Talk:Autofellatio: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:32, 9 February 2005

Latest revision as of 12:23, 30 July 2025

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

==Possible?==

{{censor}}

''Most men would be capable of this if they took the time and effort to increase their flexibility''

{{Round in circles}}

{{FAQ|collapsed=no|quickedit=no}}

{{ArticleHistory

|action1=FAC

|action1date=00:08, 5 Feb 2005

|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Autofellatio/archive1

|action1result=not promoted

|action1oldid=9984328

|currentstatus=FFAC}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|

{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=low}}

}}

{{Press|subject=article |author=Stuef, Jack |title=The Epic Battle For Wikipedia's Autofellatio Page |org=BuzzFeed |url=http://www.buzzfeed.com/jackstuef/inside-the-seedy-world-of-wikipedia-exhibitionism |date= March 27, 2012 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/66XrgABFZ |archivedate=March 30, 2012}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 9

|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Autofellatio/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=3|units=months}}

== External links modified ==

: Do you have a reference to back up this claim, Mr. Pizza Puzzle? Or are you speaking from personal experience? ;) -- [[User:Oliver Pereira|Oliver P.]] 18:28 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I, uh, know some experts in the field. [[User:Pizza Puzzle|Pizza Puzzle]]

I have just modified one external link on [[Autofellatio]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/819833454|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

Scary! But I doubt the sample of people you know is large enough to be able to generalise to "most men", so I've removed the claim. I think you'd need to provide a reference to a controlled scientific study to support it. :) -- [[User:Oliver Pereira|Oliver P.]] 20:23 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061021215552/http://www.sexinfo101.com/as_autofellatio.shtml to http://www.sexinfo101.com/as_autofellatio.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Ah, the impetus for my addition was the statement that such flexibilty is "extraordinary" - I have NPOV'd it. [[User:Pizza Puzzle|Pizza Puzzle]]

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

:I'm reminded of wise saying, "Possible, but highly improbable, Captain." [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 00:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 14:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Should the entry point out that the result of some rather ''back-breaking'' labor is apparently a rather second-rate blow-job. Or would that violate NPOV? It certainly seems apparent enough... --[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 11:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Autocunnilingus Reversion ==

A quick Google search reveals [http://www.sagazette.com/jenn-autofellatio.html] - if JennEven says she saw autocunnilingus on the net, it's not quite rumor...

I've heard reference to AC anyway in other places, if more refs are needed... [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 09:32, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

{{ping|Yyyikes}} Responding to [[special:diff/1170082105|your reversion]]; I gave two other reasons as to my removal of the content, [[special:diff/1169018201|"WP:POV and WP:OR infringement."]] The source cited only supports the person and the quote in question. It doesn't support any of the following, "{{tq|term may be insulting to a man's masculinity, implying that someone performs autofellatio due either to extremely high self-regard or inability to get someone else to do it for him. This was the sense in which the term was used by...}}", which fail to meet policies of [[WP:POV]]/[[WP:OR]]. [[User:Pabsoluterince|Pabsoluterince]] ([[User talk:Pabsoluterince|talk]]) 10:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please give a cite, I'm rather dubious about the existence of AC. If AC was frequent, or easily possible, I'd expect it to appear on pornographic websites. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 09:43, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:I now understand your attachment to this section... [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=792960106]. [[User:Pabsoluterince|Pabsoluterince]] ([[User talk:Pabsoluterince|talk]]) 11:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|Yyyikes}} Please read the links I have provided. Most notably [[WP:BURDEN]] would indicate that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Given that the current text live on the page is not fully supported by the reference provided, I would argue that it shows that the author has decided to publish their own original thoughts on the topic, particularly of a nature that posits opinion as fact. [[User:Pabsoluterince|Pabsoluterince]] ([[User talk:Pabsoluterince|talk]]) 14:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

::Oh, I see, it's the interpretation of the quote. Thank you for explaining. I thought it was obvious from the context but I can see how it looks like my "original thoughts." [[User:Yyyikes|Yyyikes]] ([[User talk:Yyyikes|talk]]) 21:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

:::I edited it to remove the interpretation and just said it was an insult, which I hope you agree is obvious enough. Tx. [[User:Yyyikes|Yyyikes]] ([[User talk:Yyyikes|talk]]) 21:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

::::Could be seen as insulting, could be seen as a powerful rhetoric device. Either way I tried to present it in the same way as the cited source. What do you think? [[User:Pabsoluterince|Pabsoluterince]] ([[User talk:Pabsoluterince|talk]]) 22:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

:::: I don't see this as an insult. Nor is it stated as such in the cited source. The insult is that Scaramucci thinks that Steve Bannon (and other senior officials of the Trump Cabinet) are too interested in media attention and using the popularity of Trump to build brands for themselves rather than being interested in what is best for the American people. He emphasises this point by using metaphor of autofellatio as quoted. So saying that the suggestion that Steve Bannon attempts to autofellatiate is the insult is technically incorrect (and before you ask [[WP:OR]] is permitted on talk pages per "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.") [[User:Pabsoluterince|Pabsoluterince]] ([[User talk:Pabsoluterince|talk]]) 23:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Yyyikes}}, please respond so we can reach a [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS|consensus]]. [[User:Pabsoluterince|Pabsoluterince]] ([[User talk:Pabsoluterince|talk]]) 07:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

:::::If you want to remove "as a insult" and just let the reader judge that would be fine

:::::[[User:Yyyikes|Yyyikes]] ([[User talk:Yyyikes|talk]]) 12:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [[User:Yyyikes|Yyyikes]] ([[User talk:Yyyikes|talk]]) 12:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

::::::Have changed it accordingly, thanks. [[User:Pabsoluterince|Pabsoluterince]] ([[User talk:Pabsoluterince|talk]]) 21:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

==Risks==

: Well, no one's saying it's ''easy'' :) Here are some refs:

{{Edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}

::[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/autocunnilingus/ Yahoo group devoted to AC (needs sign in, contains some explicit pics)]

I suggest removing "safely" from {{slink|Autofellatio|Physical aspects}}, because the source focuses on flexibility and physical capability, and then adding the following under aforementioned section:

::[http://www.sexuality.org/l/sex/masturba.html#3.3.4 alt.sex.masturbation FAQ]

{{Collapse top}}

: There seems to be a fair bit of porn out there by a quick search on Google though (though it could just be dictionary-keyword grabbing)... I'd do a Groups search too, but I've got to go soon...

[[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 10:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==ClintonHealth risks==

I removed the following for now:

:''It was also discovered in the [[Starr Report]] that former President [[Bill Clinton]] attempted to do this act in the presence of intern [[Monica Lewinsky]] while under the influence of alcohol.''

After a brief scan, I can't find any mention of such in the Starr Report; we should really provide a specific reference for such a claim. [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt]] 00:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Risk factors are primarily related to [[Strain (injury)|muscle strain]]. In a ''[[Men's Health]]'' publication, sex counselor Eric Garrison says pulled muscles aren't uncommon.<ref name="Men's Health">{{cite web|url=https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a28412362/auto-fellatio-history/|title=The Long, Complicated History of Auto-Fellatio|date=16 July 2019|website=[[Men's Health]]|access-date=3 May 2024}}</ref> Another sex counselor, Cam Fraser, in an [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation|ABC]] report:<ref name="ABC">{{cite web|url=https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/the-sunday-hook-up/can-you-suck-your-own-dick-and-will-anything-go-wrong/13922540|title=Sucking your own dick: Is it possible and will anything go wrong?|last=Salmin|first=Dee|date=9 June 2022|website=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation|ABC]]|access-date=3 May 2024}}</ref> "The only things that I could think of that could potentially go wrong could be if you're not limbered up enough, maybe pulling a muscle and hurting your back." Both men remark that [[Sexually transmitted infection|STI]]s, such as [[herpes]], can be transferred from the mouth to penis, and vice versa.<ref name="Men's Health" /><ref name="ABC" /> Additionally, Garrison has encountered a few cases of men accidentally biting themselves.<ref name="Men's Health" />

===="Not Pleasurable"====

{{Reflist-talk}}

{{Collapse bottom}}

--[[Special:Contributions/62.166.252.25|62.166.252.25]] ([[User talk:62.166.252.25|talk]]) 19:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:AlphaBetaGamma|ABG]] <small> ([[User talk:AlphaBetaGamma|Talk/Report any mistakes here]]) </small> 11:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It wont let me change the page, but I know from personal experience that it is pleasurable. Whoever wrote this doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Can someone please remove that last paragraph?

:Thanks. --[[Special:Contributions/62.166.252.25|62.166.252.25]] ([[User talk:62.166.252.25|talk]]) 17:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==

== Autofellatio ==

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

* [[commons:File:Autofel.svg|Autofel.svg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2025-07-30T12:23:57.611241 | Autofel.svg -->

''The following is a copy of a discussion on [[User talk:Tony Sidaway]] and [[User talk:Everyking]].''

Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Autofel.svg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 12:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Nice try! Looks like you ran into a censor though. Ahem. Now, why don't you try to create the same "consensus" there that you wanted for clitoris?[[User:Dr Zen|Dr Zen]] 04:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not bothered either way. I wanted to test whether the picture was linked because people wanted it linked or just because it had always been linked. I don't do revert wars and I don't do solo campaigning.

On consensus, I have abandoned your extreme inclusivist conception of consensus as unworkable. If an article reaches a stable state without protection I think there may be some justice in pragmatically defining that as a consensus. It does require editors to be a bit more restrained than some of the revert warriors we have seen on [[clitoris]]. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 08:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

===To [[User:Everyking|Everyking]]===

I wonder if you'd like to join me in giving it a try. I looked at the picture myself and I can't really work out why, in the context, you call it "extreme". The title of the page is such that the user isn't going to type it in or click it expecting to see, well, pictures of bunnies and rainbows. The picture shows a man with an erect penis, but the contortion in question is impossible unless the penis is erect. The picture illustrates the act. The [[Wikipedia:Profanity#Offensive_images|draft policy of offensive images]] suggests that, while linking may be often be preferable, '''Censorship should be avoided if at all possible if an image adds something to an article.''' In my estimation it would be extremely difficult to say that this image does not add something to this article. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 08:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:I'm not going to join you in giving it a try, thank you very much! Ha. OK, Tony, you can add the image back if you want. Personally, I'm not terribly fond of the idea that anything can be shown on a Wikipedia page just because it's relevant to the subject matter, but believe you me, that's not a dispute I want to get involved in. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 08:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:There's a fundamental flaw with your reasoning. You say: "The title of the page is such that the user isn't going to type it in or click it expecting to see [...] pictures of bunnies and rainbows." One of the reasons people will come here is precisely because they don't know what the word means. There's no reason to think visitors should know beforehand that ''autofellatio'' refers to a sexual activity. Even if the person knew what ''autofellatio'' was, there's no reason to think that the person should be expecting or be prepared to be shown pictures of such activity in the article. &mdash;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 08:07, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

:: I think that's a reasonable point. People unfamiliar with the word "fellatio" (which isn't, for instance, in common bedroom use) probably wouldn't have a clue what the word "autofellatio" could mean. However what I'm saying is firstly that the title isn't something people will type in expecting to see something else (like head, cock, shaft, hole, balls, slit and other commonplace words that have secondary sexual connotations), so they would have had to encounter the word in some context beforehand--and we should consider that context. And secondly it is unlikely to be linked in an article in such a manner that the reader will expect to see bunnies and rainbows. Looking at internal links I see (in article space) [[masturbation]], [[oral sex]], [[autocunnilingus]], and a paragraph in [[Ra]] saying

:::''Though Ra and Atum ("he who completes or perfects") were the same god, Atum was used in distinctive fashions. He was primarily the symbol of the setting sun and was also a substitute for Ra as the creator of Shu and Tefnut from either masturbatory semen, (perhaps via autofellatio) or mucus. Atum was himself created by Ptah in some mythologies. Atum was the father of Hike.''

:: So you can see that the context in which this article is linked is such that the reader already knows that the subject is either some kind of oral sex or some kind of masturbation.

:: So while yes, it's conceivable that someone could encounter the word autofellatio in a non-sexual context, this doesn't seem to happen in practise, at least on Wikipedia. I guess you could google and have a look if you can find any incidents where the word appears in recipes, computer instruction manuals, children's books and the like, but I suggest that it's likely to be minimal. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::Anybody could look up ''autofellatio'' in a search engine, without knowing what it is, and be directed here. My point above remains. &mdash;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 02:17, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

::: I don't think it's likelu that anyone would just randomly type in the letters a-u-t-o-f-e-l-l-a-t-i-o. They would have to have read the word in some context, and that sequence of letters never appears in a non-sexual context. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::::Random page link?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 10:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::: The beauty of the Random Page link is that the user will get precisely what he asked for. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::: I see you've been left without arguments. Carry on brother! &mdash;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 11:17, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

::: I don't see why you think that. Someone asks about the random page link, I point out that it will deliver a random page. This is what it is designed to do. I see no problem that can arise that isn't intrinsic to the concept of asking for an encyclopedia page at random. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Deleted Picture ==

From the deletion log:

:''22:55, 10 Jan 2005 [[User:Rdsmith4|Rdsmith4]] deleted Image:Autofellatio.jpg (pornography)''

Here's my understanding of the situation:

*There was no vote on [[WP:IFD|Images for Deletion]].

*As per the [[WP:CSD|Speedy Deletion Policy]], administrators can delete on sight "[a]n image which is a redundant (all bits the same or scaled-down) copy of something else on Wikipedia and as long as all inward links have been changed to the image being retained." This makes no mention of whether or not someone thinks the image is pornography.

*Perhaps there's a no-pornography clause somewhere, if this image is indeed pornography, but I haven't found it in [[WP:CSD]], [[WP:DP]], [[WP:IFD]], etc., etc.

So what gives? [[User:Limeheadnyc|Timbo]] 04:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:thanks for looking into this, Timbo. i did as well, and didn't find anything giving Rdsmith4 authority to delete the photo for the documented reason. further, his description in the deletion log of "(pornography)" is incorrect. while one may reasonably argue that the photo was porn before it got here, in the context of the article it was a demonstration and description, in the same way the photo would become evidence (more than porn) in court, and therefore acceptable when it otherwise wouldn't be. from his deletion activity, it doesn't appear that Rdsmith4 is on a quest to rid the world of porn; i'm curious how he even heard about it.

:using the published wiki guidelines i've seen, Rdsmith4 was outside his authority, and the photo should be put back and argued using standard, non admin-centric wiki procs. he should at least defend his action here explicitly. [[User:SaltyPig|SaltyPig]] 06:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::I deleted the image under the same guideline that permits me to delete goatse.cx's "hello.jpg" whenever someone uploads it. I deemed it pornographic and unnecessary to illustrate the article (this is something quite easy to visualize) - you'll notice that there is no picture of people engaging in intercourse in the [[sexual intercourse]] article; rather, there are drawings, which I feel would be appropriate here as well. No, I have no personal crusade against pornography (mostly because the wiki is free of it). If necessary I will re-upload the image and nominate it for deletion, but I did not expect this to be a contentious issue. [[User:Rdsmith4|{{User:Rdsmith4/sig}}]] 16:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:::That would probably be the best thing to do. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 17:27, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

::: Yes, please do re-upload and nominate for deletion. Whether it is so pornographic as to be unusable as an illustration is something the community should decide by consensus. [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 17:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::::It is certainly not necessary to go through IFD in all cases, but in this particular case it should have. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 08:09, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

:::Reuploading and IfD would seem the best thing to do. To be clear, [[User:Rdsmith4|Rdsmith4]] seems to be a tireless editor who does great work. I just wanted everything as transparent and by-the-book as possible, since the subject of nudity, "offensive" material, and "pornography" is a contentious one. (See, for example, [[Talk:Clitoris]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Nudity (full frontal) pictures in an encyclopedia?]], etc. etc.) Thanks, [[User:Limeheadnyc|Timbo]] [[User_talk:Limeheadnyc|<small><font color="black">(&nbsp;t&nbsp;a&nbsp;l&nbsp;k&nbsp;)</font></small>]] 22:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there are currently no photographs illustrating sexual intercourse cannot be used to adduce that there ''can be'' no such photographs (although I think the current drawings are pretty good--having pasted them there myself from an article on sexual positions). It is fairly normal for sexual education materials to contain photographs of sexual intercourse and this is not pornographic in the context of a sex education text or encyclopedia article. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Autofellatio.jpg Autofellation.jpg] on [[Images for deletion#January 12|images for deletion]] ==

In case anyone has an opinion they'd like to voice about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Autofellatio.jpg Autofellation.jpg], please see its entry on [[Images for deletion#January 12|images for deletion]]. Thanks, [[User:Limeheadnyc|Timbo]] [[User_talk:Limeheadnyc|<small><font color="black">(&nbsp;t&nbsp;a&nbsp;l&nbsp;k&nbsp;)</font></small>]] 00:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

: results of IFD have been moved to the image talk page. [[User:Duk|Duk]] 02:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==Unsourced citation==

''Some [[Erotic actor|adult film stars]] have expressed contempt for men who autofellate.''

Well yes. Lots of people have expressed contempt for a man who sucks his penis.

Some of them happen to be porn actors.

How about if I rephrased this with another sexual act.

''Some [[Erotic actor|adult film stars]] have expressed contempt for men who [[fellate]].''

It isn't the auto part that is the problem.

Since this citation is unsourced I think it's pretty useless.

Please feel free to restore if you disagree. Just being bold and willing to accept I may be wrong. I don't do edit wars. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:Spacing your sentences out like that is going to make talk pages very long indeed. Perhaps one of us could re-add a sentence like:

:*"Many people have expressed contempt for men who autofellate" OR

:*"Autofellation is often thought of as embarrasing or shameful, as is other masturbation."

:[[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 02:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==Pornographic image==

What is a pornographic image doing on this site? This annoys me to no end. Some people want to know about a subject without being shown pornography. I find this very insulting. But, as with [[Clitoris]], some people just don't care what others think. ?[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 23:38, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

:This is an encyclopedia, people come here to find out about things. Pictures are good ways of showing things that are difficult to illustrate in words (or in this case, just plain difficult to believe possible!) A picture that may have a purely pornographic purpose elsewhere can perform a useful purpose here, just as a passage of raw eroticism in [[Lady Chatterley's Lover]] may have an artistic purpose.. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::You obviously lack good judgement, and I'm not here to give you one. But we should make sure that good judgement is what prevails. This image is as sick as the goatse photo. ?[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 00:04, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

:::If goatse is really this mild, maybe I should go look at it. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 08:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you ever want to persuade someone to change his mind, accusing him of lacking good judgement is probably the wrong thing to do. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:Cantus, I'm going to warn you exactly once - stop messing with the image on this page, or I'm going to block you. You've already been warned about this kind of behavior for your actions on [[clitoris]]. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 00:38, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

::Hey, I hear the local police has some vacant posts. And no Mr. Rumsfeld, you can't block me because I haven't done anything wrong. ?[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 00:52, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

:::[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus|Your first arbcom case]] said ''Cantus is reminded to discuss matters in accordance with good Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and is instructed to not engage in personal attacks, harrassment, or provocation.'' - this is provocation - in fact, it's the exact same provocation that led to you being permanently banned from editing [[clitoris]]. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco|Your second arbcom case]] limits you to one revert per article per 24 hour period, and you have already violated that by reverting this article twice in 24 hours (three times if I count the first time you removed the image). Third, the blocking policy allows for blocking of disruptive users. Given that this is exactly the same behavior that has brought you to the arbcom twice already, I do have a very good case to. Keep it up and see what happens. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 01:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

::::I'm sorry but you're wrong. I have only reverted this page once. In my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autofellatio&diff=9826084&oldid=9824016 first edit], I moved the image further down in the article and made it a link; that was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autofellatio&diff=9839951&oldid=9826084 reverted] by [[User:Limeheadnyc]]. In my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autofellatio&diff=9841743&oldid=9826084 second edit], I replaced the image with the ''offensiveimage'' Template; that was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autofellatio&diff=9841768&oldid=9841743 reverted] by you. And then, in my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autofellatio&diff=9841994&oldid=9841743 third edit] I did indeed revert, for the first time, to a previous version of mine. And if you considered my earlier comment as a personal attack, I believe you completely lack a sense of humor. (Oh, and please, don't consider ''that'' a personal attack, lol) ?[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 02:55, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

* I am not really proud to have this picture on Wikipedia and would prefer, personally, if it were gone or if, at least, there was some sort of warning on the top of the page, before viewers actually saw it. [[User:Danny|Danny]] 01:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* I'm with Danny here (''not'' that this justifies any breaking of arbcom rulings on the part of Cantus of course). I don't believe it appropriate to illustrate articles with images that would be considered pornographic by most. If we must have it, then I'd accept it as a link - but instantly visible like this is totally unacceptable -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 01:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* I agree with Danny and Sannse. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 01:32, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

* It seems quite straightforward to me. The image was put up for deletion. It was kept. (See the image talk page). This is the article which the image illustrates. The image belongs in the article. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 03:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

** (at the risk of repeating myself) Voting to keep an image in the servers is quite different from voting to actually show the image directly in the article. Don't draw false conclusions. ?[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 04:13, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

**wrong. vfd is very inclusionist (a simple majority is not enough for deletion). This is so that images are not thrown away that may ''conveivably'' still be used at some point. Surviving ifd is by no means an endorsement of an image! [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;'''</small>)]] 10:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* I agree with Danny, Neutrality, and Sannse: this could use a "click hear to view image" sort of template since it's clearly more shocking than the average user might expect, not to mention probably unsafe for viewing at work. {{User:Rdsmith4/Sig}} 03:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*The image is not work-safe, school-safe, or library-safe. "Click to view" is entirely appropriate -- and probably should be the policy default for all such images, if they are needed at all (and I can't imagine why an image is needed here; how the hell else could someone practice autofellatio?) We don't have graphic images of masturbation, we don't have graphic images of any sort of intercourse, we don't have graphic images of non-auto-fellatio...and there's probably a reason for this. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]] 04:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* "We don't have graphic images of X" is not the same as "we have a policy against graphic images of X". It's a mistake easily made. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*definitely not work safe (just had to close my browser in a hurry :o) &mdash; "click to view" is the very least! I would prefer even more to have some historical drawing, if we can find any (compare [[Zoophilia]]: I certainly wouldn't want to see photographs there! but the paintings are nice). [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;'''</small>)]] 10:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* For all the reasons already given, I also think that "Click to view" is the why to go. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 10:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* For "work safe" browsing, either turn off images in your browser or put the CSS command "img { display: none }" into your User:MY USERNAME/MY SKIN.css file. It's a whole lot more sensible than trying to get rid of images that you regard as offensive. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

**so you suggest people don't view ''any'' images at all, just because you insist on having an image of a man sucking his own penis on Wikipedia? [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;'''</small>)]]

** I have not insisted on anything. The image was listed for deletion and the decision was made to keep it on Wikipedia. This doesn't mean it has to be displayed on the article as it is at present. However I think it is more sensible to do so because it illustrates the subject of the article. But you did complain about non-worksafe browsing and I did give you two excellent ways of browsing in a "safe" manner, both of which I have used with great success. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*** Is it just me, or is it hilarious that we might perceive a need to keep the ''AUTOFELLATIO'' article work-safe? [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 19:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

***We need to keep the entire encyclopedia work-safe, as long as we have the random page link. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]] 21:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

***That's a bit drastic, isn't it? Because some guys with nosy bosses can't keep their mouse pointers off the random page button, we have to make non-encyclopedic decisions concerning our content? I still say it's easy enough to turn off image downloads. A couple of clicks of the mouse and you're worksafe for life. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*so, at the moment we have 7 votes for "click to view", and 2 for keeping it here. Obviously, the image should now be removed appearing in the article before this discussion continues. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;'''</small>)]] 11:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

**If you want to call a formal poll, I suggest you use the correct procedure. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

**If we're voting, I vote against POV censorship. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 19:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

***Is it just me or is the image different now? Didn't it used to be a guy standing up bending over? Now its a guy in his back...[[User:JonMoore|[jon<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] [[user talk:JonMoore|<small><small><font color="red">[talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></font></small></small>]] 12:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

***I did place [[:Image:Selfsuck.jpg|that other image]] in the article briefly while the original image was undergoing IfD (it was also listed for IfD; both survived) and someone replaced the substitute with the original again. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*I also agree that a "click here to view" is better in this case, '''but''': I totally oppose using the or a template for this. There is absolutely no need to ''warn'' anyone here. The article is autofellatio, it describes what it is about for those who don't know, people don't need to be warned when they click on the link to the picture, they really really should know what they are going to see. --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|&#9993;]] 12:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line of you don't draw it here? Would you be okay with a picci or a link on [[zoophilia]]? or [[necrophilia]], say? I'd support no picci, no link, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 21:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*There is, of course, a rather firm line: the laws of the United States and Florida. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 23:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

**Being neither Floridian nor American, I am unfamiliar with this line. As far as I am aware, there is a somewhat grey line here in the UK. OK, piccis of zoophilia and necrophilia are likely to be found to be illegal, piccis of autofellatio - they are in the grey area - let's play it safe, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 00:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

** Well if you're British and you really want to "play it safe", it's probably best if you just turn off image downloads when browsing the web; this will prevent you from accidentally downloading any potentially illegal images. Meanwhile the obscenity laws applying to the server are those of the US state of Florida. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

***Wrong. Wikipedia also has servers in paris.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 22:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

****Caching servers, which are apparently not liable for whatever's on the host. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 22:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*Remove the image. We need to make judgment calls about objectionable material, we do it all the time at Wikipedia. Weighing the consequences of including this picture, vs. the minimal gain to be had yields a clear delete in my mind. Do we want high school teachers to have a compelling or legal reason to ban Wikipedia from their classrooms? There is a clear distinction (in my mind) between the this image and other anatomy images. [[User:Duk|Duk]] 23:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

** Duk, a lot of high schools already have banned Wikipedia due to the manner of its editing. But even so, I am still ''very'' against this image. {{User:Mathx314/sig}} 21:53, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

----

Please cast your vote on [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#February_1]] regarding use of [[:Template:Offensiveimage]]. ?[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 05:14, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

==Possible image replacements==

===[http://rox.com/frames1/031/600/autofellatio.gif this link]===

Since [[:Image:Autofellatio.jpg]] has been listed as a [[Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#February_1|possibly unfree image]] and evidence show it belongs to a commercial pornographic web site, I have found a drawing which may be used to replace the problematic image. See [http://rox.com/frames1/031/600/autofellatio.gif this link] to view the drawing, which was found on [http://rox.com/pix/autofellatio/ this page]. The drawing seems to have been uploaded to a web site by an anonymous user. Ownership is in question. Perhaps we should contact the webmaster and ask if we can use the drawing here? &#8212;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 04:29, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

: The first problem I have with that drawing is that it makes autofellatio appear to be an anatomical impossibility. The second problem is that you're so keen to contact the owner of this website but couldn't seem to get around to contacting the owner of the website that you listed as the putative owner of the copyright of [[:image:Autofellatio.jpg]], to check if your conjecture was in any way correct, prior to claiming that it was a copyright violation.

: The existing photograph (which was prematurely listed on Possibly unfree images by you) is not seriously disputed, but I have written to the webmaster of the site that you claim it belongs to. If they claim it, then we'll have to talk of a replacement, but we already have a reasonably good fair use photograph that will do for that. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:39, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That "illustration" is horrible. Most pictures are worth a thousand words; this illustration is worth none. It would probably confuse the reader more than anything else, IMHO. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 05:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:What is your and Tony Sidaway's agenda on having pornography on Wikipedia? I find that really quite sad. This isn't about censorship. People coming to Wikipedia are not expecting to be shown pornography. Requiring one more click to access such photographs is the most obvious thing to do and I find shocking you people can't see that. Although I'm beginning to wonder if I'm really dealing with normal people here (sorry if that sounds like a personal attack, I didn't mean to.) &#8212;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 05:35, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

::I find it quite sad that you can't help but go on censorship binges every once in a while. The principles here are the same as in the [[clitoris]] debate (which got you into quite some arbcom trouble, if I'm not mistaken). There is no agenda to put pornography on wikipedia. You cannot speak for "people coming to wikipedia," as much as you try. The only valid, NPOV questions to ask are: is it encyclopedic? Does it add to the article? Just because it offends you doesn't give you a right to push your POV sitewide. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 05:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

**Actually, the [[clitoris]] debate and this do differ in a critical way -- one that has played a part in the distinction between nudity and indecency. A naked person at a nude beach is nude; a naked person on a nude beach masturbating is not the same thing. The semiotics of a picture of a clitoris change when the picture includes a tongue. [[Fuck]] doesn't have pictures of people fucking. Me, I'm not offended by the picture of bwana dick bending himself double; I just don't think it's appropriate, necessary, or even particularly useful. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]] 01:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

** [[Fuck]] doesn't have pictures of people fucking, but it linkes to [[Sexual intercourse]] which has pictures of people going at it hammer and tongs. They're only drawings, you say? Certainly, but there's no real reason why they shouldn't be photographs. Your ___location and context argument cuts both ways. An image that may be pornographic on a porn site has an extra purpose, and therefore is somewhat distinct from pornography, when displayed in an appropriate context such as an encyclopedia article. The picture of a man sucking his cock is useful precisely because a man being able to do that is so extraordinary. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: It seems somewhat disingenuous to me to ask "what's so wrong with an extra click?" I have no personal objection to that, feel free to make the photo into a link (as it has been from time to time) as far as I'm concerned. But currently you seem to be campaigning to have the photo ''removed''. So what's the deal? People would click and see nothing? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

===[[:Image:Autofellatio 2.JPG]]===

[[User:EyeBall|EyeBall]] 13:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

**(A: Because he can.) I think I'm in love. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]] 17:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

**Ridiculous. Useless. Worthless. Awesome. {{User:Mathx314/sig}} 21:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

===[[:Image:Autofellatio_symbol.gif]]===

[[Image:Autofellatio_symbol.gif]] - does this make other people retch less? -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 21:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Clarification of edit summary ==

To clarify my most recent edit summary: "there is already a photo that's as offensive (if you find it offensive) in the article. That pic was put up on IfD and kept. The current controversy is whether or not to *link* that photo." Thus I don't understand the fuss about including another photo via an external link. It illustrates the article better than any other pic I've seen, and it's linked. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 23:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:A warning on that external link would come in handy though. &#8212;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 00:20, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

==Let's get this a bit clearer==

From my reading of this page, it seems to me that most people would prefer this image to be linked to rather than shown in the article. Perhaps we can view that clearer with a vote? Until then, I believe we should link to the image. I've tried another format to remove the warning that some were unhappy with - [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 00:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: This makes sense to me; I generally dislike votes, but I think in this case one would be quite productive. {{User:Rdsmith4/Sig}} 00:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:Linked how? A) Using a box with the same size as the image thumbnail with text inside or B) As a single paragraph or C) Within another paragraph? &#8212;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 01:00, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

:I like Sannse's idea, however you will probably be reverted as this hasn't been polled yet. &#8212;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 01:05, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

* I like the link that Sannse has produced. I think the inline image is nice, too because it makes for a much more dramatic article. You think, "Wow! This is actually possible!" Which I think is nice for an encyclopedia and beautifully complements the scholarly prose about Atum and Brian Aldiss and whatnot. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Poll: Should the image be shown inline, or as a link?==

*<big>'''Link: 51 (56%)'''</big>

*<big>'''Inline: 40 (44%)'''</big>

<small>Results updated by: [[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 07:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)</small>

'''Don't forget to vote on the [[#Poll_deadline|poll deadline]].'''

<center><div class="boilerplate" id="fairuse" style="width: 95%; margin: 0 auto; text-align: justify; background: #ffffdd; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaaa88">

:'''''Note: there is now another poll at [[Talk:Goatse.cx]] about whether or how to include the "goatse" image at [[Goatse.cx]]'''''

</div></center>

This poll refers to [[:Image:Autofellatio.jpg]].

I'd suggest that the first poll tries to answer the simple question "Should the autofellatio image be shown inline or as a link?". The format of any link, or the positioning of any image can come later. Is everyone content that this an acceptable form for the question? -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 02:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* Poll discussion moved to [[#Poll design]]

===Keep image inline===

# Suits me. I changed it to inline on January 6th and have found it to be surprisingly stable in the month since then, given the controversial contents of the image. So I think I'd like to keep it '''inline''' as it's a lovely picture and he does seem to be enjoying himself so. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# Keep '''inline'''. It's an illustration of the article's subject. But for seeing that picture, I might have thought it wasn't actually physically possible, but images (though possible of doctoring, of course) add substance. What reasons are there to not have the image that wouldn't also apply to not having the article? [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 07:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)\

#: Would you still say the same thing if this debate was about the [[Goatse.cx]] article and a hypothetical inline image there? Would your criteria still hold? "Illustration of the article's subject"? You bet. "Might have thought it wasn't actually physically possible"? Yep. "What reasons not to have the image that wouldn't apply to not having the article"? Well, you tell me. Note that [[Goatse.cx]] currently does not even offer a linked image. So it seems that Wikipedia as a community does occasionally draw the line... that is, it's not a question of whether to draw the line, but where to draw it. Sometimes (how do I put this...) "real world considerations" prevail over absolutist no-censorship-ever inline-all-the-way principles. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 23:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:: No, I would not, because the goatse article is not about the guy's anus, but about the website as a part of internet lore. If hello.jpg was used to illustrate an article on [[anus stretching]], then (assuming copyright isn't a problem), I'd vote to keep it inline. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 23:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::: I think you're reaching a bit here. The "goatse" phenomenon is all about one specific image, yet that image is entirely missing from its page. It's comparable to not having a photograph of "the blue marble" at [[The Blue Marble]]. The [[Zapruder film]] article also has a still frame from the film, although that article is mostly about the film's significance in history, and you wouldn't argue that the image is suitable only as an illustration for an article on [[presidential motorcade]]s. Most of the images used in Wikipedia are far more peripheral: for instance, a photograph of a historical figure is just a nice-to-have accessory, not really needed to appreciate their biography and achievements. By contrast, the goatse image is far more central to a discussion of the goatse phenomenon, yet it's entirely missing. Copyright is not an issue, we could plausibly claim "fair use". I wish you could bring yourselves to admit that the real reason that [[Goatse.cx]] has no image is simply because even strong no-censorship advocates sometimes have to draw the line somewhere... the only question is where. Perhaps this poll is part of answering that question. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 01:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:::: I tried adding a screenshot to [[goatse.cx]] just now, but [[User:Curps|an admin]] speedied it. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 03:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::::: That was me. You have now reuploaded it, but as per our talk discussion I hope you will not add it back to [[Goatse.cx]] (inline or otherwise) pending the outcome of the new poll at [[Talk:Goatse.cx]] which your action has precipitated. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 03:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:: I think the goatse image is rather sickening and I don't enjoy looking at it, but is that a reason to not have it in an article that is primarily about that image? I certainly didn't go blind when I saw it, so I can't claim injury. All you did was imagine an image that was supposedly so offensive that no one would bother to defend it, but that's far from coming up with an explanation of why we should take note of offense, offense to whom, offense from what, and what we should do to remedy or prevent offense, ''if anything''. I am absolutely against this kind of censorship in the real world, but I am open to the idea that different standards may apply in the wikipedia context, if someone could just ''articulate a logical, NPOV standard'' in favor of this censorship. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 08:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::: No, I expect that some people will defend it (please go ahead and vote in the '''new poll at [[Talk:Goatse.cx]]''') but others will agree that occasionally practical considerations trump pure principle. For instance, one of the absolutely fundamental Wikipedia principles is that anyone can edit anything, yet bowing to reality we have permanently protected the main page. How to set a standard for deciding on the rare cases when we might wish to permanently protect a page or de-inline or remove entirely an image? I don't have any ready answer... I think rare cases are inevitably decided on a case-by-case basis. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 15:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. As I've said before, linking would be POV, no matter how it is worded etc. The only pertinent and POV question is: does the picture add to/enhance the article? Yes, IMO, but the picture was also put up on IfD and kept. Any censoring because ''some people'' might be ''offended'' is illegitimate. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 15:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. Image blocking on the grounds of offensiveness '''cannot''' be done on the basis that says a specific image is or isn't offensive. Some sort of carefully thought out tagging system may work, but just majority-says-what-is-offensive is a bad idea. (The question is fine.) --[[User:fvw|fvw]][[User talk:Fvw|<SMALL><FONT COLOR="green">*</FONT></SMALL>]] 16:42, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

# If we're going to vote, I vote to keep the inline image. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] 01:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. Do not allow cultural POV to do with prudity influence policy. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak]] [[User_talk:OldakQuill|Quill]] 16:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# Doesn't matter if an image is considered offensive by some. I know a lot of people who think it's offensive to even see an ''article'' on some topics. The image is information; it is my belief that this encyclopaedia is in the business of ''presenting'' information, not ''censoring'' information. [[User:Blankfaze|{{User:Blankfaze/sig}}]] 23:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# The image is no more offensive than the article itself. We should keep or delete them together. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek]]\^{<font color="gray">[[User_talk:GeorgeStepanek|talk]]</font>} 00:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# Keep '''inline''', but I wouldn't object to an image change. This one shocked me a bit. &#8212;[[User:Markaci|Mar]]&middot;[[User_talk:Markaci|ka]]&middot;[[Special:Contributions/Markaci|ci]]:<small>2005-02-4 03:02 Z</small>

# '''Inline.''' The image is an integral part of the article, with all the same content. Any argument that the image should be linked seems equally valid for linking to the whole article. [[User:LizardWizard|LizardWizard]] 04:26, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

# The image should be kept inline. ''Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers.'' - --[[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]]. Furthermore, removing this image sets a very, very bad precent. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 04:36, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline.''' [[User:Flyers13|Flyers13]] 04:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline.''' &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Davenbelle|Davenbelle]] 06:21, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. Deciding which images are "offensive" is tricky, but I don't think this one is. (and, of course, it's necessarily POV to label something offensive) &mdash; [[User:MikeX|MikeX]] [[User Talk:MikeX|(talk)]] 12:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. It adds to the topic, and is not a copyvio. It thus belongs. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 14:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. "Common knowlege" is that this particular position is impossible, so an image is needed to prove that it can be done. Since the image is no more offensive than the article itself, I don't see any reason not to inline it. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 19:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Keep inline''', BUT move further down the page and put a disclaimer at the top, maybe? --[[User:JonMoore|[jon<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] [[user talk:JonMoore|<small><small><font color="red">[talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></font></small></small>]] 20:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Keep inline''', with one reservation: the image is certainly illegal in some countries &mdash; what's the situation of Wikipedia with regard to the law here? [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis (<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 20:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#: (Note - I am not a lawyer). Wikimedia is located almost entirely within Florida. (We have 3 caching squids in France, but they are, in any case, expendible). Wikimedia has no database servers outside of Florida. As such, and given that virtually every country in the world exempts caching from content restrictions, we are only subject to content restrictions codified in US Federal and Florida state law. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654]] 21:13, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. [[User:Noisy|Noisy]] | [[User talk:Noisy|Talk]] 21:07, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline''' though I have no problem with putting it below the fold. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 21:11, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline''' [[User:The bellman|The bellman]] 21:24, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

# '''Inline''' Dunno what all the fuss about. Please don't let puritan cultural POV to influence policy &#8212;[[User:Christiaan|Christiaan]] 21:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# Inline, though support for the tagging methods used by widely available content filters would be very good, so those who want such things filtered can easily have that view. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 21:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline''', though putting it farther down the article would probably reduce complaint without compromising integrity any. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 00:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# Inline. But it should be marked up as sexually explicit so people who don't like this type of content can filter it in their user CSS. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] 01:34, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline''' --[[User:GatesPlusPlus|GatesPlusPlus]] 04:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. What is "offensive" about sexual activities involving willing, adult, partners ? There are things which are ''really'' immoral, shocking, and well-illustrated -- see [[Lynching]], [[Nguyen Ngoc Loan]], [[My Lai Massacre]], [[St. Valentine's Day Massacre]], [[Leo Frank]], [[Kent State shootings]], [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]], [[Camp X-Ray]] or [[Shoah]]. The only reason for censoring the photograph is to make puritans comfortable with the article, and a puritan who comes here is either stupid, or wanting to learn something. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 09:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline''': {{User:&AElig;var Arnfj&ouml;r&eth; Bjarmason/Sig}} 13:17, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

# '''Inline''': But also see my suggestion at the bottom of the page. [[User:Palestine-info|Palestine-info]] 13:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. If someone wants to just find out what word 'autofellatio' means, they can consult Wiktionary. -[[User:Hapsiainen|Hapsiainen]] 14:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

# Inline - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 13:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# Keep it inline [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (The snott rake)]] 21:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline''', assuming any images used are copyright-safe. [[User:Guanaco|Guan]][[User talk:Guanaco|aco]] 23:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. Anti-censorship, etc. But resolve the copyright issues, they're important. [[User:Foobaz|foobaz]]&middot;[[User talk:foobaz|&#10000;]] 03:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. Anything else is blatantly POV. - [[User:Vague Rant|Vague]] | [[User talk:Vague Rant|Rant]] 03:14, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. Cultural POV and plain silly, considering [[en:Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors|what Wikipedia is not]] and the [[en:Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer|content disclaimer]]. [[User:Gcbirzan|gcbirzan]]^{[[User_talk:Gcbirzan|talk]]} 05:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. Wikipedia should not be censored. Images shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of the random page link. It should be the other way round. [[User:Bush Me Up|Bush Me Up]] 11:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#: Indeed, if we censored this for the sake of not risking upsetting people who pressed Random Article without being aware of our content disclaimers, we'd also have to censor [[Lynching]], [[Nguyen Ngoc Loan]], [[My Lai Massacre]], [[St. Valentine's Day Massacre]], [[Leo Frank]], [[Kent State shootings]], [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]], [[Camp X-Ray]], [[Shoah]], and many other articles. We should treat our readers as intelligent people who, if they're likely to be sensitive to certain types of content, are aware of this fact and will read our disclaimers and act accordingly. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#'''Inline'''. People don't come to this article by accident. &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|Talk]] 11:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:Actually, someone unsuspecting could end up here through [[Special:Randompage]] --[[User:MPerel|MPerel]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|contrib]])</small>} 20:56, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

# Nobody comes to [[autofellatio]] without expecting content of a sexual nature, and it strikes me as bizarre that this crusade is restricted to sex-related topics. [[User:Austin Hair|''ADH'']] ([[User talk:Austin Hair|t]]&[[Special:emailuser/Austin Hair|m]]) 12:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Inline'''. I felt slightly drawn towards link for this one, but as someone said; Noone comes to [[autofellatio]] if they're having a boss on their shoulder anyway - the very /subject/ isn't work-safe. Also, pressing "random article" is not work-safe either, for the very same reason. Another very valid argument is that the Abu Ghraib pictures are much worse than this - and yet, they remain (rightfully so) up. Autofellatio is something I never thought possible - a drawing wouldn't convince me of my being wrong. While I can see how some are offended by this pic, it's no less absurd to want to remove this as it was to run the whole "no nudity on WP", courtesy of IZAK. Let's keep our puritan POVs out of this, okay? --[[User:TVPR|TVPR]] 13:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

===Use a link===

# As I said, I do oppose a warning here, but I don't have a problem with a link rather than an inline image. People still can be amazed by the image, they just have to click on it. This also has nothing to do with policy - whether such images are "allowed" to be inline or not - but with consensus, and that's what the vote here is trying to find out. --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|&#9993;]] 13:23, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

# [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 16:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) This is clearly an inappropriate image. Linking is an acceptable compromise.

#: Inappropriate? Excuse me, but I thought this was the autofellatio article. My mistake. Seriously, though, what would be appropriate for such an article? Or is the article inappropriate for Wikipedia? --[[User:Gcbirzan|gcbirzan]]^{[[User_talk:Gcbirzan|talk]]} 05:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# [[User:Aphaia|<font color=midnightblue>Aphaea</font>]][[User talk;Aphaia|<font small color=gold>*</font>]] 16:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) I agree with sannse totally. Inappropriate image, need rating ones should be kept as linking, even if needed to put on the article.

# [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 16:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) It's only common sense. This is the same reason we avoid directly linking to Goatse.

# Same what sannse said. &mdash;[[User:Emhoo|mikko]] ([[User_Talk:Emhoo|speak]]) 16:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# [[User:Robert the Bruce|Robert the Bruce]] 16:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) a link rather than inline.

# '''Link''' - [[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] - Inappropriate image that greatly damages Wikipedia. Little educational value. NPOV is not an excuse for lacking good judgment.

# [[User:Vacuum|{{User:Vacuum/sig}}]] 01:51, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC) I'm not offended by this image, but a) other people will be and b) it's just plain not work safe.

# Obviously. I don't think we need a big photo by a guy sucking his dick on Wikipedia. Those who want to see the photo can click. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 04:22, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

# Link as a compromise. This is clearly inappropriate, with <strike>little</strike> no educational value. I would also like to find out something about the copyright of this particular image. [[User:Danny|Danny]] 05:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#: Oh come on Danny, to say that the image has no educational value is ridiculous. [[User:Blankfaze|{{User:Blankfaze/sig}}]] 12:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:: And the educational value would be? And is it worth the potential copyright violation? [[User:Danny|Danny]] 12:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::: Copyright is a separate issue at a separate page. If it's a copyvio, it should be ''deleted'', not linked. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 17:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::: The image illustrates the article! How is that not educational? Does [[:Image:OverhandKnot.jpg]] have no educational value? I mean, [[Overhand knot]] describes the knot... why do we need an image?? [[User:Blankfaze|{{User:Blankfaze/sig}}]] 22:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# [[User:Maveric149|mav]] 05:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# At the very least. [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 05:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# [[User:Waerth|Waerth]] 07:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Although not shocked myself I can imagine other people would be. I suggest in these cases make a subpage to the article and put the pictures on there.

# [[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]] 08:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Click to see dick.

# Or delete. A judicious editor said, draw the line here: photographs of genitals: encyclopedic. photographs of sex acts: unencyclopedic. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;'''</small>)]] 09:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# [[User:Mark Dingemanse|<nowiki> </nowiki>]]&mdash; [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|&#9998;]] 10:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# Not that it matters vandles will be inseting this image across the wikipedia soon enough[[User:Geni|Geni]] 12:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#: The image has been on wikipedia for quite some time. I'm not aware of any vandalism having to do with it. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 14:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:: Give it time. [[User:Geni|Geni]] 15:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::: Haha, that seems quite speculative to me. Do you mean give you time to set up a sockpuppet and clean house? ;) Otherwise I see no reason you'd be so sure, especially since the image has been on wikipedia for quite a while and no incidents, to my knowledge, have occurred. Additionally, anyone is free to upload any images they want. I remember seeing a spree wherein a pornographic pic was uploaded and inserted into random and nonsexual articles with abandon. It was dealt with quickly. So no, it doesn't matter that this image, inserted out of context, could be vandalism. Any image placed out of context across wikipedia is vandalism, although some images might be more shocking/offensive to certain sensibilities. That doesn't mean we don't allow pictures on wikipedia. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 17:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:::: Going by the number of times I have removed the varius penis images while on RC patrol I'm pretty sure that this will be used[[User:Geni|Geni]] 17:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::::: It's conceivable, but that's not a reason to delete the image. We're not deleting the penis images, after all. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 17:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# As Sannse. {{User:Rdsmith4/Sig}} 16:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. I don't think it's unreasonable to have ''some'' images take one extra click to get to; it's a reasonable compromise which avoids censorship (which I am ''definitely'' against), but makes an effort to avoid giving offense. What's the big deal about needing one more click? [[User:Jnc|Noel]] [[User_talk:Jnc|(talk)]] 18:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link''' - Seems like a good compromise - and not much trouble to click if you want to see the image. {{User:Tr&ouml;del/sig}} 18:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# This is one of those cases where pragmatism must win over idealism. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 20:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. Doesn't make information unavailable, or even hard to get, so seems reasonable. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 20:44, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

# Inka dinka '''link'''. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 20:54, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. This particular image is graphic and artless. I might support a more tasteful image inline. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 21:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link''' [[User:The Epopt|&#10149;the Epopt]] 21:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. We tend to forget that we are wrtiting for a general readership. I daresay a majority of a general readership will find the picture offensive. What's wrong with making it easily accessible through a link? [[User:Kosebamse|Kosebamse]] 21:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. I'd certainly support an image that's not overtly and intentionally pornographic inline. Also note that this ''has'' been used as vandalism. F'rinstance, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orca&oldid=9087335 here it is] in '''Orca''', which was the featured article listed on the Main Page at that time. &mdash;[[User:Korath|Korath]] ([[User talk:Korath|Talk]]) 21:57, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. [[User:Bkonrad|older]]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>[[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 22:29, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. Preferred would be a drawing such as [[User:Rama/Sexuality drawings|those used in the sexual position articles]]. [[User:TacoDeposit|Taco Deposit]] | [[User_talk:TacoDeposit|Talk-o to Taco]] 23:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

#: Agreed! [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 23:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. As a compromise and not an endorsement. [[User:Duk|Duk]] 23:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. Wherever possible, we should keep WP articles worksafe. I can imagine both photos and images which might be worksafe; this is not one. Agree with Taco. [[User:Sj|+sj ]][[User Talk:Sj|<font color="#ff6996">+</font>]] 23:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''! [[User:Oven Fresh| &#9999; <font color="#429717">Oven</font><font color="#002bb8">Fresh</font>]][[User Talk:Oven Fresh|<font size="5">&#9786;</font>]] 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#: '''Link'''. - [[User:172.205.205.112|172.205.205.112]] 00:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:: Congratulations on your very first wikipedia contribution! &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Davenbelle|Davenbelle]] 00:50, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

#:: This anon vote shouldn't be counted. &mdash;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 07:47, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

#::: You're right, I removed it from the numbered list. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 23:07, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. I avoided this article today at work and realized I ''do'' want Wikipedia to be work-safe. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 00:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#: This fails to address why you're looking up autofellatio at work - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 13:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. - [[User:MykReeve|MykReeve]] 01:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link''' [[User:Goplat|Goplat]] 01:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link''' [[User:Bdesham|bdesham]] 02:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link''' [[User:Gkhan|Gkhan]] 03:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link''' for reasons others have stated. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 07:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link''' - I read this page from a laptop in McDonald's while using their [[WiFi]] connection. I was afraid to open the image with others around. For exactly that reason - link. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 08:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link''' - WP should be worksafe, particularly in light of the fact that WP is beginning to be cited as a reference source by various media sources. [[User:Arkady Rose|Arkady Rose]] 10:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link''' [[User:OneGuy|OneGuy]] 22:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link''' [[User:RoseParks|RoseParks]] 02:09, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link''' [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 15:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link''' - Disgusting and unnecessary image, people shouldn't be forced into seeing it. {{User:Mathx314/sig}} 19:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#: They aren't. No one has to visit this article who doesn't want to. And seriously, how many people who would be disgusted by the image would seriously be looking up ''Autofellatio''? [[User:Blankfaze|{{User:Blankfaze/sig}}]] 22:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:: Lots of people have visited the [[Goatse.cx]] article who would be seriously offended if it featured the image in question. I don't think even inline absolutists like yourself would seriously propose inlining that image; it's currently not even offered as a link. In other words, it's not a question of whether or not to draw a line, because Wikipedia as a community already does; it's simply a question of where to draw it. -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 23:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::: Inline absolutist? That's a new one. I'm not absolutist anything. [[Goatse.cx]] doesn't have an image? Do you think the goatse.cx image could be used under fair use (for I'm sure it's copyrighted)? [[User:Blankfaze|{{User:Blankfaze/sig}}]]

#:::: It's not a personal attack. I'm using definition 3 from http://www.m-w.com/ : ''an absolute standard or principle''. Your user page says: ''blankfaze ''strongly'' opposes any and all censorship. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, in the business of ''presenting'' information, not censoring it. blankfaze sees no problem in having images of nudity, images of gore, and profanities, amongst other things, present in Wikipedia content.'' So I thought this was an accurate description of your position. As for fair use, I believe it would apply, but I'm not a lawyer. By the way, please go ahead and vote in the '''new poll at [[Talk:Goatse.cx]]''' -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 16:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::::: I didn't claim it was; I only stipulated that I am not absolutist anything. Even if I strongly oppose something, there is no case where I am completely unwilling to compromise ;-)... thanks for the link! [[User:Blankfaze|{{User:Blankfaze/sig}}]] 21:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:::::: Even so, I originally got to this article while on the FAC. Someone trolled it, I clicked on the link, not realizing it was a trolling - and immediately thought that the page had been vandalized. Any image that makes someone think that someone added it in to make Wikipedia into a [[shock site]] deserves to at least be linked to. {{User:Mathx314/sig}} 02:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::::::: I don't follow that logic. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 02:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:::::::: What I'm saying is that if an image makes someone immediately close their browser window because its so offensive, then it ought not to be on WP in the first place unless linked to. {{User:Mathx314/sig}} 20:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::::::::: Do you feel the same way about offensive text? --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 20:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::: It didn't make me do that. Offensive is a problematic characterization (as evidenced on wikipedia in a billion pages, such as [[Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images]], [[Wikipedia:Image censorship]], almost the entire [[Talk:Clitoris|clitoris talk page]] and [[Talk:Clitoris/Archive1|a]][[Talk:Clitoris/Archive2|r]][[Talk:Clitoris/Archive3|c]][[Talk:Clitoris/Archive4|h]][[Talk:Clitoris/Archive5|i]][[Talk:Clitoris/Archive6|v]][[Talk:Clitoris/Archive7|e]][[Talk:Clitoris/Archive8|s]], [[Wikipedia_Talk:Images unsuitable for inline display]], [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Possibly_offensive_images]], etc. etc.) Plus, I'm sure some people see the images at [[penis]] and immediately close their browser windows because it's so offensive. We keep the penis pictures, though, because they add to the article. That's the case here too. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 20:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. I'm hardpressed to find a reason why someone who might be offended by the picture would be reading the article in the first place; however, I favor giving readers the choice of whether or not they actually want to view explicit pictures. A link would provide reader choice. --[[User:MPerel|MPerel]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|contrib]])</small>} 22:58, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link''' [[User:Shanes|Shanes]] 03:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''ing helps maintain a balance between WikiCleanliness and NPOV. The content is still accessible, and the squirmish penis-haters are happy (though why they would be browsing this article anyway is beyond me. But we still have the "Random page" button.) - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 03:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. The ''real'' solution is to categorize images and to allow users to see images like this inline if they wish to; until then, we will need to have some set of (inhale depply) standards. Not to mention the whole work safe issue. [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] 21:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#: There's a proposal for this at [[Wikipedia:Descriptive image tagging]] that you might want to look at, then. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 22:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|Talk]] 00:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Link'''. Agree with Taco Deposist that a line drawing would be acceptable inline. &#8212;[[User:Mirv|Charles]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;P.]][[Special:Emailuser/Mirv|&nbsp;^{<small>(Mirv)</small>}]] 14:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#'''Link'''. --[[User:Slowking Man|Slowking Man]] 22:33, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

#'''Link''', i'm okay with boobs and clitori but please no men sucking their own dick. [[User:Grue|Grue]] 11:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

===Other/Comments===

# (Note: I voted above) '''Neither''' [[User:Duk|Duk]] 12:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#: How exactly is an image of someone autofellating on an article about autofellatio "inappropriate"? What does "inappropriate" mean in this context, and why should wikipedia care about what is "inappropriate"? [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 17:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#: The question is not whether the image is inappropriate for the article, the image adds to the article and should be made available. The question is: in which form should it be made available, inline or linking? Because that's a very very subjective question, there's a vote. --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|&#9993;]] 17:39, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

#:: At least one person has called the image "inappropriate", and used that as justification for making it a mere link. I'd like to get to the underlying basis of this issue, but no one is directly discussing the values at play here, which is what we need to do. It isn't simply about headcounting, but rationale. ''Why'' is this an issue here? Let's get a consensus on principles. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 17:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::: Well, I can only tell you about my motivations here, and I think the image is "appropriate" as in "it adds to the article". I do prefer to link to the image because I think that the majority of the people who will have a look at this article (for whatever reason) will ''not'' expect to see it, and a part of these people might be offended by it. This alone is not reason enough to fight for the image to be linked tho, and if a clear majority of the users think that the image should be kept inline I'm fine with that, too. Another reason is that the inline image might make us look "unprofessional", but that's just my personal feeling and I don't think we can successfully argue on that. --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|&#9993;]] 18:36, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

#:::: Why is someone's potential offense relevant to our editorial decisions? And what is so bad about being offended? Why should things that give offense to some be hidden or removed? Why wouldn't that extend to words that offend? Why shouldn't we be having the same discussion about [[fuck]]? [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::::: Fair questions, and that is pretty much my point: Where should we draw the line? I'm sure that I can find pictures of sexual activities of which a great majority of wikipedians would vote to link rather than to keep inline, although every argument on this page for keeping it inline would count there as well. The only difference would be that ''you'' would feel offended by it. I think we should draw the line here and link this image, you think we should show it inline. We're having different opinions on this and that's fine, I just don't like the "we can't decide whether something is offensive or not" attitude around here. We '''have''' to decide that, otherwise I seriously don't see a reason why we shouldn't be able to richly illustrate every [[paraphilia]] article. --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|&#9993;]] 15:37, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

#:::::: Thanks for continuing to respond. My point is more that we don't even know what line we're talking about, or whether there is in fact such a line or should be. Except for obviously illegal kiddie porn, why shouldn't we illustrate every paraphilia article? I don't know in fact how far I myself am comfortable in going, but I don't want any boundaries that are not based on some objective basis of harm, rather than a mere proxy for personal squeamishness or a sectarian view of morality that has no place here. I'm just looking for a rationale. So far I haven't seen any other than naked opinion (no pun intended). I do think the burden of justification is on those favoring less content rather than more. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 00:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# Oh, and by the way: This is not the first vote of this kind, see [[Talk:Nick Berg/archive 2#Inline image poll]]. It was about an image of a severed head, and the great majority voted to link to it rather than to show it inline. I just wanted to mention this here because some people here voted more or less on principle to show the image inline, saying that linking images is always POV or that we can't decide whether something is offensive or not. I'd just be curious how they would've voted there. --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|&#9993;]] 18:36, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

#: I'd say that's slightly different - the image doesn't necessarily add much to the article. Just as I link to the image of the first SPUI in the See also section of [[Single Point Urban Interchange]], since it's useful but not necessary in the article itself. But here, autofellatio.jpg is the primary picture on the subject. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] 07:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:: Does the autofellatio image really add anything though? All that I see is that its some guy sucking a dick, it doesn't even look like its his own dick. Wikipedia doesn't need pictures like that inline. Let's face it, if Encyclopedia Britannica did that, they'd have all sorts of people all over them complaining! I just don't see ''any'' reason to have this kind of image on WP. {{User:Mathx314/sig}} 02:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Neither''' Certainly not a photo - who wants to see that sort of stuff anyway? and not a link - or do we have links on all sexual acts to relevant pornography sites? I thought this was an encyclopaedia, not a place to show off obscene images, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 19:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#: "Obscene"? Meaning...? It's an article about a sexual act. Many would think that the text itself might be "obscene". There was a time in the U.S. when information about contraceptives was banned from the mails because it was "obscene". Once again, there are a lot of adjectives being bandied about without any discussion of why it matters whether something is potentially "obscene" or "offensive", what objectively qualifies as either, and why that should bring particular consequences. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 19:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:: These relativistic comments strike me as disingenious. nothing can be defined? great! you would have enjoyed the postmodernist movement some, what, 40 years ago? An encyclopedia is inherently modernist, ''not'' postmodernist. An autofellatio image that is a notable work of art, say Ancient Indian or Greek, might be a different matter. What makes the present image unencyclopedic is that it is ''obviously'' intended as pornography. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;'''</small>)]] 09:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:: Obvious to you maybe. Haha. &mdash;[[User:Christiaan|Christiaan]] 21:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::: Obviously it's intended as an illustration in the context of this article. Replace it with a better photograph depicting the act if you think the current one is unprofessional. Many of the pictures on here are fairly amateurish snapshots, but they'll have to do until we get better ones. As for the rest of your comment, ok, so words have meanings. Then give them some. Otherwise they are empty. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 00:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# ''This'' image should not be referenced at all. I voted 'use a link' above as second best. I'm not prude, but the image is simply not encyclopedic. Find me a work of art showing autofellatio, and I'll be all for including it. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;'''</small>)]] 09:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#: How about if we run the image through Photoshop's "brush strokes" filter and maybe give it a fancy frame? Then it'd be a work of art and become encyclopedic, without changing any details of what it depicts. :) [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 18:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# Agree with dab above. ?[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 10:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

#: These are arguments to delete the image. That motion has already failed. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 17:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:: What was decided was deleting the image from the servers, not from this article. Nice try. &mdash;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 23:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

#::: Nice try yourself. It's inconceivable that one could vote keep for an image and not want it used in the appropriate article. So my point still holds: your crusade to link the image ''as a second-best option to deleting it'' is illegitimate because those objections were already raised on IfD, and the picture was kept. Another IfD on the image would fail because it was just on IfD. 'Nuff said. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 00:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Abstain''' &mdash;[[User:Ashley Y|Ashley Y]] 12:11, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

# I just want to clarify that while I do believe there is nothing ''offensive'' about the image, it is most likely a copyvio, and as such should be dealt with if possible through that procedure. I would support a similar image being linked inline, though. [[User:Blankfaze|{{User:Blankfaze/sig}}]] 22:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#: That is already in progress. [[User:Cantus|Cantus]] selflessly trawled gay porn sites on our behalf and found a possible source. While there are numerous discrepancies between the evidence he found and our own image, which was leased on GFDL by its purported creator, I think it's worth following up. I have tried to contact the site's webmaster to see if they can verify the picture as theirs. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:: Haha. ''"selflessly trawled gay porn sites"''... Yeah it's pretty obvious it's a copyvio. If anyone can find a similar GFDL image or get permission to use this one, that would be great. [[User:Blankfaze|{{User:Blankfaze/sig}}]] 04:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::: "That would be great" -- Haha. OMG. &mdash;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 10:43, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

#:::: I don't get it... what's the funny part? [[User:Blankfaze|{{User:Blankfaze/sig}}]] 21:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:: The uploader said he made it and offered it in GFDL. So far I have seen no good reason to doubt his word. There seems to be nothing in the picture (I've looked at the binary) suggesting origin. Amateur autofellators, pornographers and photographers use Wikipedia, too, and they are the kind of people who are likely to own the copyright to pictures of this nature. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Poll design==

When does the poll end? How is the result interpreted? I suggest a minimum of 30 votes (votes for ''inline'' + votes for ''link'' = 30) and a 70% of support for one of the two choices. After that the change (if necessary edit-wise) must be made. &mdash;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 01:47, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Support for inlining is far stronger than I expected, so far. Taking a rough glance at results so far it looks like we now have well over your suggested minimum and the vote for linking (calculated by your criteria above) is only at 55%. No consensus.

As I suggested on Sannse's page, there are two things that may be distorting the results:

:# I think people with [[Autofellatio]] on their watchlists are likely to be in favor of inlining the picture

:# Some of your other activities related to censoring pictures may have made some people generally opposed to censorship alert enough to notice this poll and vote inline on principle.

In the circumstances, might I suggest we consider a more formal survey? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concerns here and am happy to add a deadline, obviously it will be better to formalise this a little rather than start again with a more complex set of rules - lets keep this a straightforward as possible -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 01:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I suggest is that we understand that this is to see if we can gauge whether a consensus exists, and if so to what degree, on the question asked.

[[Wikipedia:Survey guidelines]] gives a checklist:

* What questions should be asked?

** '''I suggest that the current question be kept:''' ''Should the autofellatio image be shown inline or as a link?''

* What will the possible answers be?

** '''I suggest that the current two options be kept: inline or link'''

* Where a question has three or more possible answers, are people allowed to select more than one answer?

** '''N/A'''

* When is the deadline?

** '''I suggest at least six weeks. Let's say [[20 March]]'''

***I suggest no deadline. Let's wait for that 70% of support instead. &mdash;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 05:24, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

****If we're going to put some sort of percentage qualification on it, I think it should be ''at least'' six weeks as well. Otherwise we'd run the risk of ending it prematurely. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 05:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

****I cannot accept an open-ended poll. If 20 March is not acceptable to anyone, could they please suggest an alternative deadline. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

* How will the survey be totalled?

** '''See [[User:Cantus|Cantus]]' suggested method above. 70% to be taken as a consensus, either way.'''

* Will there be a summary of arguments, or a series of mini-essays, or some other way to inform users prior to the survey.

** '''I suggest that we ask people interested in writing such mini-essays to do so in sub-pages of this page under their username, like this: [[Talk:Autofellatio/Tony Sidaway]]. They should all be listed in a subsection before the vote subsections.'''

--[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A quick run through of the maths shows that if the linking option is to win it will have to get a total of 61 votes assuming (almost certianly incorrectly that inline gets no more votes). Inline by comparison would need 89 votes to atchive consenus (assuming once again almost certianly incorrectly that the number of link votes would stay the same). I think the odds of a poll producing a consensus either way on this are pretty much zero. [[User:Geni|Geni]]

:Well, it might take longer than expected, but I believe eventually that 70% will be reached. &mdash;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 07:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

::{|

| '''Inline (40 votes; 79 to go)'''

<math>40 + x = \frac {70} {100} * (40 + 51 + x)</math>

<math>x = \frac {0.7 * (40 + 51) - 40} {0.3}</math>

<math>x = 79</math>

<math>40 + 79 = 119</math>

<math>\frac {119 * 100} {119 + 51} = 70%</math>

| width=20px |

| '''Link (51 votes; 42 to go)'''

<math>51 + x = \frac {70} {100} * (40 + 51 + x)</math>

<math>x = \frac {0.7 * (40 + 51) - 51} {0.3}</math>

<math>x = 42.333 \ldots \approx 42</math>

<math>51 + 42 = 93</math>

<math>\frac {93 * 100} {93 + 40} \approx 70%</math>

|}

::Cantus, you are ignoring Duk, Dab and my comments that neither a picci nor an inline should be used. These should certainly be counted in determining whether or not there is a picci, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 11:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::Problem is that going by theevidence so far that position doesn't have a chance of winning. [[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::::Unfortunately not. But I think you can safely say that those opposing any mention of any possible image are pretty much opposed to showing an image! [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 23:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::Hm, that should be 79. 78 wouldn't give a 70%, but 69.93%. At the very least, it should be approximatively equal to 70%. --[[User:Gcbirzan|gcbirzan]]^{[[User_talk:Gcbirzan|talk]]} 06:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::Actually, the abstain/neither should count towards the total number of votes. --[[User:Gcbirzan|gcbirzan]]^{[[User_talk:Gcbirzan|talk]]} 06:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is too complicated - whatever happened to simple polls that gauge the view of the community in a common sense way? I'm happy with a dead line (although the suggested one seems rather a long way away) - at that point lets look at the result and decide the best course of action -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 13:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has raised a serious objection to my proposal yet. Please do so if you want to, with an alternative timescale, or whatever. I'm not committed to these scales; if you think just ten days is better and we can all agree (I could) then let's go for February 20 instead. But (to make it clear) I won't accept an earlier date unless we can get a general agreement on that within the next five days or so (February 10).

I also understand a deadline to mean "votes with a datestamp after this date will not be accepted". So 23:29 on Feb 20 would make a Feb 20 deadline, 00:00 Feb 21 would miss it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Suggestion ==

In case it is decided that the image should be linked, would everyone agree to use '''<nowiki>{{linkimage|Autofellatio.jpg|Autofellatio is oral sex performed by a man on himself.}}</nowiki>''', which looks like this: <br clear=all>{{linkimage|Autofellatio.jpg|Autofellatio is oral sex performed by a man on himself.}}<br clear=all>&mdash;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 01:12, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

:Although I think the caption should be more along the lines of: "This image shows a man performing autofellatio." &mdash;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 01:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

:: I prefer "Do you want to be able to do this? Buy him a beer and maybe he'll let you!" --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::: I would prefer not having to deal with trolls, but that's just idealism. &mdash;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 23:52, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, Canty. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 03:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:I see you're getting worried about the possible outcome, Timby. &mdash;[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 10:37, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

:: I'm not too worried - it already survived when it was up on IfD. This little image has some fight in it left, methinks. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 19:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Can't someone who is good at editing images make some mosaic or other distortion over the guys glands like how they censor on TV? Sounds like a good compromise to me. [[User:Palestine-info|Palestine-info]] 13:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: If we're going to do that, what about the balls? [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 19:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

: Please, no. Let's keep that kind of nonsense on American network television. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:: They do that in Japanese network television. I believe, from what I understand, in Japanese porn as well. --[[User:AllyUnion| AllyUnion]] [[User talk:AllyUnion|(talk)]] 16:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::: That must be some horrible porn. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 19:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::True, see [[Tubgirl]]. Doesn't mean we should. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 20:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::Yes, let's make sure that our porn is at least good porn. (unsigned)

:::Yep. Only the best for Wikipedia, I say. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 06:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Ouroboros==

It seems awfully unlikely to me, given the sources of ouroboros mythology, that it is in any way a symbol of autofellatio. No original research, please; either cite a reference for 'some people' or remove the image. --[[User:Sj|+sj ]][[User Talk:Sj|<font color="#ff6996">+</font>]]

: There is a single reference online saying that [[Robert Nozick]] 'explores this idea in "Philosophical Explanations"' [http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0107/0423.html].

: The external reference (David Lorton) also mentions the two concepts together. So this isn't original research. The two concepts have been associated from time to time. I know of no evidence of an ancient origin of this association, though it's not that implausible. Those ancient Greeks could get down and funky with the rest of them. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 21:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::Of course there's no evidence of the ouroboros historically being a "symbol of autofellatio", because it isn't. That random writers in the 20th century have "associated" the ouroboros and autofellatio says something about those random writers, not about the ouroboros. The test for inclusion in an encyclopedia shouldn't be whether something is "implausible" or not, but whether it can be documented. If no one can find such documentation, we ought not include this "factoid", especially as it is taken up and mirrored, making Wikipedia the source and primary purveyor of this "factoid" on the Internet&mdash;see how many of the Goggled "autofellatio ouroboros" hits use our exact weasel words on this. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 23:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::It didn't seem likely to me that Nozick talked about this at all (he's not that sort of writer), and not in ''Philosophical Explanations'' (it's not that sort of book). So I checked, and I can find nothing remotely like it. Looking at the external link, the reference to Nozick isn't to the claim about Ourobouros, but to the metaphysical theory that someone had linked it to. I think that the reference in the article should go. It's pretty preposterous, in any case. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis (<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]]

:: The Lorton reference makes this Ouroboros/autofellatio idea barely encyclopedic, but having the Ouroboros image at the top of the article is misleading, in my opinion. I am commenting out that image. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 08:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== On censorship ==

Please stop saying that including a link is censorship, it's not. The link allows people to choose for themselves whether or not to view the image. [[User:Vacuum|{{User:Vacuum/sig}}]] 14:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

:I agree. Calling it censorship also implies that we're preventing some other group from communicating in some way. But we are the group, and we're deciding for ourselves whether we want to display this image on the article. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 14:21, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

:Couldn't agree more. - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 14:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. However, that doesn't make linking any less POV. I think it says something that the image was deemed acceptable at Images for Deletion (presumably based on its encyclopedic merit) yet could possibly be linked now because of its "offensiveness." I hope we don't play that game. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 02:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we all agree on this. However, even though I'm not thrilled with the picture, and seeing it once was more than enough for me, it's the trend I fear. If it is decided to remove this image frm the article itself, I fear that every time someone finds a picture they think offensive - say, a photo of a dead tree, from a _radical_ enviromentalist's POV, could possibly be offensive - they would pop it into a link rather than keep it inline. I, for one, find the prospect less than tempting.--[[User:TVPR|TVPR]] 09:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Javascript? ==

Would it be desirable to make a Javascript that displays a box similar to Template:Linkimage, but when the link is clicked, the image is displayed inline? [[User:Vacuum|{{User:Vacuum/sig}}]] 21:57, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Or users who want to get funky could just get something like [http://imageshowhide.mozdev.org/ image-show-hide]. I use it at work and it means I'm *always* work-safe.--[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*The difference between my proposal and image-show-hide is that it doesn't require any action on the part of the viewer. [[User:Vacuum|{{User:Vacuum/sig}}]] 22:30, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Conversely, image-show-hide doesn't require any action on the part of Wikipedia, and it doesn't have any impact on viewers who have learned how to drive their browsers and don't want to have to go around clicking things just to see stuff. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*Conversely, including a link doesn't have any impact on users who would prefer not to see the image and don't want to go around installing software just to not see stuff. Go read ESR's [[http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html the luxury of ignorance]]. [[User:Vacuum|{{User:Vacuum/sig}}]] 03:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

* I think I prefer to require people who want special sauce to pour it on themselves. They're more likely to know what flavor. The article isn't going to help you here; esr's argument would be an argument ''against'' adding bells and whistles to Wikipedia, not ''for'' adding them. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Poll deadline==

Please vote on whether this poll should have a deadline.

* [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] has suggested (and the [[Wikipedia:Survey guidelines]] recommend) a deadline. He has suggested [[March 20]], [[2005]], but is not wedded to that date. It was just about six weeks in the future when we were designing the poll.

* [[User:Cantus|Cantus]] opposes any deadline.

Please vote. At least let us have consensus on whether there should be a deadline, otherwise we may not be able to agree on which option, if any, won the poll.

===No deadline, whichever option reaches 70% first===

<!-- Put your signature here to support this -->

# '''No'''. [[User:Gcbirzan|gcbirzan]]^{[[User_talk:Gcbirzan|talk]]} 19:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) - I'd also favour a "70% or 6 weeks, whichever comes first" kind of thing.

# '''No'''. [[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 02:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) - What if we reach the deadline and end up with a 50/50 result? A 70% assures this won't happen, no matter how long it takes. As an example, the polls at [[Template talk:Europe]] have been active for the past 8 months and are routinely closed when that 70% is reached.

# '''No'''. [[User:MPerel|MPerel]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|contrib]])</small>} 02:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) - Wait to reach 70% for clear consensus.

# '''No'''. {{User:Rdsmith4/Sig}} 03:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Though 70% seems a bit high, and it's unclear which option will be the default if no consensus is reached.

#: No consensus means just that: that there is no consensus. This poll is not to decide what to do, but to determine whether a consensus exists, or can be created, on what to do. See [[Wikipedia:Survey guidelines]] --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 08:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::Wrong. The poll is to decide what we should do with the image '''now'''. The poll's options are such that you won't get any kind of compromise via consensus or discussion. You either show the image or you don't. Period. —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 11:15, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

#::Please read and try to absorb [[Wikipedia:Survey guidelines]]. The intent of this poll is clear--to see if the initial straw poll, which was strongly in favor of a link, could be built into a consensus to link instead of inline. This poll, should it fail to build consensus, does not preclude the use of further polls to try to arrive at a consensus. Unless a consensus is built from a poll, it is highly unlikely (and would tend to go against Wikipedia history) that it would be taken as binding. This poll may or may not decide the fate of the image--depending on whether it is successful in building a consensus. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#'''No''' I really don't want to see a one vote victory for either side. [[User:Geni|Geni]] 04:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

===Yes, the poll should have a deadline===

<!-- Put your signature here to support this -->

# '''Yes''' --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#'''Yes'''. All our conclusions have deadlines. It doesn't mean they can't be changed later on, but we at least should come to a conclusion at some point. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 17:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#'''Yes'''. [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 19:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#'''Yes'''. There will never be a 70% consensus (as I write this, "Link" would need to get about 45 consecutive votes to achieve this). [[User:Flyers13|Flyers13]] 20:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#'''Yes'''. I think it should be earlier though, like 27 Feb 2005. {{User:Mathx314/sig}} 20:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#'''Yes'''. [[March 20]] is like a good deadline. [[User:Markaci|Mar]]·[[User_talk:Markaci|ka]]·[[Special:Contributions/Markaci|ci]]:<small>2005-02-9 02:44 Z</small>

# '''Yes'''. 70% is a very high threshold, and if neither option ever reaches it then what's the default, the status quo? Or do we switch back and forth as one option or the other takes the lead? -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 04:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Yes'''. All good things must come to an end. An endless poll is reminiscent of [[infinite loop]]s and [[zombie process]]es. I too agree that we will never reach 70%. [[User:Foobaz|foobaz]]&middot;[[User talk:foobaz|&#10000;]] 04:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# '''Yes'''. Of course some decision must be made. A decision for no deadline is simply a tacit decision to keep the image - basically, it means that the image can only go if it reaches 70% in favor of linking. This is a zero sum game - a simple majority is ultimately the only way to decide this. [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 06:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:I don't believe a "yes" vote is a vote for "simple majority wins." If it's near a 50/50 split, there is obviously no concensus. Which is what the poll is intended to gauge, presumably. I understood it as "after an appropriately long amount of time, sort things out and come to a decision." [[User:Limeheadnyc|{{User:Limeheadnyc/Sig}}]] 06:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::And who makes that decision? Another poll? LOL. 70% is the best way to avoid this. [[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 06:27, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

#::If there's no consensus, some decision still has to be made. Arguing for 70% is simply arguing that the image should remain. The vote is clearly going to be close. If linking it wins by only a few votes, it seems absurd to keep it as it is because there is no consensus - there is no consensus for ''either'' option in such a situation, so why should the non-consensus position that received an absolute minority be the one accepted? [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 07:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::: I think it's incorrect to approach this problem from the point of view that "a decision has to be made." There is no rule that says a decision has to be made--indeed if there is a Wikipedia rule it is that decisions are made and enforced by consensus. If there is no such consensus then no decision ''can'' be made. Editors should deal with the page as they see fit, although it would be foolish to completely ignore a near-consensus vote for either option. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 08:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:::: That's because you don't want any final decision to be made. You want to keep arguing and arguing that is POV to link the image until people get tired and go away. —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 11:07, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

#::::: That is absolutely false. As I've made plain prior to the poll, I'm happy with either an image or a link. I propose a deadline because this is recommended in [[Wikipedia:Survey guidelines]] and this was how the polls on [[Clitoris]] were managed. Please read [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] and try to absorb its advice. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::::::"Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and try to absorb its advice." I would advice that you do the same. —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 11:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

#:The funny thing is, ''I'' made that 70% proposition, and as you know, I deeply oppose the showing of the image. I'm aiming here for a strong consensus. If we reach a deadline and the vote is a split, any consensus will be weak, and therefore people will want to make another poll. [[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 06:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

#::Not necessarily. If, for instance, we could come to a consensus agreement that majority rules, even those who are defeated would agree that whatever reaches a majority was acceptable. Given that a 70% majority is highly unlikely, this seems to me the only fair way to settle it. [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 07:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#:: I think it's unlikely that we'd reach a consensus that majority rules. We make decisions by consensus on Wikipedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 08:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::: And how do you expect such a large group of people to reach a consensus? People in congress don't use consensus to get laws passed; yes, they discuss, but they ultimately vote, and majority wins. Same thing here. Establishing some sort of consensus with such a large number of people will be impossible and a vote and a clear winner are needed in this case. On the other hand, if this was a small issue about two or three people disagreeing with each other, then a consensus could be well be possible to achieve. Due to the large number of people involved in this, that will be impossible. —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 11:02, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

#:::: "People in Congress don't use consensus." This is not Congress. On Wikipedia we make decisions by consensus. Surveys are not used to decide "clear winners", they used to determine whether a consensus exists or can be built. See [[Wikipedia:Survey guidelines]]. In particular, I caution you against any attempt to hijack this attempt to build consensus and attempt to turn it into a winner-takes-all poll. If as seems to be the case a substantial minority opposes a link, then all we will be able to say is that we could not reach consensus over whether to inline or have a link. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#::::: But the large majority opted for not having that image there, and you want to be blind to that fact and do nothing because it suits your personal interests. That policy is flawed because it doesn't address issues where a large number of people is involved and where consensus, as the policy defines it, will be next to impossible to achieve. We can always change the policy. And of course this isn't congress; that was merely an example to illustrate a point. Don't take everything literally. —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 11:37, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

#::If you want to change the Wikipedia policy of making decisions by consensus, and instead impose majority rule, then please feel free to make that policy proposal in the correct forum. Meanwhile we will use this poll to see if a consensus can be built, according to Wikipedia policy. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#'''Yes.''' I'd much prefer that the image stay inline, so this vote may seem counterproductive. But you see, I feel strongly that the filibuster-esque suggestion of maintaining the poll until it reaches clear majority (i.e. indefinitely) is a suggestion to undermine the democratic principles of Wikipedia. [[User:LizardWizard|LizardWizard]] 08:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

#'''yes.''' &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Davenbelle|Davenbelle]] 08:26, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Yes.''' As with other Wikipolls, a clear consensus is required to change the status quo, but we should allow ample time for such consensus to be reached. [[User:Austin Hair|''ADH'']] ([[User talk:Austin Hair|t]]&[[Special:emailuser/Austin Hair|m]]) 08:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

#'''Yes.''' There should clearly be a deadline, albeit not in the immideate future. This needs some time.--[[User:TVPR|TVPR]] 08:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

===Comments===

Okay, as of now (11:15 UST on [[9 February]], [[2005]]), 72% of those voting on this question want a deadline. Cantus, do you want to take that as a consensus, or do you want to set a deadline after which we count votes for and against having a deadline? :) --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:If we were to use a 70% on '''this''' poll, then we would be invalidating this very own poll. Oh the irony. You see now that the only way we will get anything done is by defining by mathematical terms who the winner is? —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 11:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

:: I don't follow your reasoning. Why would using the same standard that you propose for the main poll invalidate ''this'' poll? I'm quite happy to wait for a deadline on this poll if you prefer. I propose that we run this poll on whether to have a deadline on the main poll, until [[20 February]], [[2005]], to see if we have a consensus (to be determined as >=70% of all votes) to have a deadline on the main poll. If alternatively you wish to accept the current >70% of all votes as a consensus, that is fine too. Whatever floats your boat. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::We can't use any of the standards we're deciding about on this poll to decide issues concerning this poll, because the standard itself has not yet being decided. We have to set an altogether different approach. —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 11:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

:::: Why do you think we cannot use any of those standards? I'm perfectly happy to agree to either standard for the sake of the poll, and I see nobody else objecting. So take your pick. We can go for first to 70% (or whatever number you want to use) or else have a deadline and see if we have a consensus (again, name your favorite number) after that. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::::: No. That would be like enforcing a law about enforcing laws to pass that very same law when that law has not yet passed. As I said above, we need to decide an altogether different approach to be used here. —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 11:57, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm against a deadline basically because that 70% might be reached before that deadline. Being needlessly bound by a deadline when a clear decision has been made would be a waste of time. See poll below. —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 12:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

: If that's your basic objection then I have no objection to accepting first-to-70% with a deadline of [[20 March]]. Abandoning the search for consensus, however, is out of the question. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Poll on how to interpret the outcome of the link/inline poll==

''Initiated by [[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 12:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)''

This poll is to decide what to do with the results of the poll [[#Poll: Should the image be shown inline, or as a link?]].

Would you agree that we ''do'' set a deadline, but if any of the options reach a 70% before that deadline, ''that'' option is declared the winner, and if that doesn't occur before the deadline, the winner is ''any'' of the options which has the ''largest'' percentage up to that point (the deadline)?

This poll needs a minimum of 30 votes in total and the options a maximum of 70% of support to be declared a winner.

The result of this poll will nullify the results of the poll [[#Poll deadline]].

===I agree===

#[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 12:14, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) - This is the most sensible option.

===I do not agree===

#'''No'''. See comments. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

===Comments===

I do not object to accepting a 70% consensus reached before the deadline, but I do object strongly to abandoning the principle of consensus if the deadline is reached. If no consensus is reached we should continue to try to make a consensus. This proposal constitutes an unacceptable attempt to hijack the survey process to produce a majority-wins vote. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:My friend, that will be the only way we will get anything decided here. Please accept this compromise. —[[User:Cantus|Cantus]]&hellip;[[User talk:Cantus|<big><big>'''&#9742;'''</big></big>]] 12:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)