control what someone else "can see", then I don't censor. Nobody's even suggesting making it difficult to find. One click. I see no censorship here, not according to any reasonable definition. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose any sort of obfuscation. Anyone who whines that this image is not appropriate for work needs to ask themselves why they are reading/editing on autofellatio at work in the first place. — Coren ^(talk) 19:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I followed all the foreign-language links for autofellatio. They are as follows:

• Catalan: Autofellació
• German: Autofellatio
• Spanish: Autofelación
• French: Auto-fellation
• Dutch: Autofellatio
• Norwegian: Autofellatio
• Polish: Autofellatio
• Portuguese: Autofelação
• Russian: Аутофелляция (autofellatio)
• Simple English: Autofellatio
• Swedish: Autofellatio
• Czech: Autofelace

The following languages have articles only on fellatio, appearing as:

• Danish: Fellatio
• Bulgarian: Фелацио (fellatio)
• Galician: Felación
• Japanese: フェラチオ (ferachio)

Based on this, I'd say it's exceedingly unlikely that most non-native English speaking internet users would stumble upon the term "autofellatio" (in a novel! as someone suggested) and be unable to guess its meaning. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the Dutch article includes the image Auto-fellatio.jpg [1], whose subject is fully clothed (although I can't read Dutch, so I've no idea of its provenance). Perhaps this would address some people's objections. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think people object to seeing his shoulders/chest/stomach so the clothing isn't an issue. They object to the penisage. Aside from that, the image in the Dutch article is bad quality. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a lower-quality image, so it's not really a solution. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(in response to Ferrylodge's original question) Yes. I am not concerned if my "wife and servants were to" view it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break III

I can't fathom what the harm is in giving people options. Why not give readers the choice to see it? - Schrandit (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone opposes giving readers that choice. Some oppose giving readers the choice to read the article without seeing it. (Although, a savvy reader could simply hit "edit" and read the text that way - voila, no images!) -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply: besides our policies against censorship, it's not our job to make the internet safe. Readers can avoid articles that might offend them; turn off image loading; use nanny software; stay off the internet; stay off Wikipedia; surf away from content they don't like, or any number of other things to protect themselves. But we don't take people's personal aversions into consideration when creating encyclopedia content. For instance, certain people are deeply, deeply offended by depictions of Mohammad; we don't give them the option to hide those images, and there are at least 13 of them in the Depictions of Muhammad article alone, plus the Jyllands-Posten cartoons (and we all know how offensive they are to some people) are reproduced in full in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This is why I'm comfortable with keeping the image right where it is. I would also be comfortable with having it further down the page, or with having a "hide" button on it. I don't see the sky falling in any of these scenarios. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it might. If people want to change the policy, then they should try to change it via real consensus at the policy page, not by precedent creep. The moment something like this happens, someone will say we should put all "offensive" images in hide boxes; then we're placed in the position of trying to determine what constitutes an offensive image. Then someone will claim that all "offensive" images should be hidden by default (see the variations on "images of our Beloved Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) are offensive" at the various Muhammad-related talk pages)... It's a slippery slope inside the world's largest can of worms. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

All of our current policies, after the main foundational ones, were created through what you call "precedent creep". Saying "they should change the policy first" just doesn't make much sense on this project. The policy is only determined by abstracting principles and good ideas from individual cases, such as this one.

Also, if you think that a not-likely-to-go-far bit of possible precedent is in any way described as "the sky falling", then I think you should go work in the third world for a few years, for a dose of perspective.

The idea that people at Muhammed pages will just roll over if there's one piece of precedent from autofellatio is simply not in keeping with any reality I've observed. That slippery slope is extremely well-guarded, and one dick-sucking picture being moved down a page will not cause everyone to collapse, and Wikipedia to spin into dystopian nightmare. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to stay on-topic, ok? I'm not stupid or blinkered enough to think that what we're discussing here trumps world hunger, and what we're (supposed to be) discussing here is not the placement of the photo, which has already been determined via RFC, but whether a show/hide button should be added to it. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think most of my comment is on-topic. I do think that it's silly to use the phrase "sky falling" to describe a possible case of bad "precedent" on a project that's not even precedent-based.

I don't see a show/hide box leading to anything more negative than a later discussion of whether it was really a good idea, and a possible reversal down the line. That's the most likely result, and I can't characterize that as disastrous, or even much of a problem at all. What happens here will not affect what happens at the Muhammed page, because that article is about a million times more important that this one, and things decided specifically about it trump anything decided specifically about this page. When I say "trump", I mean de facto, and not de jure, so no I haven't got a policy citation for it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I absolutely do not think of you as in any way "stupid" or "blinkered". I think of you as an intelligent and thoughtful Wikipedian in good standing. Everyone gets caught up now and then, and sometimes it's helpful to step back and look from a distance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, ok. But you know... you're the one who posted that phrase, in what I assumed was a considered use of hyperbole. I simply responded in kind, but I (again) assumed everyone knew that none of us literally thought the fate of the universe hinged on a single photo of a guy with an unfortunate hairdo and a '70s pornstar moustache fellating himself. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's true, I said that. I can see how there's a whole possible range of meanings to read there. Hyperbole is funny stuff. Cheers to you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think such an action would contribute to a shift in policy, merely helping to live up to Wikipedia:Profanity. I don't see any need to shove this in people's faces. To the best of my knowledge, no other article on a sex act contains a picture. Why would this one be different? There are lost of improbable things described on wikipedia that don't have pictures because of their profane nature. Are we really going to treat this one differently just because there is a penis involved? - Schrandit (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable deciding what is or is not "profane". A picture of Mohammed is infinitely more profane than a picture of some dude sucking himself, to a significant portion of the planet, for example. At least that's my understanding. "Piss Christ" is just about as profane as can be, according to another significant portion of the planet.

I think that separating the profane from the acceptable is outside our purview as an encyclopedia, and a bad can of worms to open. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unlike most articles about sex acts, extremely few people are actually able to perform this. So a photograph rather than a line drawing helps to establish that it isn't an urban legend. Durova^Charge! 18:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is that, but there are also fairly cogent arguments that a photo does not accomplish verifiability as well or a thoroughly as published reliable text sources. Is this something only a contortionist can do? Is there any possibility of a doctored photo?

There's also a counter-argument to that. It's true that we can send readers to other sites for verifiability from external, reliable sources, but... The photo seems (empirically) to convince a lot of people that it can be done, it's nice to have a self-contained presentation, and as any web designer knows, each click a reader has to make to access information filters out 99% of readers.

The counter to those arguments is that they're not particularly strong, are they? That's as far as I've been able to trace it so far... -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Close as no consensus to delete/mask/hide/move photo?

Between this thread, at 30k so far, and the AN thread, currently at 56k, it seems there is still broad support against censoring of any kind this or most images that address the needs of their respective articles. We may not agree that we like or want to see such things but we can likely agree there is no consensus to change in any way the current image. i think everyone has been able to state their case, a few times and many interesting and valid points on how images are used on Wikipedia have helped inform on the use of one here.

• Support close. As nom. -- Banjeboi 00:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Please don't. I'm in favor of stopping the cycle that's currently going on. I think that "closing" this will give those arguing for a hide option an incentive to come back and say that the RFC was opened and closed by the same side, with the same complaints as before. Let's find a way to avoid that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The one editor who seems to be fanning the fire doesn't seem to let any consensus stop them. When the same issues have been discussed for a while there is reasonable expectation that a closure could be reached. They boldly tried to find a hide option for the image, the community has rejected this latest effort. Why should we all restate our positions again and again? I'm utterly unconvinced this will stop the same objections but we will have now RfC's and communty discussions that there is no consensus to remove, move, mask , hide or in any way censor the image here. Seems liek we have to spell out the obvious in this case. -- Banjeboi 00:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, I just get a sinking feeling when I see you offering to close the discussion. I'd rather see it done by someone with less of a clear supporter of one "side" of the argument. However, you needn't let my sinking feeling concern you. I've said my piece (or is it "peace"?). -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios?

A review of the Commons autofellatio photos reveals probable licensing problems with all but one of them. This image has full metadata and an OTRS ticket. All of the others are missing metadata, and one of the others looks very much like a scan. Absence of metadata is one of the telltale signs of copyvio (although not a sure sign in itself). Considering how rare this...talent...is, it seems possible that a few enthusiastic volunteers have tried to...extend...the collection of photos a bit beyond Commons's actual flexibility. So perhaps it's best if we switch the lead photo to the only one that's absolutely in the clear regarding license. Durova^Charge! 15:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Invoking WP:AGF (not something I normally support) but until such time as they are declared to be copyvios then there's nothing wrong in using the best one descriptively. We can always cross the copyvio bridge when we come to it. There doesn't seem any sense in taking action until the problem actually occurs, if indeed it does. --WebHamster 16:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the AGF policy clause on copyright states:

When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Good faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices.

So invoking that policy provides no argument against switching the lead image. Durova^Charge! 16:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I intended my invocation to mean "innocent until proven guilty". There's no evidence to suggest they are definitely copyvios and until such time as they are deemed to then that means until that time they can be treated as non-copyvios. As such if they are available then there seems to be no apparent reason why they [it] can't be used. When or if they are declared to be copyvios then I suggest that then would be a more appropriate time to have this discussion than now. --WebHamster 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering I'm probably the only editor in this discussion who doesn't have a conflict of interest this is a matter to tread lightly. It's very likely the other photos are all scans from old magazines; was considering nominating them all for deletion. Commons sees a lot of copyvio with images that relate to nudity and sex (I'm an admin there). Didn't want to act too abruptly because there are probably some editors here who have a strong anti-censorship inclination and a weaker understanding of copyright. But the responsible thing IMO is to go with the image that we know is in the clear, now that doubt has arisen. We're the world's fourth largest website and the current lead image possibly infringes on a professional photographer's rights and livelihood. Durova^Charge! 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Possibly" isn't the same as "is" and currently the one up there at the moment is the best of the bunch, at least from an illustrative pov. The fact remains though that until they are declared as copyvios then they can be used. What I think should happen though is that you go with your first thought and nominate them for deletion, see what happens then we'll know for sure and this question will be moot. --WebHamster 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by that conflict of interest remark? Exploding Boy (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about that too. Is it because Durova doesn't have a dick or is it because we do? Either way I haven't been able to do that to mine in over 30 years :( --WebHamster 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

TMI. Durova^Charge! 19:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Durova, this is a copyright issue that has nothing to do with this article, just go ahead and nominate the images at Commons so that they get rid of any copyvio image. Thanks for warning us about the problem, but Commons' copyright policy shouldn't influence what image we choose to use here from the ones available at Commons. If the image we are using gets deleted then we'll just use the best image out of the ones that survive. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, this properly tagged image certainly seems informative enough... Σ:3 Rōnin (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering all of the images are claimed to be either images featuring the author/uploader and uploaded by author/uploader or images of someone else but made by the author/uploader, unless there's proof otherwise I'd say they are valid. Missing metadata, while certainly can be a sign of copyvio, alone doesn't a copyvio make. Tineye search for the images returns zero hits. And since I can't perform this feat myself, I have no conflict of interest, and I am unanimous in that. ;] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We did this on Pearl Necklace a claim was made that an image could not be used because it was missing metadata. The commons verdict was this was evidence that metadata was missing... --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's very easy for metadata to get lost. For example a very popular freeware image manipulation program, Irfanview can be used to crop, rotate and resample then save out. When it saves out all EXIF data is lost. In my experience there are more programs that do that than programs that maintain the metadata. Missing metadata is a very, very dodgy way of deciding if an image is a copyvio. Just out of interest has anyone checked to see if any of the images have a Digimarc watermark? An absence means nothing, but the presence can definitely mean something. --WebHamster 22:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This got me thinking so I thought I'd have a look for myself. The current image has already been nominated for a Commons deletion and a very poor turnout deemed it to be a keeper. Also there is some metadata in the file but not in EXIF format. The file is in the sRGB colour space although there is what appears to be a Hewlett Packard lino RIP profile embedded (though it is a bit unclear as I was looking in a hex editor, it could just be the scanning software). Its print res is 144 dpi (@ 4.4 x 3.3 inches) Also this file must have been around for a bit as it was created in Photoshop v5.0. So at a guess I'd say this was indeed most likely a copyvio although I can't see how that is provable one way or the other without finding the original. --WebHamster 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am one who is capable of this talent, so I could provide an image for the page. If I take it specifically for this use, it won't be violating any copyright issues, right? I'd be willing to make a photo based on guidelines or criteria that you can all agree on for how you would like the image to look; i.e. position, camera angle, depth, and things like that. Let me know if you'd like my help. If you're happy with the current image, that's fine. (Sorry if I did the format wrong here) --Jiffman (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2009

By all means, your contribution would be welcome. Please supplement it with an email to WP:OTRS: info(at)wikimedia(dot)org. Durova^Charge! 03:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's important to make sure the photo we use in this article is freely licensed and your contribution would be much appreciated. If you do take a photo, please make an effort to avoid common photography problems like low lighting, occlusion (stuff getting in the way of other stuff), and poor focus - if you can't get real studio lighting at least get several torchieres pointed at the ceiling (it's better to have lights bouncing off the ceiling for soft shadows). This photo might be difficult to duplicate so best to get it right the first time. :-) Dcoetzee 03:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have professional equipment or anything, but I have taken photography classes and know what I'm doing for the most part so of course I'll do my best to make the picture as good as possible. Could you explain in more detail how I submit it? I didn't really understand that. Thanks. --Jiffman (talk) 5 June 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC).

I'd be hesitant to accept such an image from Jiffman since his last autofellatio image upload was deleted at Commons as "vandalism", he's been indefinitely blocked at Commons (his talk page there) and his only contributions to Wikipedia have been this article. 75.66.75.195 (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Jiffman's intentions have been severely misunderstood - he seems to think that the correct way to upload a new version of an image is to first request that the old image be deleted. There is no need to do this, and repeated deletion requests of similar images set off alarm bells for Commons admins. Instead, just upload your new image under the same filename, and it will overwrite the old version. I'm distressed at this display of bad faith and will seek to have it rectified. Dcoetzee 04:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jiffman: to answer your question, I should have you unblocked on Commons soon and you can upload it there. To avoid any further trouble, please refrain from nominating this image for deletion in the future. Dcoetzee 05:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See my response at Commons. If he is requesting deletion to "upload a new version of an image", then why does he keep uploading the same one four times? And why does he keep changing the file names? And why doesn't he say that he just wants to upload a new version of the image rather than just saying "pointless"? And why the first time did it take him six weeks to upload "a new version" (meaning the same version)? Seems highly unlikely but if he uploads a brand new picture, and no one else picks up the same feeling of teenagers snickering at the funny pictures they just uploaded, then I'll file it under "Things I wish I never got involved in" and leave him to y'all. Wknight94 ^talk 14:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been just uploading the and deleting the same picture over and over. I try uploading one, then nobody wants to use it, so my thought was "if it's not being used, why keep it on here?" That's why I requested deletion. I was unaware people would assume intentions of vandalism or child's play or whatever you think is going on here. I would merely try a picture, and if it was not accepted, just delete it, because once again, that's what made logical sense to me. Thanks to those who are actually being helpful. And what does the (UTC) mean? Am I supposed to put that at the end of my posts? And what timezone am I supposed to use for what time I write something?--Jiffman (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2009

No, the system adds it automatically if you write ~~~~ at the end of your comment. UTC = Universal Coordinated Time, which is as close to a universal worldwide timezone as we have. The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To Jiffman: I am an administrator at Wikimedia Commons and have restored your upload temporarily. It does indeed have full metadata and not much of the face is visible. In order to ensure its legitimacy, please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and state that you are the owner and subject of File:Autofellatio3.jpg. In the email, confirm that you release it under CC-by-3.0 license, and state that you release all related personality rights. That should be all you need to know and do. If you're curious to learn more, a fuller statement about OTRS is available here.[2] Durova^Charge! 16:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, once the OTRS ticket is taken care of we can get your editing status ironed out. This looks like a good faith misunderstanding on both sides. On this sort of topic Commons does see a lot of copyvio and trolling, and it looks like you got mistaken for that. Durova^Charge! 16:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I sent the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Apparently that picture is acceptable for the article, as it has already been placed on it, but I think I can probably do a much better job than that. I'll try to make a new better one that is a little more professional looking within the next week or so. Let me know what you all have in mind as the ideal image so I have a better idea what you are looking for here in case we're on multiple different pages in terms of what makes a good autofellatio image. Thanks. Jiffman (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your donation. Taking this to user talk. Durova^Charge! 15:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the photographic question, would it be possible to use a black cloth so the background would be more even in tone? Durova^Charge! 15:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was one of the things I was going to change for the new picture. I am going to try to have a nice clean uniform background and better lighting. I will also experiment with camera angles and positioning in attempt to get it just right.So you think a black background will look best? Jiffman (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure.. black background, white light.. good combo. So now that all that's settled.. maybe you can answer the question I'm sure we've all been wondering.... Do you actually get off on that??? :P -- œ^™ 11:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Black is one of the simplest backgrounds for contrast. It focuses attention on the main subject of any photo. The basic framing with a frontal view is excellent from an encyclopedic standpoint: it illustrates the act itself, the difficulty of accomplishing it, and minimizes suspicions that the shot was faked. Durova^Charge! 04:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Y'know a background of a rainstorm would be poetic ... just saying ... -- Banjeboi 08:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! I was thinking more like a bright sunny day! :) -- œ^™ 11:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, sunlight does give better lighting than artificial light...if one doesn't mind being the talk of the neighborhood? Durova^Charge! 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW to Jiffman: there's a problem with your OTRS submission. In order to process it they need a second email. I've left boilerplate text on your user talk page at Commons. Please contact me with any questions. Durova^Charge! 15:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

More pictures available

There are more pictures available so why not add them? My proposed addition. As the FAQ at the top says many people are not sure it is possible, then providing more examples would show it most certainly is possible.--Otterathome (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Because only one image is required and the other two you suggest, well let's just say that there were copyvio concerns about them. The current one, as can be seen in one of the above sections, was taken specifically for the article. It's clear, it's good quality and it's clear of copyright issues. There is no need to change it, or even add to it. --WebHamster 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If they have copyvio concerns why do they still exist?--Otterathome (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Because no-one actually chased them up it would seem. Regardless, there is no necessity to use more than one image. --WebHamster 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The current one is sufficient, and I think the best I've seen on the subject.Dosbears (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well they have nothing on the image pages that mention any copyright issues so there is nothing wrong with using them. If you think there's a problem with them, deal with them.--Otterathome (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep it up, I'm sure a block will be in your future somewhere for going against consensus and edit warring. You've been told now by several editors, does it really take more to get the point through to you? Only one image is necessary. As you are the one making the addition you have to demonstrate a valid reason why. So far it seems to be that as the photos exist they should be used. I'm afraid that isn't good enough. Now, you are about to exceed 3RR, is it really worth it? If you want them so much, just print them out and stick them on your wall. There you can have as many images as you like. --WebHamster 22:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I've just shot down the copyright issue, and the only other reasons are and 'not necessary' which means nothing and 'against consensus'. This is a big violation of the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. And if you keep up the off-topic trolling comments i'm sure a block will be in your future somewhere too.--Otterathome (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please yourself, don't say you weren't warned. --WebHamster 22:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I await valid arguments, WP:CCC.--Otterathome (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Three images that show exactly the same thing, with the argument for the addition being "because we can", going against the advice to not use repeated images at WP:IG, and going against the advice to not stacking images in the lead and not placing too many images together at Wikipedia:Layout#Images. How's that for a valid argument :P --Enric Naval (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus there's already a commonscat link to all those extra images in the external links section. -- œ^™ 20:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Man, it's been hard enough just to get people to leave one image alone. I see no need for three images all showing the same thing. Powers ^T 10:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Should the illustration be removed as redundant?

Resolved

 – Drawing removed. -- Banjeboi 00:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Autofellation drawing 2.svg

The illustration in question.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Similar to previous discussions that support having a photo but no need for several as they didn't add any new information I wonder if the illustration should be removed as redundant? Personally I rather prefer more visual imaging but the present illustration doesn't seem to add anything. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC) This seems like a bit of a turnaround, Benjiboi. For me personally, better this image than no image. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I think the illustration/drawing should go as redundant. The photo is fine and the illustration seems to add nothing. -- Banjeboi 00:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Oh, sorry. I misunderstood. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC) If it were an illustration by Picasso or someone, it would be one thing. Fellatio is illustrated with examples from fine art. A line-drawing done just to illustrate a page, where we've already got a photo that is kept by consensus support... I can see that as redundant, but I don't see any harm in it. I'm comfortable keeping or removing it, so... Abstain. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC) ..with the exception of the lead image, about which there has been considerable controversy, by the way. Still, it's better than the one at the Greek WP article. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Woah. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I've mentioned this before. I think the drawing is too similar to the photo and adds very little. Might as well take it out. If the line drawing were from a different angle or something that would be different. Dcoetzee 00:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC) The line drawing doesn't appear to add informative value beyond what the lead photo already provides. Since the line drawing is available though the Commons link, might as well delete it. DurovaCharge! 01:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC) To be honest, if Seedfeeder (talk · contribs) ever follows up with me on his talk page (he made all of these sex images), I'll be all for replacing the current drawing. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 02:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I think the drawing is too simplistic and detracts from the value of the article; there is little indication of the physical difficulty of the practice - witness the legs are relaxed as opposed to where they are drawn up in the photo - and the rendering of the phallus is poor (and the grip being exerted rather eye watering) and is otherwise unrealistically portrayed. The photograph image is far superior and should be the only illustration required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I hadn't noticed those details. Thank you... I think. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC) As LessHeard, I also find the drawing is unrealistic, specially when compared to the photo. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I have to agree that the image isn't really needed when we have a high quality photo of the real thing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC) On the contrary, the photo should be removed in favor of the illustration. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to cater to exhibitionists. Jtrainor (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I don't think it's clear that the photo is there to cater to exhibitionists. At least, I don't think that's the reason in the minds of most of the people who support its inclusion. I think that a lot of editors think it serves an encyclopedic purpose, both illustrating the subject and proving (to many viewers, at least) that the act is possible. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Whatever the case may be, these kinds of characterizations aren't very relevant to the topic at hand in any case. Since when did "exhibitionism" become a criterion for excluding material from Wikipedia? Whether or not the image is exhibitionistic, or, as another user complained, ugly and unnecessary, it depicts the activity that the article is about, and thus is a relevant image to have on the page; it's as simple as that. Enough with all these arbitrary opinions. Rōnin (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC) The encyclopaedia is to cater to everyone, whether they are exhibitionist or not, even though you're using the expression incorrectly. The photo was posed by an exhibitionist, I'm sure you meant "cater to voyeurs". Either way whatever gets a person off is irrelevant to what information we provide or are LGBT articles just for gay viewers? Anyway, to the matter at hand, I have no objections to the drawing being removed so long as the photo remains. To have both just increases loading time and bandwidth usage for no real benefit (even though the conversion to SVG cost me 20 mins of my life <g>). --WebHamster 11:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)