Talk:Autofellatio

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autofellatio article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

faq page Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Photo of Autofellatio Q: Why is there a pornographic/obscene illustration on this article? A: People's definitions of "pornographic" and "obscene" can vary widely. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide what may or may not be pornographic and obscene— that is up to our editors and the Wikipedia community. The main reasons for the inclusion of an illustration such as this is that Wikipedia has an established policy of including at least one suitable image in the lead section of every one of its articles. The current illustration (as of 10 September 2016[update]) depicts the act with medical clarity and after multiple discussions about other possible images which, though they showed that the act was physically possible, proved contentious for copyright and other reasons. A more full discussion of this history can be seen at Principle of least astonishment as well as our content guidelines on offensive material . Q: Why is the image so prominent? Can't we move it or make a special show/hide feature so it doesn't offend someone? A: modify their own web browsers to mask images of a type that they wish not to see. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content. Q: Why is there only one image? A: Images are used on Wikipedia because they have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is Commonscat }} template as we have done on this article.

	Autofellatio is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 5, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Stuef, Jack (March 27, 2012). "The Epic Battle For Wikipedia's Autofellatio Page". BuzzFeed. Archived from the original on March 30, 2012.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autofellatio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

I now understand your attachment to this section... [1]. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

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

]

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

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

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

I don't see this as an insult. Nor is it stated as such in the cited source. The insult is that Scaramucci thinks that Steve Bannon (and other senior officials of the Trump Cabinet) are too interested in media attention and using the popularity of Trump to build brands for themselves rather than being interested in what is best for the American people. He emphasises this point by using metaphor of autofellatio as quoted. So saying that the suggestion that Steve Bannon attempts to autofellatiate is the insult is technically incorrect (and before you ask

WP:OR is permitted on talk pages per "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.") Pabsoluterince (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

consensus. Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

--62.166.252.25 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]