Talk:Autofellatio/Archive 1

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


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

I, uh, know some experts in the field. Pizza Puzzle

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. :) -- Oliver P. 20:23 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

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


 * I'm reminded of wise saying, "Possible, but highly improbable, Captain." Hyacinth 00:45, 6 Feb 2005 (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... --Wetman 11:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you speak from experience? There are those of us out there who do... --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 16:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Autocunnilingus
A quick Google search reveals - 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... Dysprosia 09:32, 15 Mar 2004 (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. -- The Anome 09:43, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, no one's saying it's easy :) Here are some refs:
 * Yahoo group devoted to AC (needs sign in, contains some explicit pics)
 * alt.sex.masturbation FAQ
 * 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...

Dysprosia 10:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Clinton
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. &mdash; Matt 00:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to doubt Bill Clinton, a large-bodied man, had/has the agility to perform this feat, drunk or sober. I guess "attempted" is indeed the key word. --Freak of Nurture 06:42, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Not Pleasurable"
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?

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

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? 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To 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 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. --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. 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;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   08:07, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * True. Then there are those who might think autofellatio (or autocunnilingus for that matter) is a synonym for road-head (i.e. receiving oral sex whilst driving a car).--Freak of Nurture 09:47, Feb 15, 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. --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;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Random page link? 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I see you've been left without arguments. Carry on brother! &mdash;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Picture
From the deletion log:
 * 22:55, 10 Jan 2005 Rdsmith4 deleted Image:Autofellatio.jpg (pornography)

Here's my understanding of the situation: So what gives? Timbo 04:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There was no vote on Images for Deletion.
 * As per the 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.


 * 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. 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 16:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That would probably be the best thing to do. &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. &mdash; Matt Crypto 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. &rarr;Raul654 08:09, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Reuploading and IfD would seem the best thing to do. To be clear, 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, Village pump (policy), etc. etc.) Thanks, Timbo ( t a l k )  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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Autofellation.jpg on images for deletion
In case anyone has an opinion they'd like to voice about, please see its entry on images for deletion. Thanks, Timbo ( t a l k )  00:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


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

Unsourced citation
Some 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 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. --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."
 * 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. &mdash;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   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.. --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. &mdash;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   00:04, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * If goatse is really this mild, maybe I should go look at it. --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. --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. &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. &mdash;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   00:52, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * 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. 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. &rarr;Raul654 01:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you're wrong. I have only reverted this page once. In my first edit, I moved the image further down in the article and made it a link; that was reverted by User:Limeheadnyc. In my second edit, I replaced the image with the offensiveimage Template; that was reverted by you. And then, in my 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) &mdash;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   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. 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 -- sannse (talk) 01:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Danny and Sannse. Neutralitytalk 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 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. &mdash;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   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! dab (&#5839;) 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. 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. --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. --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). dab (&#5839;) 10:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * For all the reasons already given, I also think that "Click to view" is the why to go. --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. --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? dab (&#5839;)
 * 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. --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 19:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We need to keep the entire encyclopedia work-safe, as long as we have the random page link. --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. --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. dab (&#5839;) 11:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to call a formal poll, I suggest you use the correct procedure. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If we're voting, I vote against POV censorship. User:Limeheadnyc 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...[jon ]   [talk ]   12:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I did place 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. --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. --Conti|&#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, 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 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, 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


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


 * Caching servers, which are apparently not liable for whatever's on the host. --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. 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. 21:53, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please cast your vote on Templates_for_deletion regarding use of Template:Offensiveimage. &mdash;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   05:14, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

this link
Since Image:Autofellatio.jpg has been listed as a 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 this link to view the drawing, which was found on 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;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   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. --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 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;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   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 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. --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. --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? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Autofellatio 2.JPG
EyeBall 13:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (A: Because he can.) I think I'm in love. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. Useless. Worthless. Awesome. 21:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Jeesh, I just put this image here to lighten the mood. I didn't think anyone would actually use it, much less start reverting eachother. Sorry people. EyeBall 03:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Autofellatio_symbol.gif
- does this make other people retch less? -- 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 23:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A warning on that external link would come in handy though. &#8212;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   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 - 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. 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;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   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;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Should the image be shown inline, or as a link?
Note: I have removed the image from the page, and I suggest that it remain so for now. This poll should continue to run in order to allow for full expression of opinion on this complex topic, but in the meantime showing such a photo absent overwhelming community support is unhelpful. I invite people to think carefully about this photo in the context of an overall view of our charitable, humanitarian, educational mission, and not be distracted by arguments about censorship and prudishness, which are very much beside the point here. --Jimbo Wales 05:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Since the photograph previously at image:Autofellatio.jpg has been replaced by a line drawing, I suggest that we suspend this poll indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Suspending the poll doesn't seem wise. We need (as a community) to have some standards for deciding where the line is between educational (aka encyclopedic) and non-educational. I think this image is one that should not be included - and have been afraid to be too vocal because I didn't want to be seen as supporting censorship - however, as has been said recently, "It's only that we are so afraid of being accused of censorship that we let it go on this long, I think." And to fail to complete this - start setting this line will only cause a delay of the inevitable discussion. Trödel| talk 03:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you're right. I've changed my mind. Let's keep it open. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Inline: 42 (36.21%)
 * Link: 74 (63.79%)
 * Results updated by: Paul August &#9742; 11:46, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to vote on the poll deadline.

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? -- sannse (talk) 02:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Poll discussion moved to

Keep image inline

 * 1) 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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? 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. -- 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. --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 motorcades. 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. -- Curps 01:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I tried adding a screenshot to goatse.cx just now, but an admin speedied it. --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. -- 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. 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. -- Curps 15:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) 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. T IMBO   ( T A L K )  15:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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.) --fvw *  16:42, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
 * 3) If we're going to vote, I vote to keep the inline image. --SPUI 01:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Inline. Do not allow cultural POV to do with prudity influence policy. --Oldak Quill 16:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Inline. 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. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 23:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Inline. The image is no more offensive than the article itself. We should keep or delete them together. GeorgeStepanek\talk  00:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep inline, but I wouldn't object to an image change. This one shocked me a bit. &#8212;Mar&middot;ka&middot;ci: 2005-02-4 03:02 Z
 * 8) 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. LizardWizard 04:26, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) The image should be kept inline. Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. - --Content disclaimer. Furthermore, removing this image sets a very, very bad precent. &rarr;Raul654 04:36, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Inline. Flyers13 04:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Inline. &mdash; Davenbelle 06:21, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC) &mdash; Davenbelle 10:12, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) 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; MikeX (talk) 12:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Inline. It adds to the topic, and is not a copyvio. It thus belongs. --Improv 14:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) 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. --Carnildo 19:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Keep inline, BUT move further down the page and put a disclaimer at the top, maybe? --[jon ]    [talk ]   20:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) 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? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 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. &rarr;Raul654 21:13, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Inline. Noisy | Talk 21:07, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Inline though I have no problem with putting it below the fold. RickK 21:11, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Inline The bellman 21:24, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
 * 4) Inline Dunno what all the fuss about. Please don't let puritan cultural POV to influence policy &#8212;Christiaan 21:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) 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. Jamesday 21:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Inline, though putting it farther down the article would probably reduce complaint without compromising integrity any. Bryan 00:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) 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. --Eloquence* 01:34, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Inline --GatesPlusPlus 04:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) 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. Rama 09:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Inline:  13:17, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * 11) Inline: But also see my suggestion at the bottom of the page. Palestine-info 13:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Inline. If someone wants to just find out what word 'autofellatio' means, they can consult Wiktionary. -Hapsiainen 14:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC) I changed my vote.
 * 1) Inline - David Gerard 13:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep it inline Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 21:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Inline, assuming any images used are copyright-safe. Guanaco 23:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Inline. Anything else is blatantly POV. - Vague | Rant 03:14, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Inline. Cultural POV and plain silly, considering what Wikipedia is not and the content disclaimer. gcbirzantalk 05:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) 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. 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Inline. People don't come to this article by accident. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 11:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, someone unsuspecting could end up here through Special:Randompage --MPerel( talk 20:56, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * They could also get to penis, clitoris, vulva, etc. through Special:Randompage. Should we delete those pictures? T IMBO  ( T A L K )  02:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but moving any "borderline" pictures down so that they are at least a page away from the top of the page on most screens would be a good idea. r3m0t 16:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Inline. 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. ADH (t&m) 12:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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? --TVPR 13:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Inline &mdash; J3ff 06:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Inline Pic is illustrative and useful Tuf-Kat 18:43, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Inline, but again, I will steer clear of this hot potato.  -- R yan!  |  Talk  20:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Inline Beta m (talk) 18:28, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * 7) Inline. Why not? Lethe | Talk 11:18, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Inline. Are we afraid people will stumble across this page by accident, or something? If compromise is really necessary, put it below the first page with a warning, but really now. The article is about the exact subject which the picture depicts. If you are looking up this particular subject, what do you expect to see on the page when you click the link, a field of daisies? Seraphimblade 03:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Inline. Educational.--x1987x 22:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Use a link

 * 1) 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. --Conti|&#9993; 13:23, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Link. 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? --gcbirzantalk 05:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Link.  Aphaea  *  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.
 * 2) Link. Johnleemk | Talk 16:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) It's only common sense. This is the same reason we avoid directly linking to Goatse.
 * 3) Link. Same what sannse said. &mdash;mikko (speak) 16:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Link. Robert the Bruce 16:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) a link rather than inline.
 * 5) Link. - Cantus&hellip;  &#9742;   - Inappropriate image that greatly damages Wikipedia. Little educational value. NPOV is not an excuse for lacking good judgment.
 * 6) Link. Vacuum c 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.
 * 7) Link. 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. Neutralitytalk 04:22, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Link as a compromise. This is clearly inappropriate, with little no educational value. I would also like to find out something about the copyright of this particular image. Danny 05:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh come on Danny, to say that the image has no educational value is ridiculous. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 12:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And the educational value would be? And is it worth the potential copyright violation? 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. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  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?? <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 22:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Link. mav 05:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Link. At the very least. john k 05:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Link. 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.
 * 4) Link. jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 08:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Click to see dick.
 * 5) Link. Or delete. A judicious editor said, draw the line here: photographs of genitals: encyclopedic. photographs of sex acts: unencyclopedic. dab (&#5839;) 09:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Link.   &mdash; mark &#9998; 10:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Link. Not that it matters vandles will be inseting this image across the wikipedia soon enoughGeni 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. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  14:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Give it time. 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. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  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 usedGeni 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. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  17:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I rest my caseGeni 18:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Link. As Sannse. &mdash; Dan | Talk 16:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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? Noel (talk) 18:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Link - Seems like a good compromise - and not much trouble to click if you want to see the image.  18:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Link. This is one of those cases where pragmatism must win over idealism. Fredrik | talk 20:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Link. Doesn't make information unavailable, or even hard to get, so seems reasonable. --Delirium 20:44, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Inka dinka link. - UtherSRG 20:54, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Link. This particular image is graphic and artless. I might support a more tasteful image inline. Rhobite 21:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Link &#10149;the Epopt 21:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) 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? Kosebamse 21:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) 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, here it is in Orca, which was the featured article listed on the Main Page at that time. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 21:57, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Link. older &ne; wiser 22:29, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Link. Preferred would be a drawing such as those used in the sexual position articles. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Fredrik | talk 23:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Link. As a compromise and not an endorsement. Duk 23:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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. +sj  +  23:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Link!  &#9999; Oven Fresh  &#9786;  23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Link. - 172.205.205.112 00:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your very first wikipedia contribution! &mdash; Davenbelle 00:50, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * This anon vote shouldn't be counted. &mdash;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   07:47, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, I removed it from the numbered list. Rhobite 23:07, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Link. I avoided this article today at work and realized I do want Wikipedia to be work-safe. Hyacinth 00:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This fails to address why you're looking up autofellatio at work - David Gerard 13:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Link. - MykReeve 01:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Link Goplat 01:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Link Gkhan 03:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Link for reasons others have stated. -- Curps 07:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) 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. Fuzheado | Talk 08:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) 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. Arkady Rose 10:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Link OneGuy 22:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Link RoseParks 02:09, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Link violet/riga (t) 15:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Link - Disgusting and unnecessary image, people shouldn't be forced into seeing it. &rarr;mathx314(talk)(email) 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? <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 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. -- 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)? <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b>
 * 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 -- 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! <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 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. &rarr;mathx314(talk)(email) 02:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't follow that logic. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  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. &rarr;mathx314(talk)(email) 20:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you feel the same way about offensive text? --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 Graphic and potentially disturbing images, Image censorship, almost the entire clitoris talk page and archives, Wikipedia_Talk:Images unsuitable for inline display, Categories_for_deletion, 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. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  20:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) 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. --MPerel( talk 22:58, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Link Shanes 03:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Linking 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.) - Mark 03:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) 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. Samboy 21:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a proposal for this at Descriptive image tagging that you might want to look at, then. --Carnildo 22:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Link. Bishonen | Talk 00:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Link. Agree with Taco Deposist that a line drawing would be acceptable inline. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 14:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Link. --Slowking Man 22:33, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Link, i'm okay with boobs and clitori but please no men sucking their own dick. Grue 11:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Link. - Nunh-huh 06:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Link. Wikipedia isn't a porn site, and the value Wikipedia gains by being work-safe is much greater than the value Wikipedia gains by including images like this one or the Goatse image. There's a big difference between the illustrations in penis and something like this. There's also a big difference between Ashcroftian censorship (where a central government attempts to completely ban the viewing of pornography or whatever else in the hopes that people won't have any way of viewing it) and an editorial decision not to include an image like this in Wikipedia. It's also a disturbing (shocking?) image for a lot of people, and readers should be able to choose whether or not they want to look at it, just like we currently give them that choice at Nick Berg and harlequin type ichthyosis. Dave6 08:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Link - having it inline doesn't bother me in the slightest, but it also doesn't provide any worthy benefit to the Wikipedia to balance out the fact that it dismays so many good contributors. &mdash;Stormie 10:31, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Link - though I'm not too fussed either way. Xezbeth  14:35, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Link. I opine that this is not "POV censorship"; there are plenty of reasons why people might come to this page without expecting to see the image.  "Random page" is the most obvious example. It's also possible that some people might not know what autofellatio is, and would click the link to find out.  Remember, not all Wikipedia readers are mature adults; a child could easily see an unknown word, click for more information, and see a man sucking on his own penis.  Besides, I know many network admins that would consider such an image to be a reason to block this entire site with a filtering service&mdash;especially if that image were put there by community consensus.  Don't get me wrong&mdash;I really hate censorship&mdash;but there's no particular need to shove such images in people's faces to say, "look!  Wikipedia is free of censorship!" --bdesham 04:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Link - inline is Not Safe For Work/School/Anywhere. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Nor is Wikipedia. --gcbirzantalk 06:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Link &mdash; I think the best option is to give the reader the choice whether to view the image or not, and not to make it for him or her beforehand. It's quite possible someone would want to read the article and learn about this topic without seeing the image (I fall into this category, for example). I don't believe putting a link would be an act of censorship (It would be nice to have some software solution where users could specify whether they wanted to view controversial images inline or not.) &mdash; Matt Crypto 09:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Link SweetLittleFluffyThing 11:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC). People gave already all the arguments above
 * 3) Link lots of arguments above, 14:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Link keep available through link for those who want to see, I did not know what autofellatio is when I visited this article for the first time and I'd prefer Wikipedia to be work/school safe. --Bjarki 15:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Link - inline is clearly not acceptable to many members of the community, destroy completely is also clearly not acceptable to many members of our community. Absent some new technical solution, this is the only possible compromise. Pcb21| Pete 16:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Link - SimonP 19:47, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Link -- there is a real (although admittedly difficult to articulate) difference between censorship and an editor's care in effectively reaching an audience.  I think that, to promote the larger goals of Wikipedia (which cannot be successfully summarized as "fighting censorship" in my opinion, although I may be wrong), we should offer our readers a link to this picture but not load it inline with the article -- this is not the action of a group trying to censor information about autofellatio (after all, we're presenting a reasonably detailed article about it), but rather the action of a community of editors that have carefully weighed the possibilities and realize that, for too many people, the inline display of this article would seriously deter too great a percentage of our audience from using us as a ready resource (because of their concern for children, workplace environment, etc.).  And if anyone thinks I'm way off base, I'd welcome comment at my user talk page. Jwrosenzweig 21:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Link - Imagine 17 year old High School Junior working on a paper related to "Human Sexuality". While she and her parents and teachers may have no problem with her reading about various aspects of sexuality - seeing them depicted is a little different.  A link allows the reader to have a little control over their experience.  Johntex 20:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Link -- if someone follows a link from one of the articles which links to Autofellatio, or does a Google search, or uses the Random page feature, they should not be exposed to this image immediately. It should be possible to read the article to find out what Autofellatio might be without being subjected to the image.   I have not, in fact, read the article because I don't want to see the image, and it isn't clear to me at present whether the image is there. There are a large number of people who are not comfortable with this type of image and do not wish to see them.  Images of unusual sex practices are regarded as "shock images" and/or pornography by many. Others may be fine with this type of image.  Wikipedia editors who think there is nothing exceptional about these images should not attempt to force their views on everyone else.   This is not about openness; it is about respect for Wikipedia's readers.  Personally, I think this type of image should not be in the Wikipedia at all.  It discredits the encyclopedia with a large proportion of its potential readership, makes it problematical to use the Wikipedia in precisely those places where encyclopedias are commonly used (namely, schools and libraries)  and it fights a battle that is completely at a tangent to the aims of the project.  I don't expect to gain a consensus for that view.    But at least lets keep these images as optional.  --BM 02:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Link--Comrade Nick @  )---^--  10:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Link Paul August &#9742; 04:07, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Link. With the line drawing this is very reasonable. We should not censor anything, not even this crappy picture, but we ought to give users choice. If a prospective reader wanted to see explicit images, there's google, but a reader presumably wants to learn about the topic. Whether they want to see the image or not ought to be their decision. Cool Hand Luke  10:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Link. I find the image distracting and somewhat unpleasant.  I would be likely to avoid reading the article with that image visible.  -- Creidieki 03:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Link this and link all pictures that we know are likely to be unacceptable to at least the average reader. Encyclopaedias are not greatly improved by pictures of erect penises, vulvas and breasts, no matter how much we like to pretend that they are. They simply serve to exclude some of our readership. Yes, I understand that some of the editors here would like to exclude those who don't share their views -- it's the motive force for some! -- but I'd hope there was still a shred of the ideal here. There is no censorship here. Those who want to see the pr0n need only click the link.Dr Zen 02:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Link. That way the "educational mission" of WP which Jimbo refers to can still be served, but those may not have known what this topic was when they came to the article will be informed by the text, but not see the image unless they deliberately choose. Jonathunder 00:12, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
 * 16) Link. Choice is a good thing in cases like this. Rx StrangeLove 03:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Preferably neither, but a link is the less of two evils. 80.255 17:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Link &mdash; Pladask 01:09, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Other/Comments

 * 1) (Note: I voted above) Neither 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"? 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. --Conti|&#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. 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. --Conti|&#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? 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. --Conti|&#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. 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. 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. --Conti|&#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. --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. &rarr;mathx314(talk)(email) 02:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) 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, 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. 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. dab (&#5839;) 09:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious to you maybe. Haha. &mdash;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. Postdlf 00:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) 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. dab (&#5839;) 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. :) Bryan 18:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree with dab above. &mdash;Cantus&hellip;  &#9742;   10:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * These are arguments to delete the image. That motion has already failed. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  17:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What was decided was deleting the image from the servers, not from this article. Nice try. &mdash;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   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. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  00:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Abstain &mdash;Ashley Y 12:11, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
 * 2) 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. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 22:07, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That is already in progress. 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. --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. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 04:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "That would be great" -- Haha. OMG. &mdash;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   10:43, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't get it... what's the funny part? <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Link temporarily (within WP, not external lk) pending new mechanism for handling such cases.
 * I hasten to say that
 * images cannot be inherently "pornographic" since the study of images used as porn can be a non-porn, and encyclopedic, purpose,
 * we should not suppress encyclopedic info just bcz some readers would use it with porn intent, and
 * we neither need to, nor can, accomodate needs created by users' belief systems: those who believe they would have "evil" thoughts or feelings in response to an image, that those with other belief systems wouldn't have, or would find normal and tolerable, have made a mistake in either blindly surfing or specifically linking to WP.
 * However, it is plausible to me that relevant inherent harm, harm at what i'll call a gut level, may be possible from "shocking" images: it is a reasonable evolutionary-psychology hypothesis that (especially in females and concerning naked males) some images are inherently frightening enough to be traumatic to people with fairly normal psychology, and so inherently frightening that "knowing better" than to pay attention to the fear, or "knowing it's in the past" is irrelevant. But i can't reliably recognize such "semiotics", and votes are capable only of roughly gauging which images might be risks of that kind and justify evaluation by a competent professional.
 * IMO there should be a procedure in place whereby a psychotherapeutic professional is selected by the WM board thru interviews and placed on retainer. The pro makes a determination, if an image meets both of two threshholds. (The numeric threshholds are to be set as a standing policy by the professional in consultation with the board.)
 * One threshhold is an absolute number of experienced registered editors believing the image is harmful as described above.
 * The other is a percentage threshhold, for the ratio between the "harmful" votes and votes of experienced registered editors who believe professional review is a waste of effort.
 * Until achieving both threshholds, until the end of the voting period, the image stays subject to normal editing practices. From the point where both are met, it should be temporarily linked instead of left inline. (The length of voting would be set by the board). If either threshhold fails at the end of voting, it goes back to inline, and arguments for linking or removal, based on harmfulness (or similar concepts like porn), are off-topic; if both threshholds are met, the image stays linked and the case goes to the professional for arbitration.
 * --Jerzy(t) 06:47, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment.
 * (My vote for "other" is above.) The question of linking or inline should not have arisen, bcz the image is not relevant to this article. Even if the act is a mere fantasy, an article can be written about that, but such an article does not even need a drawing let along a photo. On the other hand, if the act is a verifiable reality, an article concerning both the fantasy and the act would be called for, and since seeing this remarkable act is fairly crucial to believing, an image that verifiably depicts it is desirable in such an article.
 * But this is not such an image:
 * The framing makes it entirely suitable as a momento of having seen the act performed in person, but as an effort at proof it fails miserably: there is no reason to assume that the thigh, the genitals (or dildo), the upper body, or perhaps even the hand were shot simultaneously or even originally part of the same body as each other: if the images were superimposed and edge effects fixed by a professional, framing like this to exclude the intermediate body parts would be the easiest way to solve the biggest problem of faking the pic.
 * In fact, it's hard to imagine reliable evidence. You or i probably couldn't afford to produce a convincing whole-body fake. But a Hollywood CGI wizard might own the company and its resources, or be permitted to use them to practice up for the next paying client, by making jackalopes and autofellators in full body or in motion, so the best possible image becomes convincing only by your taking the word of someone credible who saw the image being shot from life. Of course, they can send people to jail for swearing to a lie -- well, as long as the lie can be proven, and is relevant to the legal proceeding in which the lie is sworn to! So what makes anyone credible in verifying something that like this? I can't even rule out Walter Cronkite or Mike Wallace or Jimbo Wales saying to themself "this is so implausible that my pretending to lend my credibility to it does no damage: it's a piece of performance art that simply demonstrates that no matter how absurd a thing you make up, there'll be people uncritical enough to believe it." (That is, i can see these potential witnesses taking that approach, assuming of course that they've never seen it done!)
 * BTW, the dildo article deserves a pic with a few samples of conservative and extravagant dildoes.
 * --Jerzy(t) 06:47, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
 * 1) Neither Arno 06:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neither. I won't support the image now that Jimbo has spoken out against it. foobaz&middot;&#10000; 03:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neither. I have to quote Anthere's message in WikiEN-list: "... the lowest part of the image is cut. I actually wondered if it was REALLY autofellatio...It may be that the image is not honestly reporting what we are led to believe it is." Therefore the image doesn't prove that the act is possible, so it has no use in this article. -Hapsiainen 13:05, Feb 15, 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;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   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? --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 -- 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.

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;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   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. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * How will the survey be totalled?
 * See 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.

--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. Geni


 * Well, it might take longer than expected, but I believe eventually that 70% will be reached. &mdash;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   07:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

$$40 + x = \frac {70} {100} * (40 + 51 + x)$$
 * Inline (40 votes; 79 to go)

$$x = \frac {0.7 * (40 + 51) - 40} {0.3}$$

$$x = 79$$

$$40 + 79 = 119$$

$$\frac {119 * 100} {119 + 51} = 70%$$ $$51 + x = \frac {70} {100} * (40 + 51 + x)$$
 * width=20px |
 * Link (51 votes; 42 to go)

$$x = \frac {0.7 * (40 + 51) - 51} {0.3}$$

$$x = 42.333 \ldots \approx 42$$

$$51 + 42 = 93$$

$$\frac {93 * 100} {93 + 40} \approx 70%$$
 * }
 * 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, jguk 11:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Problem is that going by theevidence so far that position doesn't have a chance of winning. 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! 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%. --gcbirzantalk 06:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the abstain/neither should count towards the total number of votes. --gcbirzantalk 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 -- 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. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear to me that the "linking" position is now the default one, since it is the status quo created by Jimbo, and that the "inline" position is the one that is going to require the 70% consensus. --BM 03:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There was a little bit of talk about "defaults" prior to Jimbo's intervention; this is contrary to the Survey guidelines, which make it plain that the purpose of a survey is as "an aid to achieving consensus and an indication of which options have the most support." We haven't achieved consensus on either linking or inlining.  However it seems to me that the current situation with an inlined drawing by Rama together with a linked photograph is likely to prove fairly stable. It is possible that consensus in the poll may be reached by March 20, but it appears to me that the Rama picture has probably taken the problem away.. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)