Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Autofellatio

Autofellatio

I don't want to hear anybody claim this nomination is in bad faith, a joke, or to prove a point. You may not like it, but I sincerely believe this photo represents the very best this project has to offer. I stand by that comment in total seriousness, and would say so anywhere -- the Pump, ArbCom, public square, or the sidewalk in front of my home.

I won't attempt to summarize the tremendous outpouring of support this photo has gathered; I refer interested parties to the many testaments given each time the narrow-minded nominate it for deletion. (See: here, here, and here.)

This photo is linked from Autofellatio, and was produced by Hornyboy.com / RudeBox Media, Inc.

Please note that all copyright issues have been resolved; this photo is licensed on a basis even less restrictive than GFDL. It is definitely not a copyvio or fair use.

Wikipedia is not a gay porno site, but then, this is not gay porno; and Wikipedia may be the only place where a person seriously interested in the topic might ever get this education outside of a gay porno site or a smelly corner of the "other" kind of bookstore. We are here to educate and inform, and our ability to do this without fear or bigotry is our finest quality. Perhaps no other photo we have is as deserving of the honor of FP.

• Nominate and support. — Xiong熊talk* 07:21, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent image, clearly illustrates the article. Zoe 07:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Support --SPUI (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I found the black lines of the chair somewhat distracting in the composition; had to look several times to determine that they weren't attached to the person. Smerdis of Tlön 15:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I'm glad someone shares my opinion. Ask, and it shall be done. — Xiong熊talk* 06:30, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

• Oppose. This photo is gay porn, and while it's informative and encyclopedic, that doesn't make it not prurient. Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia lacks propriety and decorum. Making this image a featured picture will display it to many people who would choose not to view it—it's simply a matter of common courtesy not to flaunt this picture by prominently displaying it. Furthermore, despite the poster's claims to the contrary, this nomination is transparently a bad faith nomination—the user who nominated it and those who support it should be ashamed of themselves for the ignominy that they would bring upon Wikipedia. Nohat 17:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: While this image is probably pornographic, I'd have to disagree about it being called gay. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction of someone to people of their own gender, to which the act of autofellatio has absolutely no bearing. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • This comment is so ridiculous that it's hardly worth responding. But I respond anyway because I want to be clear that I think it's a stupid comment, lest anyone think I tacitly acknowledge the claim made here. Nohat 05:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Image cannot be displayed inline; thus there is no point adding it to the FP gallery. —Cryptic (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, Can't be displayed inline? It certainly can, if the censors wouldn't keep deleting it. Zoe 19:43, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's on the bad image list. shows up as . —Cryptic (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, that page seems to be Tim Starling's personal opinion, it certainly isn't policy. Zoe 20:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Images that have been subject to several VFDs and cause division and anger in the community, and which are specifically prevented from being directly shown are clearly not suitable for becoming featured. In my opinion, any reasonable person would understand that nominating this image for featured would be controversial and divisive, so either the nominator is not a reasonable person, or specifically intends to cause controversy and division. Worldtraveller 21:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - i'd rather vote for the girls whose breasts were posted the other month. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support - that's a really great photo. It clearly demonstrates what's to be demonstrated, without being any more obscene that necessary, and it's probably the only free-as-in-speech photograph of autofellatio. It is not a pornography of any kind. Taw 02:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If you want to get technical, the image is pornography. HornyBoy.com, the source of the image, is a porn site. You might claim that pornography is defined by intention and setting, and I would agree with you that as used on Wikipedia it is not porn. But the photo itself is porn, at least in its native setting. LizardWizard 04:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. In bad faith, a joke, WP:POINT, and I don't like it. -- Curps 03:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you intentionally call it everything that Xiong said it wasn't? Please, either assume good faith or accept good faith when it is openly declared. Furthermore, jokes and WP:POINT are not very compatible - please explain how this nomination both is a joke and disrupts Wikipedia to make a point, or withdraw one of those objections. LizardWizard 04:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes I intentionally called it everything Xiong said not to call it. -- Curps 04:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. One of Wikipedia's greatest assets is that it isn't censored. Where else can a curious person turn for information and images of autofellatio? It's easy to find a picture of The Blue Marble or Lake Tanganyika, and harder than you'd think to find such a clear informative shot of autofellatio. We should show off what makes Wikipedia special, not what makes it exactly equal to National Geographic. LizardWizard 04:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This nomination is making a WP:POINT; it's a point I don't really disagree with, but it's disruptive to make that point in this way nonetheless.--Pharos 04:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, might as well put it now since no one else is abiding by the "wait two days guideline", and with good reason, of course. Phoenix2 04:55, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see what the problem is here. Wikipedians don't seem to be worried about having an article on autofellatio. The image adds significantly to the article by clearly illustrating the act. Isn't that the main criteria by which featured pictures are supposed to be judged? It doesn't seem that way here, because many of the votes above seem to be based on nothing more but the voter's personal distaste for the image. Also, what happened to the mandatory two day wait before voting? These premature votes will probably have to be disregarded. (_Donovan|Geocachernemesis|^Interact) 05:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. A fake. Clearly Photoshopped and the chair arm doesn't line up properly. Oh, and grossly offensive to many of our readers. Clair de Lune 07:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Can I ask how you're so certain it's fake? The chair arm looks fine to me. LizardWizard
    • It's clearly been photoshopped. Blow it up and you'll see that there's no gradient where the guy is bent over. His right arm throws a shadow but his chest doesn't, and the join is light but no shadows the other way. The chair arm at top slopes slightly upward or to the left (because it's a 2D image you can't say for sure which) but the bottom art of the arm slopes both to the right and downward. Look closely at his left arm. It should be almost in the same scale as his leg (just as his right arm is). But if it is, he must only lift weights with his right arm, because the left is very thin in comparison. I have my doubts it could meet his shoulders too. Among other things, I find these suspicious. Clair de Lune 05:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's nothing beautiful or striking about it, and it's only marginally informative. Despite Xiong's disclaimer, I can't see this as anything other than disruption. — Dan | Talk 16:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose like it or not, if it can't be displayed inline it's useless for FP. Also the image isn't particularly well lighted IMHO (although some phtososhopping could fix that. What is the black part on the upper left?). This link is Broken 12:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm quite happy with its inclusion in the project, but that doesn't mean I think it's a shining example of our image collection, which it really isn't. Oh and I think there might be some WP:POINT pushing for this conveniently-timed nomination too. ;) Garrett^Talk 14:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support, illustrates autofellatio well, and by my reading of the definition that should be sufficient. Damn. I was planning to do this next April Fools' Day, if the image is still around then. ~~ N (t/c) 14:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Oppose as per Phoenix2. ~~ N (t/c) 13:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. No, no, definitely not. It clearly illustrates the article, but isn't Wikipedia meant to have a certain amount of decorum as said above by Nohat--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 17:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's informative and accurate. Good enough for me! There are equally "pornographic" images stored on Wikipedia without contest. --Jacj 20:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That, actually, has nothing to do with why people, including me, are voting oppose. As is clearly evident, not too many folks are complaining about pornographic content being on Wikipedia, since it has already been established that Wikipedia isn't censored, and rightfully so.

Concerning this pretentious image, allow me to momentarily refer to the criteria for featured pictures: the picture must add significantly to its article. Yes, it can be argued that this picture indeed does so, but if this is the only criterion considered, then there are many more featured pictures on this Wiki than have been presented on this page, or ever will be. One must also taken into consideration if the image is striking, beautiful, serene, or whatever it may be. Ignoring the fact that this image, no matter how good the photography, may never be beautiful, serene, or heartwarming, It is simply not featured material when compared to images like Chestnuts, or any other featured picture for that matter that do actually look nice.

Consider for a moment that this man was just sitting in the chair doing nothing. We would not then say that the picture significantly added to Chair, there would merely be a lot of comments stating that the photo is nothing special. Just because it is pornography, It shouldn't be judged differently than the pictures below, and by that I mean people should not basically disregard the fact that the image actually has to be good. All I'm saying is that the topic of the image should not affect the balance of how you vote on a photo: both criteria should be looked at equally, and that is obviously not the case here. Phoenix2 00:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Weakly, because there is potentially some WP:POINT, it's on its third VfD. But, I think that it's a mistake to support only those images that are beautiful, serene, or heartwarming, otherwise, we will only ever feature pictures of animals.;) Wikimedia Commons already exists for images like that. I was under the impression that for pictures to be featured here, they also had to add significantly to the article that they appeared in. So, in that way, I think the picture has merit, even if not technically perfect. Perhaps we shouldn't get so hung up on the technicalities, and consider more images if its type. I think that arguing that the current image can't be displayed inline is a a bit of a red herring, because that can easily be changed. (_Donovan|Geocachernemesis|^Interact) 02:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Weakly. You make a good point Pharos, this particular image probably wouldn't be one of Wikipedia's finest, but I still don't accept that this kind of image should be excluded from being a FP. Modesty and discretion are so culturally loaded and POV. (_Donovan|Geocachernemesis|^Interact) 06:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Please look over WP:FP. There is a huge line between "it's crazy to censor this image on Wikipedia" and "this is one of Wikipedia's absolute finest pictures". There is hardly any requirement that FPs be "heartwarming", but they should be visually exceptional; I should hope Image:1936NurembergRally.jpg wasn't selected for its "heartwarmingness".--Pharos 02:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Pharos has done well, but be advised that I don't think that an image has to be heartwarming to be featured, I just said that it might be taken into consideration, or in other words, it helps an iamge if it is actually visually appealing. Also, if one looks at the current featured pictures, you will see that a majority are not of animals. The whole point of my post was that "A picture should add significantly to its article" is not the only criterion for photos, as stated above. Phoenix2 05:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I voted to keep the photo on Wikipedia, but IMHO, it's not worthy of being a Featured Picture. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 04:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I really don't like it. On a more objective measure, it's of little informative value and doesn't quite make anyone looking at it to find out more about the subject. Enochlau 06:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it is real, it is a vanishingly rare ability at best. Most humans don't bend that way (pardon the pun). Modesty and discretion aren't necessarily equivalent to fear or bigotry. Fire Star 06:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The bend in the subjects torso makes it impossible to determine with certainty that it is not two individuals. Hipocrite 22:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, like featured articles, featured images should be uncontroversial. If this ever gets featured status, it should not be used as pic of the day, as many users, including myself, would not want it included on their userpage like the other featured images even if they approve of its existence in Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I can't let that statement stand. FA and FP should indeed sometimes be controversial. If Wikipedia is the Free Encyclopedia of Uncontrovery Only, I'm outta here -- and taking a good fraction of the Community with me, too. — Xiong熊talk* 04:04, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Wikipedia certainly needs fewer people who actively try to stir up controversy, so goodbye then. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Nohat 05:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You do me too much honor, Sir. I cannot possibly take credit, unearned, for the resolution of the community in support of the subject against the forces that would reduce us to some miserable grade-school primer. I am only too proud to have defined my position, but this controversy is simply not mine alone. — Xiong熊talk* 06:14, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

• Oppose, only in fear that it might actually end up on the frontpage. Had a good laugh with the nomination, though. --tomf688^<TALK> 03:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• oppose because somebody's going to get inspired and try it and end up with thousands of dollars of chiropracter bills and sue wikipedia. Gzuckier 16:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. due to front page. -- user:zanimum
  • FPs don't have to be POTDs, do they? ~~ N (t/c) 01:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Are you sure is not a fake ? IMO it's a gay 69... Ericd 22:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • We've been over this before: Talk:Autofellatio#Fraudulent photo? ~~ N (t/c) 01:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I thought it would be a picture of a guy sucking a car's exhaust pipe. Gzuckier 01:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Did you see how you were framing back there? Subject matter or no, the arrangement of this photo makes it informative, but not beautiful. The lighting is also particularly un-striking, or whatever the antonym for striking is. -- Elfer
• Oppose. Sorry, but this is a joke, and a violation of WP:POINT. Isn't it ironic that this image is also on WP:VFD? Andrew pmk 03:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Would make a wonderful addition to the FP gallery. —RaD Man (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't even looked at the photo as the subject is so repulsive. There is no way such an image can be one of the best wikipedia has to offer. It's unthinkable what it would do to wikipedia's reputation if it ever made it to the main page. --Fir0002 08:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • It never would. FPs don't have to be POTDs. But it's just not FP-worthy anyway. ~~ N (t/c) 13:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Nick is right. Although I believe that pictures with such content should be eligible for FP, I don't really think that this picture exhibits a high enough degree of skill in photography or other elements which would make it a decent FP candidate. It seems the person who nominated it only nominated it to prove the point that wikipedia is an uncensored source of information. Unfortunately, he didn't select a picture which was actually good enough to become an FP. Anyway, what I was going to say was that although you would probably oppose the picture if you took an objective analysis of the photo itself, you still shouldn't vote on a photo you haven't even seen.

Support - 7 ~~ Oppose - 26 thus far. Phoenix2 04:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree totally with the other objections above. While I appreciate the openness of Wikipedia, there are some standards we need to maintain. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 14:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose As far as I can see, the only reason this is being considered is its controversy. The image just doesn't have any of the technical and aesthetic excellence I look for in a FP. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 11:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support for two reasons: It shows that it is possible to suck your own dick, and Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.
• Why are we even having this vote? Oppose. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Many people who support this say it "illustrates the article" -- yes, it does, but that's not necessary, what can possibly be ambiguous about "the act of oral stimulation of one's own penis"? Would a photo of someone eating fecies be necessary to illustrate coprophagia, by the same logic? I don't think it's necessary, and, as long as people are allowed to have opinions, I will say I personally find it offending. It's just another opinion, equal to the one stating that it's not offending, or that it's beautiful, or whatever else -- feel free call me narrow-minded if you need to call me something for speaking my mind. --Gutza 19:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• ( − ) ( − ) Strong Oppose. Any picture that is divisive enough to cause three IFDs, a 224 KB long VfD, several WikiFactions to form, and to put it simply, a total fragmentation of the Wikipedia community should never be a FP. Even though I'm assuming good faith, I move for speedy delisting of this nomination, as it is incredibly disruptive. --Titoxd 23:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose 'nuff said. --Janke | Talk 06:05:12, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any nomination which starts by denying that it is in bad faith, a joke, or to prove a point has a high chance of being so. This one is. --Audiovideo 21:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Not promoted Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:07, September 2, 2005 (UTC)