Talk:Donkey punch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion for the first time on 17 February 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion for the second time on 1 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion for the third time on 10 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion for the fourth time on 4 October 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Comments

I saw the previous incarnation of this page created by an anonymous wikier speedily deleted within 10 minutes of its creation. The speedy deletion was somewhat valid, as it was a horribly written page. I've attempted to rewrite it, giving not only a definition but some cultural background. I guarantee that this is not a candidate for speedy deletion any longer.

If anyone thinks that a page about the collection of these "Urban legend" sex moves/sex jokes/whatever would be better, I'd agree, but I just created this one now, because of how quickly it was speedy deleted.

Lastly, check out this google search of "Donkey Punch" sex, to see how common this phrase is, and why it actually is encyclopedic.

—siro χ o 10:07, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Though I fail to see the point of punching your partner in the head when you're shagging them from behind; I'm sure there are other ways of making them clench their valuables... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:24, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place to spread misogynist bullshit. It does not matter how many less than convincing references you supply to push the misanthropic product of some mentally challenged porn producers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:58.77.35.141 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 22 June 2006

Regardless of your opinion, the article certainly is not patent nonsense, and so I have removed your tag. You could go through AfD again, but is is almost certain to be kept, as per the last 3 times. Kevin 11:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:58.77.35.141 xoxo This wiki entry about some misanthropic fantasy called "donkey punch" cites a perfect example of what Wikipedia has largely devolved into, a reservoir for lowlife nerds who have lost touch with reality. Oh, and it is not only patent nonsense it is complete and utter bullshit. How can the despicable needs of some benighted wankers be a justification for harming women? It is against Wikipedias own ethics to promote disrespect, slander and violence against women. Therefore the article has to go. There is no informational value in stating examples of pure misogyny. Amazona

Note: Amazona is a non-existent account, and contrary to the (apparently) forged signature, the above comment was actually made by anonymous user 211.194.18.60. Fourohfour 08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately for Wikipedia articles are not removed simply because one person thinks it "has to go." Wikipedia contains lots of articles on things that are not necessarrily nice. Wikipedia has articles on Rape and Incest, this does not mean that Wikipedia promotes rape or incest. What you are talking about is censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. — Linnwood 04:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This article promotes disrespect, hate speech and violence against women and therefore violates the wiki TOS. Keep your links to child pornography, woman abuse, rape and violent pornography to yourself.

My favorite line: "sometimes it is said to cause the muscles around the vagina or anus to contract around the penis, giving enhanced pleasure to the active partner. In one exaggerated telling[1] this phenomenon is of such great force as to result in the inversion of the rectum (which may then be described as a "pink sock")." When I read this fictional stuff I really wonder about your age? Go see a shrink dude. --Sara Anderson 20:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I don't doubt that the act itself (fictitious or not) is probably misogynistic in nature. I also agree that some of the "facts" in the article may be of dubious provenance.

The first is *not* in itself a reason to delete the article, any more than it is reason to delete an article on rape. Nor is the second; it's a reason to trim or rewrite the article better, provide citations and/or note the (un-)reliability of the facts. If and *only* if it is inherently not reasonably possible (or likely) to get a neutral article for a given subject/title should it be deleted.

But this assumes that the article was inherently biased to begin with. Which bits of

In reality, punching someone in the back of the head (rabbit punching) can damage the brain stem, causing death or permanent injury. It is illegal in professional boxing for this reason. The donkey punch may also be prosecutable as assault or sexual assault, in some jurisdictions even if consent is given.

promote "disrespect, hate speech and violence against women"?

I assume you were replying to Linnwood (lack of indentation makes it unclear). If so, your statement "keep your links to child pornography, woman abuse, rape and violent pornography to yourself" was a cheap smear on someone simply because they disagreed with your dubious argument for deletion.

That's not to say that I'm happy with the article as it stands, or even that it deserves to be an article in its own right. However, your arguments do *not* provide a basis for deletion. You clearly did not read the TOS which state that Wikipedia is not censored.

Fourohfour 15:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional; okay, more fool me. A short while after writing the above, I realised I'd probably been talking with a sockpuppet...

Two comments only? Check.
First instinct is to delete article because (apparently) it offends user's sensibilities? Check.
- ....implied assumption (or smear) that anyone that doesn't want the article immediately deleted condones the act described within (as well as "child pornography")? Check.
Familiar-sounding language? Check.
Reply was to user she (or rather, he) had had serious disagreements with in the past? Check.
User known to use sock puppets? Check.

Not that sockpuppets are against the rules, and there are perfectly legitimate reasons for their use. However, I shouldn't have associated the credibility of a new and separate voice with this one when it was just an old "friend" in new clothes. Let's not even get onto the fact that "Amazona" who took part in this discussion isn't even a real account. Make of that what you will. Fourohfour 09:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to put a mention of every two-bit web reference to this? I wouldn't be surprised if some of it was put there by somebody trying to promote something. I don't know. I remember this all as an internet fad a few years ago (around the time of "All Your Base") and Wikipedia covering internet fads is not my favorite thing on this site... Goatse has its own page, it seems like Wikipedia needs to try and cut down on these message board types who invent their own fads and add them to Wikipedia. As I said with all the references on this page, it seems like Wikipedia isn't the best at monitoring submissions for promotional value or notoriety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaphekiel (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 June 2006.

In the case of the absurd "pink sock" reference it is clearly not a reliable source. But then, most of the article is fundamentally nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 09:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe he meant "cultural references" specifically. I'm not sure about these; some may serve to bolster the credibility of the article itself. For example, the Donkey Punch's use as a CSI plot point suggests that it's at least *known* about in the wider world and isn't solely an obscure web reference solely discussed by 13-year-old boys.

On the other hand, I agree entirely that the inclusion of every minor pop culture reference along the lines of "in episode #379 of Fanboy's Favourite Cartoon, one of the characters mentioned DP which some believe to be a reference to the Donkey Punch" is not really defensible. Fourohfour 10:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small Problem

Tried to edit the cultural references to include the song by Avenue D and somehow it ends up showing up in the wrong area, not quite sure why but... Sixthcrusifix 05:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral treatment & language

As an encyclopedia article, the job of this article is to deal with this cultural phenomenon in a responsible way, however, I think going so far as to explicitly condemn it or argue with vulgar and chauvanistic pop culture moves beyond our goal of neutral point of view. Note that even the article on nazism is a normal NPOV article.

I'm concerned about the following 4 additions:

"Note: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide"

I think pointing out that the act, were to be actually practiced, would be sexual abuse and could be prosecutable, is adequate, and we don't need to include this kind of warning label (I've never seen any; does Wikipedia have warning labels for any other articles?).

"The assailant could also potentially be a female using a sex toy."

The alleged reason the actor would iniate the act would be the contracting of muscles around his penis, which would allegedly increase the actor's pleasure enough to motivate him toward this act (this logic is so weak it seems to me almost certain this act has never actually been done outside of porn). Someone using a sex toy would not experience pleasure from the contracting of muscles around the sex toy. IMHO this reference is too speculative for inclusion.

"Donkey punch is a slang term for a violent sexual assault, euphamistically called a "sex move""
"The attack abuses a person during consensual sex and involves the male punching the female..."

IMHO these (bolded) additions may go beyond neutrality in the terms used. The supposed act is non-consensual abuse occurring within consensual sex. Because of this, and because the motivation is sexual, it seems it may linguistically be primarily sexual abuse, and secondarily battery. If the strike were executed with enough force to cause bodily harm, battery or assault would be more applicable. Additionally, the article doesn't need to emphasize that the act is abusive every time the act is mentioned. --Nectarflowed 22:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. The Donkey punch is mostly a misogynist joke, and a cultural reference. While it would be awful, and a crime, for anyone to actually do this to someone, I find the tone of the previous edits to be not NPOV.

— Linnwood 17:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agree with Nectarflowed

Some clarification: your first two points are references to additions I made.

The "note" was added because I'm fairly sure I saw a similar note on another article. I know it's redundant but I just wanted to cover my bases because it seemed like a lot of people were getting really upset, like User:Silverback (see my talk page and VfD page).
I added the second point because, hey, it's POSSIBLE. I know it would defeat the purpose to use a strap-on, but I've seen videos where women simulate oral sex on a strap-on, and that doesn't make sense either, but they do it...

--Smooth Henry 22:23, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] from Vfd

On 17 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Donkey punch for a record of the discussion.

[edit] Explanation of Tony Sidaway's recent edits

The principal change is to move the article from one category to another. There is no documented evidence that this hypothetical activity has been carried out. There is not even (yet) any documented reference to this activity in published fiction, whether plays, films or books. Thus I've moved it to the class of sexual urban legends.

The term "sex move" when used to describe this activity is not very useful--it's like describing a blow to the head as a "conversational gambit". If this activity ever took place, it would be extremely unlikely to be consensual, so the argument that it's a sex move because "it takes place in consensual sex" doesn't wash. This is distinct from BDSM activities for which there generally does exist a consensual subculture of dominants and submissives. Let's not misclassify this misogynist fantasy as a "sex move" because of the pretensions of those who promote it. It's a hypothetical physical assault with a putatively sexual motive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think fundamentally we're in agreement, Tony. As a concern about terms, though, it is a supposed sexual maneuver employed for sexual reasons. It is merely 'supposed' because, as you point out, elements of it 'don't wash.' We can't change what it is 'supposed' to be, but we can include that the supposed maneuver would be abusive and potentially qualifies legally as assault, as well as that the description itself is misogynistic. To change the description, excising the supposed sexual reasons goes beyond the purview of an encyclopedia article, and IMO is redundant when we already point out that the sexual reasons are only supposed.

And finally, compare this to an abusive marriage, where the terms used to describe it don't shift so drastically that it is no longer termed a marriage --Nectarflowed 22:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abusive marriages exist. If the Donkey Punch can be established to have been part of some consensual sexual intercourse, we then have a data point establishing it as a sex move. Until then, I think my "conversational gambit" comparison holds.

Suppose there were a word "XYZZY" which I said, and numerous people agreed with this, described the act of stuffing a primed hand grenade down your partner's pants while you were both eating a meal in a restaurant. I might even go on Howard Stern and talk about my word. I contend that, unless this act is something that has actually been done, or widely published in fiction, in the context of dining etiquette, then it is inappropriate to describe XYZZY as an element of dining etiquette. It would of course be appropriate to describe XYZZY as a bit of slang for the aforesaid hypothetical act.

Equally, the fact that nobody can come up with a credible reference, even fictional, describing Donkey Punch as anything other than some fantasy of misogynistic guys, makes it inappropriate to describe it as a sex move. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re:Without evidence that it's actually practiced, it is "inappropriate to describe it as a sex move."

We're discussing whether ot not it can be described as a supposed sex move, i.e. a rumoured sex move. Is it supposed as a sex move or as a sex "activity?" It's clear when browsing through the 13,000 google hits for "donkey punch" and 'sex' that people regard it as a supposed sex move. It doesn't matter if it seems too violent to be a real sex move. The sentence in question is only describing how it is supposed, and the answer to that is clear.--Nectarflowed 02:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cat listings

should it be listed as Donkey Punch or as Punch, Donkey? --Smooth Henry 06:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "which would be an inclination of homosexual activity."

I removed this, as if a man was having anal sex with another man, that in-itself would be an indication of homosexual activity, not the donkey punch Linnwood 05:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] accounts

http://www.livejournal.com/community/bad_sex/1481185.html --Smooth Henry 22:21, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

This part:

"It seems most unlikely, but I have no idea if it's true. . . . I can see it going something like this: Guy punches girl in the back of the head during butt-sex. Girl pulls away, turns and punches guy in the face, gets dressed, and leaves. [1]"

is superfluous pandering, and it is not NPOV. The act is dangerous and illegal, and I think the article has a responsibility to point that out, however this retaliatory anecdote is just stupid.

[edit] Tony Danza

The Tony Danza section suggested that The Tony Danza was not related to the donkey punch, though it generally is considered to be. I also cleaned up the poor gender-specific wording, cleared up the explanation of the Danza Slap, and added that the term comes from the title of the television show. --Stevemcl 16:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

After googling it it appears to me that the "Tony Danza" is most often not considered to be related to the donkey punch. In some definitions the passive partner is hit in front of the face, and the term "donkey punch" is only occasionally mentioned. If nobody objects, I will remove that section and create a new article on the Tony Danza. Sammy1339 03:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Romero

Well, I suppose that's got to go, but that should really wind up somewhere, because, god damn, that was funny as hell. Harsh, yes, but funny.

-Deleted, mostly out of respect for the person. Tony Danza's bad enough.

[edit] no name, no city

Image my joy and delight upon finding this article in the encyclopedia. Oh, brave new world that holds such wonders! Herostratus 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This has to be the most ridiculous article I've ever read in Wikipedia, because it sounds like a how-to on a form of sexual violence, and because I've only heard ONCE of anybody actually doing it. I had a friend who was addicted to opiates, and he described doing it one time when he was having rear-entry sex with his girlfriend. He said he was so high on heroin that he couldn't reach orgasm, so in his frustration he decided to repeatedly punch his girlfriend in the back. He admitted to me that he'd done far more objectionable things than this, and most important of all, he didn't call it a "donkey punch," so I actually believe him.BrianGCrawfordMA 23:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It is complete bollocks from beginning to end, a hypothetical "sex move" never known to have been used. It's not even sexcruft, it is sophomoric idiocy. But attempts to remove it have thus far failed.

[edit] a joke

I am Assuming that the person or persons involved in adding "Donkey Punch" to WIKIPEDIA listings meant it as a joke and didn't or don't expect any one reading the article to actually perform this act esspecially with the infamous "victorious battle cry of 'DONKEY PUNCH'". Lighten up, it is probably for people to find out what the word refers to when used is conversations of stupid sex stories that never happened.

67.170.126.243 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)ADFri

[edit] 'performed...by a female with a strap on dildo'

I removed the phrase "and also by a female with a strap on dildo" from the first paragraph. If the "alleged purpose is to cause the muscles around the vagina or anus to contract around the penis or dildo, creating a supposedly enhanced orgasm" then it is not possible for dilo to feel contraction and hence enhance orgasm. The purpose would simply be the enjoyment of violence on your sexual partner, some thing other than the Donky Punch. — Linnwood 00:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Brian G. Crawford

User Brian G. Crawford has already blanked this article once and has a history of simply removing pages that he is offened persoanlly by. He brags about pages he has nominated for deletion on his user page, saying that his quest to impose his own morals on Wikipedia are "an ongoing battle against fandom, cruft, vanity, and crap article." (see his talk page for more) Any attempts by this user to remove this article, in whole or in part, will be considered vandalism. — Linnwood 20:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been following Wikipedia policy, and will continue to do so. You, on the other hand, left a message on my talk page after I explicitly told you not to. I didn't blank the page, I performed a merge and redirect. Anyone can do this. If you don't want your writing mercilessly edited by others, don't submit it. I don't know why you're so concerned with my morals, but I haven't made my morals public on Wikipedia. You misrepresent me. My reasons for thinking this article should be deleted have nothing to do with morals. Brian G. Crawford 22:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If he (in good faith) believes that this warrants a warning, he's perfectly within his rights to put it on your talk page. You absolutely do not have the right to tell people that they cannot do this.

Note that he did *not* include more than the bare minimum necessary in his warning.

If you genuinely believe that he is misusing this privilege or acting in bad faith, I suggest you take the matter up through the appropriate channels. Fourohfour 22:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford is now leaving threats in his edit summaries. Yet more evidence that he has some secondary motive in his continued vandalism of this article. — Linnwood 09:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Using the word "vandalism" in such cases is often a matter of opinion. If you wish to use the word in edit summaries for cases good faith is not *blatantly* breached, it may be helpful to link to the talk page for a fuller explanation of why you consider it vandalism. There just isn't enough space in the edit summaries for to-ing and fro-ing of conversations.

Either way however, I agree entirely that the tone of the comment in Brian's edit summary,

Reverting for reasons discussed in my previous edit summary. Call my edit vandalism again, and I guarantee I'll do something about it.

is threatening and antisocial. Either do something about it, state clearly what you intend doing (in unemotive language) or don't mention it at all. Fourohfour 14:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If Mr. Crawford would like to help find sources to cite for the the things in the article that would be welcome. But simply removing most of the article is vandalism in my opinion. The cultural referances surely can be cited, but slang is much more diffficult to cite. — Linnwood 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This page lacks merit, and in its longer form it more blatantly lacked more merit worse. I think on this particular topic there is no need for someone looking it up to find it in an encyclopaedia, and there is no need for WP to be the first encyclopaedia in which the search would be successful. Most of it also looks like WP:BALLS. Midgley 23:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether you "think on this particular topic there is no need for someone looking it up to find it in an encyclopaedia" is neither here nor there. This article has survived a vote for deletion, and the result was a Keep. It also has gone through many edits to reach a consensus that was stable until Mr. Crawford found the article and attempted to remove it due to it offended him. With other editors I always attempt to assume good faith, but his attempts to simply blank the page, and his laundry list of pages that he brags about removing on his user page I can only assume that his intent not to improve Wikipedia but to censor it. — Linnwood 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

Per WP:CITE:

When there is a factual dispute

Disputed edits can be removed immediately and placed on the talk page for discussion, or where the edit is harmless but you dispute it and feel a citation is appropriate, you can place {{citation needed}} after the relevant passage.

Please do no simply remove text from the article. — Linnwood 22:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove whatever I see fit to remove. Sometimes the best edits involve removing text. The AfD discussion was not a referendum on codifying the article in one form and deleting any future edits, which is what you seem to believe. All this stuff needs verification, and I'm not talking about that ridiculous list of trivia. I'm talking about sourcing the definition, and especially sourcing the musings on ridiculous things like the "pink sock." If you think (wrongly) that punching somebody in the back will cause their rectum to prolapse, then find a source. Otherwise, quit putting that stuff back. This page is a very attractive magnet to the wrong sort of people. Today, this little gem was put in:

"The most unique and hilarious variation, however, is the one where it is said that immediately upon being punched, the partner taking it up the ass contracts so forcefully, the active partner's penis is ejected three winks prior to ejaculation. At this critical juncture, a delicate BABY is also evacuated, and it immediately begins to eS the Dee of the repudiated partner to finish him off. If the baby is a good girl, she will swallow. Male babies never never nerver swallow. Good luck to everyone!"

I'm taking it out, of course, along with all the other unsourced information and the irrelevant trivia. If you want to revert me, bear in mind that I will report you as soon as you break the 3RR. You've been nothing but rude to me, and I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. Next time you leave your nasty little comments on my page, I'll just report you. Maybe I should report you for continually adding back unsourced and probably untrue information. Stop putting in unverifiable and unsourced information! Brian G. Crawford 20:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You can go ahead and "report" me all you like. 3RR does not apply to vandalism, nor is it any violation to leave messages on a person's Talk page. If you are uncomfortable dealing with other people maybe you should find a different hobby. — Linnwood 19:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this article is

WP:CB Midgley 20:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

So is tagging articles AfD with out checking out the history of it. — Linnwood 05:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Disputes

I have now for the third time reverted Brian G. Crawford's disputed tag, because it seems to me that he has not actually disputed anything apart from the mere existence of this article. I believe that this article is properly sourced, in part due to his harassment of it. If there is any particular fact that he would like to dispute, I hope he will bring it to our attention so that the hypothetical dispute can be resolved. Sammy1339 18:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I also do not see the reason for the dispute tag, having reviewed the comments above and the AfD discussions, as suggested in Brian's edit summary. I don't particularly like this article either, but it deserves to be in here. If there is a dispute, then let's hear the specific reasons for it. Otherwise, take off the tag and do not replace it unless it has a substantive purpose. Badgerpatrol 23:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Stollery

Excuse me User:Linnwood but please address the concerns made in the edit summaries PLUS add the citations missing before reverting

Well you can excuse yourself. Your concerns have been addressed in the past on this talk page, the attempts to deleted this article (linked above) and many many edit summaries. The items you removed from the "Cultural references" list are, shockingly, cultural references to the "Donkey Punch." The fact that they are not used aways in a sexaul conotation does not make them not a reference in pop culture. Regarding the {{fact}} tage, that is just silly. This article is about slang. This article has been nominated for deletion three times, and all three times the result of the discussion was keep. This article has gone through many many revisions and in a stable state. You may not like this article, but that really has nothing to do with it being on Wikipedia. — Linnwood 05:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You may not like the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy my friend but you, I, and everyone else must adhere to it. You are taking this a little too personally. It's not my concern whether the issues have been addressed in the talk pages, the citations need to be added to the article. Readers shouldn't have to sort through talk pages to find references to claims laid in articles. If you're suggesting that because it's an article on slang usage that any unverifibale claim can be added? That's ridiculous. And " it is said to cause the muscles around the vagina or anus to contract around the penis, giving enhanced pleasure to the active partner" is not a claim about the word but a claim about the human body. If the references are so easy to find on this page (I can't find them) then add them to the article! In the meantime I am reverting and you need to watch your WR:3RR - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 06:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you are the one who is making it personal with your snide edit summary. I am well aware of WP:VERIFY, and you are not talking about verifiability. You want a source to prove that anal or vaginal contraction during sexual intercorse is pleasurable? Perhaps you are spending a bit too much time in front of the computer. You also need a cite to prove that punching your sexual partner "may also be prosecutable as assault or sexual assault, in some jurisdictions even if consent is given"? Are you being serious? I am going to revert to the Revision as of 23:39, 8 June 2006 as your edits are Patent nonsense — Linnwood 06:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is terrible; this debate is absurd

I insist that nothing go back into this article without a proper source. A proper source does not include any slang dictionaries not published by a reputable press. A proper source does not include random original research claiming (in a way that we can not verify) that the term appeared in this or that television program.

If you can find a book, magazine, or newspaper article which documents a fact, it can go in the article. IMDB can also be a valid source in parts, though not from its unreviewed user-contributed content.--Jimbo Wales 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps if you'd like to verify it you can go out, rent a couple movies and watch a little television? [1] [2] and this reference "The TV show CSI: NY (episode 116, "Hush") mentions the donkey punch as a sadomasochistic practice, trying to explain bruising on a subject." are all easily verifiable by an editor with a heartbeat. As it stands now, the article is extremely misleading, as the first 50 or 60 google results for "Donkey punch" didn't remotely look related to the enron deal. I don't know alot of college radio stations that are going to name shows after an enron scandal.--Crossmr 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha- this does make me chuckle. Anyone looking up this particular term here is currently going to be met with an article suggesting that it is something to do with stock trading. What a terrific advert for Wikipedia as a source of information. Badgerpatrol 14:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This change is horrible, we all know what a Donkey Punch is, and its not related to Enron. Based on the referenced article[3], perhaps we should re-write Ping Pong, Sidewinder, and Russian Roulette to refer soley to the Enron scandal. Jcgarcow 15:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In which case it will be trivially easy to provide references to reliable sources to back what you claim "we all know". If you get stuck with the reference syntax and {{cite}} templates I'm sure that there will be plenty of help available. Alternatively we could always delete it, if you think it's misleading. Guy 15:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely my point, Guy. Yes, the article is silly as I changed it, however, in my quick research, this was the only actual source that I saw. "Rent a couple of movies and watch a little television" is original research. I want sources.--Jimbo Wales 17:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify- are you giving us carte blanche to blank any articles that are inadequately sourced? As I'm sure you're aware, by tomorrow morning 95% of Wikipedia's content would be eliminated. If that's not what you're saying- then what makes this particular article worthy of special treatment? Badgerpatrol 18:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, only those parts of articles which are fundamentally unverifiable from reliable secondary sources. The point here is not that it included no sources, but that a reasonably diligent search indicated that there are no reliable sources. That's a very different thing. But I'm guessing you do actually understand this since as stated above all you need to do to put back in what "we all know" is to reference it properly; if you could do that I rather suspect you would have done so. Guy 18:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"only those parts of articles which are fundamentally unverifiable from reliable secondary sources." Even by this standard 95% of Wikipedia would be gone. This is abusrd. — Linnwood 18:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and 84.7% of statistics are made up on the spot to prove a point when no good argument is available... I'm gonna hit "random article" right now: Aucilla River - Lots of reliable sources, no facts in the artitcle that aren't verifiable by following up references. Next: Kosamba - a bit of a stub, but all verifiable from India's census data (the link seems to be broken, but I wouldn't call census data "fundamentally unverifiable"). Next: Australian English - quite well-referenced; it turns out there are scholars writing books about Australian English. Next: Dinapore - very stubby, unverified, but certainly not unverifiable. Any reliable source on the British occupation of India would serve to verify what's there. Next: List of countries by Human Development Index - well that's about as verifiable as can be.

Now, Linwood, if you're correct that 95% of Wikipedia's content is fundamentally unverifiable, then I was just incredibly lucky to get 5 verifiable articles in a row using "random article". In fact, if you're right, the odds of lucking out like I just did are 1 in 3.2 million. You'd have better odds of flipping "heads" on a fair coin 21 times in a row. Now what's "absurd", again? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what: I'll go and start blanking articles that are fundamentally unverifiable, and we will see how close we get to 95%. — Linnwood 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, please point some out to me. I'm not finding them with "random article" very quickly, as your figure implies I should. You say verifiable content is rare around here. Show me some fundamentally unverifiable content. I'll make it easy - name three articles that are fundamentally unverifiable. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I hit Random article eight times and came up with seven:

Sigma Tauri, a star system. Zero cites/sources.
Fast casual restaurant. Zero cites/sources.
List of colonial governors in 1958. Zero cites/sources.
Schizeales, an order of fern. Zero cites/sources.
Susan Watts, science editor of the BBC's Newsnight programme. Zero cites/sources.
Short message service center Zero cites/sources.
Hisham Jaber. Zero cites/sources.

The question at hand is not that are "are fundamentally unverifiable" but blanking articles that are "inadequately sourced" — Linnwood 22:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you're changing the subject? Fine then, but I'll remind you that "the question at hand" was determined by your statement here that 95% of Wikipedia's content is "fundamentally unverifiable" - your words. If you'd like to talk about "inadequately sourced" articles, I'll agree we've got way too many of those. "Fundamentally unverifiable" and "inadequately sourced" are worlds apart from each other, and we can talk about whichever one you like. Joke sex moves are, at this point, "fundamentally unverifiable" except by means of original research, because no reliable secondary source has yet seen fit to document them, you see.

As to your eight articles above: Sigma Tauri and Schizeales are easily verifiable by me; I'll add citations at my next convenience. Fast casual restaurant seems to be crap, and actually includes the phrase "our research indicates". That one needs some ruthless edting. List of colonial governors in 1958 is certainly verifiable, and actually contains information that should be verified at the linked articles, i.e., the articles about the colonies in question. As long as those articles are well-sourced, it should be ok. Susan Watts and Hisham Jaber seem complicated... those are unreferenced bios of living people. I'm sure some of their content is verifiable if true; other content may well be original research, and the former article is tagged as such. I guess Short message service center is verifiable, but I'm not sure how to find a source for that - I'll have to look into it.

Funny how you had such different luck with "random article" than I did. Neither of us has yet turned up a "fundamentally unverifiable" article though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter that they are "easily verifiable by" you, it is that they are currently not sourced right now. And yes, considering how easy I found seven I do think it is funny that you had "such different luck." But who am I to accuse you of not assuming good faith? I have to agree with Badgerpatrol below that you have an agenda. — Linnwood 00:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying that they're easily verifiable by me wasn't meant to take away from the fact that they need sourcing, ASAP. Now that I'm home again three hours later, I'm going to add those sources to the ones I can. I was still responding to the idea that so much of Wikipedia's content is "fundamentally unverifiable". Sorry if I'm hung up on that, I just thought it was a particularly unrealistic statement you had made. As for assuming good faith, I assume that your goal here is to improve the encyclopedia. You've done nothing to make me think otherwise. I don't for a moment assume you did anything but hit "random article" eight times, as you claimed. I know that I just hit "random article" five times. I honestly think it's funny that we had such different luck, not in the sense of suspicious-funny, just odd-funny. Now I'm going to scroll down and find out about my "agenda". -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article "fundamentally unverifiable"? Can you explain? Badgerpatrol 00:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I explained that about three paragraphs up. There exist no reliable secondary sources documenting joke sex moves. Therefore, joke sex moves can't be verified in reliable secondary sources. If such sources do exist, then please point them out, keeping in mind that they must satisfy WP:RS. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Either you've read every possible source on the planet, or you have some kind of crystal ball from which you magically derive answers to impossible questions. If the latter, can I please have the football scores for this week so that I can make a mint and move to a nicer house? (Proceeds split 50:50, of course). There is nothing "fundamentally" or inherently unverifiable about this article. What you are actually saying is "this article is inadequately sourced". I might be inclined to agree (although personally I see no reason why films and television shows cannot be referenced, provided they are available in some type of publicly-accessable archive, as I think is often the case. I wonder who would object if we used e.g. The World at War as a source for a WWII article?). Nonetheless, given that, I see absolutely no reason to hold this article to a higher standard than any other. By your rationale, any article which currently is not adequately sourced simply cannot be adequately sourced, because such references can be assumed not to exist. You sound a bit like Descartes on one of his off-days. Badgerpatrol 02:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh, Linnwood concluded from this post that I have an agenda; I admit that I fail to see what it is. Perhaps he or she will explain. Anyway, replying to your point, it's true that I haven't read every source on the planet, and you'll notice I was careful to say "If such sources do exist, then please point them out". I base my confidence that the sources don't exist on the fact that people have actually been looking for this, since this page has been up for debate, and the longer we go without finding anything, the more confident I am that such source doesn't exist. Perhaps I should have said, "as far as I or anybody in this conversation can tell..." up front. How long though, should we hold onto articles hoping against hope that a source will appear? You suggest that my argument would extend to say that any article not currently sourced is unsourcable — that suggestion is absurd, and nothing I would ever argue. For a trivial example, consider the seven examples Linnwood provided above. I'm just now off to add sources to as many of them as I can, and the remaining ones I'll try to find others who can add sources. If, after searching, nothing comes up, then I will remove any unsourced material, and if that's the entire content of any article, I will nominate it for deletion. For at least two of those, I already know where to find the sources, so it's really not the picture you're painting. In the case of this article, I do follow such aspects of the culture as joke sex moves, and I've probably heard of many, many more of them than Wikipedia is prepared to document. I even know where to look, if I want to find extensive lists of them. I do think that, if a reliable publisher had put something out documenting these jokes, I might have heard about it by now. Of course I could be wrong, which is why I'm open to seeing a source. I'll probably buy a copy then, ok?

Again - unless you're providing a source, you're just arguing that we should keep material based on original research because a source may come along someday. That is no way to run an encyclopedia, if our No original research policy is to be worth anything. I'm not holding this article to a different standard than I hold any other article here, it turns out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Linwood confused my response to Guy (see elsewhere on this page) with my responses to you. The conversation is becoming quite convoluted, in fairness. What is actually absurd however is the contention that any objectively real and widespread phenonmenon (and by that I mean the "objectively real" as a reference in sexual culture, I don't necessarily at this stage claim its reality as an actual manifest physical practice) is ever "fundamentally unverifiable". It is a ludicrously circular argument to suggest that because a given article is currently lacking in sources it is therefore somehow inherently unsourceable. You may have noticed that qualifying your argument with a statement like "as far as I can tell..." pretty much reverses its meaning completely and presents an oxymoron. Either it is inherently unverifiable, or it isn't. If I read you correctly, what you actually mean to say is "I [you] don't currently know of a good source for this article" which, unless you have omniscient powers of which we all ought to perhaps be made aware, is not the same as saying "This article is fundamentally unverifiable". The real reason the article is not as-yet properly sourced is because we Wikipedians are too lazy and/or incompetent to find any. If I have time tommorrow I'll go to the library and get some. Badgerpatrol 05:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, please do, and I'll be the first to say I was wrong. It remains true that, IF no reliable secondary source exists, THEN the article is unverifiable until such a source is brought into existence. I'm willing to back away from the word "fundamentally", no problem. You're right; that was dumb to hold onto. The circular argument you portray above is still not any that I made. Nowhere did I suggest that because an article is currently lacking in sources, therefore it is unsourceable. I didn't say that, and I wouldn't say that. Linnwood did say above that 95% of articles in Wikipedia were "fundamentally unverifiable"; and I said that was silly. I continue to suggest that this article is unverifiable, not because it currently lacks sources (like you say, that would be dumb), but based on my assumption that no reliable source exists. I will be delighted to be shown wrong, ok? I don't claim to have some kind of freaky omniscience, so there you go. I was badstupidwrong to say "fundamentally unverifiable", and I won't do it again. Now that that point is disposed of, shit or get off the pot. I want a reliable source for joke sex moves. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"I want" never gets GT, as my old mum used to say. I'm glad you now accept that it was rather silly to be talking about "fundamentally unverifiable" material without having any evidence or logical reasoning whatsoever to back up the point. We'll probably have to wait for sourcing as it is peeing it down with rain and I'm not mad keen to walk to the library this evening. Nonetheless, if I can find the time tomorrow I will, indeed, shit. Badgerpatrol 16:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's surprising how often "I want" gets, actually. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. Badgerpatrol 00:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guy- to clarify, I'm not heavily involved in this article, and you may recall that my only previous interaction with you was when you repeatedly stuck up for one of your friends who threatened to kill me. It's not obvious to me how one can state a priori that a given piece of information (especially one, which, as you correctly state, we all know to be true) is "fundamentally unverifiable"- can you explain how you worked this out? For obvious reasons, quality sources for this kind of article are hard to come by, particularly on the web. Of course, it is not going to be difficult to find reliable references in any well stocked library. For the record, I strongly agree with Jimbo (and with everyone else) that providing adequate sources for ALL articles is an absoloute must if Wikipedia is ever to be taken seriously as a reference; but I strongly disagree that any particular article or group of articles should be held to a uniquely stringent set of standards on the grounds of personal taste, as I suspect is the case here. There are hundreds of thousands of articles that are not adequately sourced- if we delete them all we will have very little left. I don't personally feel that blanking content is an appropriate way to stimulate editorial compliance. Badgerpatrol 19:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the quotes around "we all know". What I think I know is tat the Donkey Punch is a bit of made-up sexcruft which has achieved a very tiny presence in real life. Guy 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is "made up" in the sense that any cultural reference is "made up". It has now spread to the point where it is a widely known sexual term familiar to many young people across the Anglophone world - at the least. How on Earth does that in any way make it inherently unverifiable? (I presume that is what is meant by "fundamentally unverifiable"). Your argument is specious, and I think it's fairly clear that your primary motivation is the fact that you find the subject distasteful and that you're fundamentally opposed to including certain types of article in the encyclopaedia. I also find the subject matter distasteful - but I am not opposed to including information on ANY subject herein, so long as it is encyclopaedic. If you don't feel that so-called "sexcruft" has a place here then argue your point on the appropriate policy page. That would be one way of precluding the ridiculous double-standard of having "sexcruft" (note the quote marks) articles held to a much higher standard of verifiability than everything else. Can you provide an explanation as to why exactly this article in particular is "fundamentally unverifiable", by the way? Badgerpatrol 23:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Where is the evidence from reliable secondary sources from which it can be verified? That is all that is required: citations from reliable secondary sources are what Jimbo asked for, and you'll not find me objecting to properly cited content. I didn't find any sources for what "we all know" and neither did Jimbo, but then I don't care about this article, whereas you evidently do. Guy 07:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That is how it works, as it appears to me at least. I don't particularly care about this article, Guy. What I do care about is ensuring that articles are not steamrollered out of this encyclopaedia simply because we find their subject matter distasteful. I find the subject matter of fascism and rape distasteful in the extreme- but I'm not going to vote to have them deleted. Badgerpatrol 16:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Come on. We all know there are shelves and shelves of books written by scholars and published by reputable publishers on both fascism and rape. Pretending those are a reasonable comparison is kind of silly. Insisting that the "true motivation" for removing this article is that people find it distasteful isn't going to get it kept. Proper sourcing will. If you believe this article is being held to a different standard than others, just name the others. Lots of Wikipedia badly needs either sourcing or deletion, and this article is no exception. Plenty of us aren't happy about all the unsourced material lying around. It may be that this article is being picked on sooner than it may have been if some people didn't find its subject matter distasteful, but that doesn't affect the fact that unsourced = bad. Unsourced material that nobody seems able to source will eventually be deleted, as a rule, and that makes Wikipedia better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"We all know"? We all know what a donkey punch is, too. I kind of thought that the crux of your entire point was that "we all know" is not enough. (And to reiterate once again, I agree with you on that). In any case, I was not drawing a comparison interms of quality or importance between those two articles and Donkey punch, but rather pointing out that they are all members of a subset of articles pertaining to subject matter that I find personally disagreable. The road that starts by deleting and victimising articles because we personally dislike them surely will lead to a very bad place indeed. It certainly is the case that this article is being picked on because of its subject matter, and that is indeed- bad. Badgerpatrol 00:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That was a neat rhetorical sleight of hand, wasn't it? I'm not trying to base the contents of an article on what "we all know"; I'm calling you out on a disingenuous analogy. If you really think there's no more coverage of fascism or of rape in scholarly sources than there is of donkey punches, I will cheerfully provide you with the titles of fifty published books on each. There's a difference between basing encyclopedia content on what "we all know", and using what "we all know" to make a point in a conversation. I hope you can see that. What I'm pointing out is that fascism and rape are clearly extremely citeable, whereas donkey punch isn't. With proper sourcing, the donkey punch article will not be deleted, no matter how much people hate it. Unless someone is deleting properly sourced articles based on distaste, your analogy goes nowhere. As for myself, I've argued for deleting articles I like a lot, based on the fact that no verifiable sources could be found for their contents, so don't tell me why I'm "picking on" this article. I actually take the position I do because I really like WP:NOR. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The quality of the rhetoric couldn't have been that neat, because it wasn't sufficient to enable you to grasp the point. To repeat, I was not drawing any analogy between the three articles except to point put that I find the subject matter to be distasteful in each case. Thanks to Dhartung, the article is now pretty well-sourced, per policy and per Jimbo's intentions, and certainly stands out as such when compared to the majority of Wikipedia's content (it would be helpful to know however whether the content on the newspaper websites ever actually appeared in print, although I suggest the material would be admissable either way). Of course, I will add to this if I can, as hopefully will other users, although the citations are now perfectly adequate for the current length of the article. Since Dhartung's rewrite, we have had three "delete" votes, one "merge" (which might be taken by the closing admin as a delete) and two "keeps", both from dubious sources which will presumably be discounted. It seems that not everyone is as conscientious as you are, sadly. I am not as confident as you that the discussion is purely on the merits of the article and how it relates to policy, although I accept that the Jimbo ex machina routine has not helped (neither have comments like this). Badgerpatrol 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I understood your point, actually. You were saying that we shouldn't delete articles simply because we find the contents distasteful. You pointed out that there are articles whose contents you find distasteful, and yet you don't think they should be deleted. I pointed out that there's a big important difference between articles with distasteful contents and inadequate sourcing, on the one hand, and articles with distasteful contents and throrough sourcing, on the other hand. Namely, that big important difference is sourcing. If you're worried about people going after articles solely on the grounds of distasteful contents, I'm saying you don't have to worry, because it will only happen to articles that are inadequately sourced, which is entirely appropriate. People also go after articles with delightful contents and inadequate sourcing, which is also appropriate. With this article, it just remains to see whether the sourcing pays off. I suspect it will; I've changed my support at the AfD, and we'll see what happens. It's worked in the past, with articles that had at least as much clamor to delete, including Jimbo weighing in - someone found a reliable source, and the article got kept. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Rent a couple of movies and watch a little television" is original research. I want sources" This is not original research if the movie, and shows can be cited. The content of a television show is no more original research then my saying that the term was defined in the newspaper today, so go buy a paper to see the source. Not everything will have an online source, since obviously that is what you're after here.--Crossmr 21:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

CSI and South Park are entertainment. They are not documentaries. They are works of fiction. Words that a scriptwriter puts into the mouth of a character in a work of fiction are not suitable bases for an article that purports to describe an actual sexual act. There are plenty of formal factual books and papers about sexual intercourse that have been published. If this sexual act exists, you should be able to cite several such books and papers where it is documented. Resorting to inferences from mentions in works of television fiction is a strong indicator that there are no valid sources. Uncle G 10:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Last I checked we had thousands of articles based on works of fiction in which their only sources were those works of fiction. I can't believe you're actually questioning whether or not it exists at this point with the thousands upon thousands of results on google for it. Whether or not it exists shouldn't even be a question. Whether or not their is an appropriate source is the question. The content of a Star Trek episode is no less reliable for sourcing information on an article about Jean Luc Picard than an adult video with the title Donkey Punch that covers the act several times.--Crossmr 15:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  - Neither of them seems to me to be a reliable source. Details about Jean Luc Picard that haven't been documented in independent, reliable, secondary sources shouldn't be in the article on that character; they're original research. The existence of huge collections of startrek-cruft OR isn't really an excuse to keep sex-cruft OR lying around; it's more of an excuse to invest in a good shovel. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    - A source doesn't need to be independent to be reliable. --Crossmr 21:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      - Correct. Good thing nobody claimed that it does. On the other hand, over at User:Uncle G/On notability, there's a pretty good argument for why we should insist on independent, reliable sources — "Independent" and "reliable" being different words, meaning different things, both important. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
        
        And exactly what would you consider independent in this case? This is a slang term used by many different groups, people, etc. This isn't quite like StarTrek where you could easily point and say Rolling Stone is outside the scope of trek. I suppose if we could some aliens to write on the subject it would be independent of the numerous sections of the world that have encountered or used this phrase.--Crossmr 05:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
        
        If someone writes (or has written) a book or paper documenting this type of meme, then that would be a perfectly good independent source. There are plenty of books being written about odd little corners of popular culture, so it's not hard to imagine that someone would devote at least a chapter to these joke sex moves, like the Donkey punch, the Dirty Sanchez, the Angry pirate, etc. "Independent" in this case, isn't a problem, because the primary source isn't a publication, but life experience itself: people talking about sex and telling jokes, whether in the flesh or on television shows. In the case of Picard, which is what I was talking about when I brought up the word, it means independent of the primary source, which is to say, the show, its scripts, etc. Any realiable secondary source for Donkey punch would be terrific. That means someone publishing a book or article in which they actually talk about "Donkey punch" as a meme or cultural phenomenon. Do you know of any such publication? Is it really such an unresonable thing to ask for? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
        
        In a sense it can be. As is pointed out quite often, we are not a paper encyclopedia. We don't have to operate quite the same way. The rules do not seem to address something that is notable, yet perhaps hasn't been covered by mainstream media. This manifests itself in a couple places I've seen. One of those is popular websites that no one has bothered write about, and a term like this which has an obvious notability. The sheer amount of bands, groups, college radio shows, etc using Donkey Punch as a name show that this is some kind of popular term among youth. The fact that we have a published source from 3 years ago indicates that it is not an overnight sensation term. It isn't remotely original research to say "Here is a film called Donkey Punch, it stars a sex act called a donkey punch which is performed while having anal sex and punching the receiving partner in the back of the head". Those are hard facts available in permanent video form that anyone over the age of majority can verify in their country. The fact that we have two published sources that already have given that definition using that as another source, isn't unreasonable. The fact that its been mentioned on CSI may not be a source for information about what a donkey punch is (we have 2 published definitions, and a very solid example of what it is in action) but its a mainstream cultural mention. That builds notability.--Crossmr 13:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Researched article

I was very tempted to vote "delete" in the AFD but I wasn't sure it would succeed. The article may not be strictly necessary, but on the other hand, an article which only mentions the Enron angle without explaining it is demonstrably worse than no article at all. Besides, the term shows up on a Senate web server positively identified as a pornographic act, somewhat proving that the term has cultural currency (even if it was a reactive usage). There were two books on Amazon which had more than sideswipe mentions, in fact, full definitions. Kinsey they may not be but at least one is on the paperback imprint of a major publisher, as Jimbo requested. I wanted to bring in the three mentions that Nemerson has, but one is only described in a letter to the column[4], and the other isn't even named[5] (although it's obviously the same thing). I felt those didn't measure up to the higher standard we're aspiring to here. --Dhartung | Talk 12:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The books are, at best, a joke. They definately do not meet the WP:RS - I am planning on removing all contact quoted to these "references" unless there are objections. --Trödel 18:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are they not reliable? Please explain further using specifics. Badgerpatrol 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think my changes to the references make their deficiences obvious, so

Book 1 claims that the sex moves "are not real; they are something we made up when we couldn't figure out how to finish the book." This made up stuff is no better than a random blog.

Book 2 claims that "This book may be hazardous if read without irony" Implying that the information in the book should not be believed or taken as factual, nor at face value.

Thus neither is a reliable source --Trödel 02:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that neither is a reliable source that this is a real sex move. That may or may not be the case. But regardless of this, the notability of this term is derived primarily from its propagation as a cultural meme, not solely from its physical existence. The sources included in the article are adequate to verify it as such. Ghosts, goblins, fairies, vampires, aliens, griffins, liberty, equality, fraternity are all things that exist only as abstractions- we still have articles for them. Badgerpatrol 03:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention whether or not they intended, it has manifested itself in a pornography film. Regardless of how it may have been intended it has become real. --Crossmr 04:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-reliable source?

Well, it looks like there's at least one citable instance of donkey punching in "maintsream" pornography... Click for evidence, probably NSFW. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the actress in the film doesn't look back on it with fondness... [6]. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That might or might not really be her, of course. Either way, you could easily be right though. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical and Legal Warning

I can't say I necessarily support their removal, but I think it should be noted here that the least cited information in the article right now appears to be the note about potential injury and criminal charges. I guess my question is, are we going to have to find something from a doctor and a lawyer, respectively, specifically mentioning donkey punches before the warning can be considered something other than original research, regardless of good intentions? --Maxamegalon2000 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been bothered by this text for the same reasons. For posterity:

however, it should be noted that unexpected blows to the back of the head or neck can cause permanent injury, paralysis, or death, and that even in a best-case scenario, performing such an act upon an unprepared and/or unwilling partner can be considered assault, and prosecutable as a felony.

Under the Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates guideline and related discussion linked from there, I think it's inappropriate for us to be, well, giving legal/medical advice. One could put not dissimilar text in the gun article, for example, but we don't. If we could get a citation related to say, a sex columnist saying "Don't do this!" that would be different. As the recreator of this article in cited form (and I hear the objections of those who say the authority of the sources is debatable), I think even the slightest slip back into original research will doom the article, which has barely survived four AFD nominations. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, it hasn't barely survived four nominations- in each instance the support for keeping was fairly resounding, and the number of noms is more a comment on the subject of the article, rather than the article itself (the latest nom was particularly bizarre). Apart from that, I wholeheartedly agree with you- no OR. Badgerpatrol 04:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. We need to send Dan Savage a thank you card or something. For us to quote the column this much, though, he'd need to license the text, which I doubt he's done. We can certainly quote the relevant medical advice from the doctor, and we can mention Savage's take on the legal stuff (even though he's not a lawyer), but I don't think we should have such a large block of text copied from his column without the proper authorization. Also, I'm guessing this page is going to need protection rather soon. --Maxamegalon2000 15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm very uncomfortable with the precedent this sets. It seems to endorse Wikipedia going out and creating sources so we can cite them. JoshuaZ 21:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, JoshuaZ, but it's also something we can expect as one of the top 20 sites on the web. I do not encourage editors to go out and solicit citations, as appears to have taken place here. I have been involved in an article where an editor, disturbed by something included in an article via citation, got the source of the material to take down its page. It makes you feel like skating on wafer-thin ice.

In any case, the direct quotation was excessive and unnecessary in any case. I stripped out Savage's filler (he's not writing an encyclopedia article!) and broke it down to the basic information. --Dhartung | Talk 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I also realize I prompted this with my comment above: If we could get a citation related to say, a sex columnist saying "Don't do this!" that would be different. Well, that wasn't intended to be a solicitation, it was intended as a BOLO.... --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Dhartung the case you mention is even more disturbing because that results in the reduction of material. Although possibly one could argue that if it was that easy to remove the material then it might not have been a WP:RS in the first place. Could you direct me to where that occured? If this is occuring to this extent we may need to draft a policy on the matter. JoshuaZ 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather discuss that offline, if you don't mind. I shouldn't have mentioned it here. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Bahr?

Google doesn't find Jeffrey Bahr on University of Wisconsin website (Jean Bahr is a geologist). Google scholar = 0 hits, Google search gives few blogs. Pavel Vozenilek 14:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. It's not UW, it's MCW, but he's not there either. --Dhartung | Talk 16:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, though. Jeffrey Bahr, M.D. in Milwaukee. And he earned his degree at MCW, so it's plausible that he's on the adjunct faculty. --Dhartung | Talk 16:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I know this doesn't add much verifiable information to the debate, but it's really odd to see my ex-girlfriend's stepdad used as a wikipedia reference on this topic... I can personally confirm his existance, but sadly I'm not verifiable. Wintermut3 02:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Pimp

==The Gay Pimp== In his weekly [[podcast]], [[Jonny McGovern]] has created a segment called "Celebrity Donkey Punch" in which he and his co-hosts viciously mock various minor celebrities including [[Paris Hilton]] and [[Lindsay Lohan]]. The segment is accompanied by a sound effect of a punch and a braying donkey.

Jonny McGovern donkey punch yields 12,600 ghits. Enron donkey punch yields 29,800. 40% of the number of ghits for the former makes it notable enough to be included with the latter. So with all due respect, knock it the fuck off with the reverts, m'kay? Otto4711 03:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Local radio shows have inherent notability issues. Those 12,600 ghits are, for the most part, irrelevant. "Jonny McGovern" "donkey punch" yields 49 results, only 17 relevent enough to be shown. This info adds virtually nothing to the article and has no real notability. Rever e ndG 03:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Podcasts aren't local radio shows. "Enron" "donkey punch" yields fewer than 700 ghits, most of which are duplicative or simply mention the existence of the term. The Enron section is basically saying that Enron used the term and people found out about it. The gay pimp sectionn is basically saying that the term is starting to enter the lexicon through another avenue. It adds that to the article which, if you will remember, is about a made up slang term for a non-existent sex act. Is the information accurate? Yes. Is the article so overloaded with information that including two sentences about the most recent entry of the term into the lexicon through an alternative route detracting from it? No. Is this edit war completely fucking ridiculous? Absolutely. Put the fucking sentence back in the fucking article and get the fuck over it. Otto4711 03:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no citation which would justify this section in the article, and it seems rather hypocrital of you to accuse me of bad faith. Rever e ndG 04:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We haven't added Howard frickin' Stern's promulgation of the phrase, for lack of reliable citations. We haven't added the claimed origins of the phrase, for lack of reliable citations. Adding unreliable, uncited material is not the way to help this article. Insisting that material other editors deem unnotable remain, engaging in a revert war to make your point (seven is somewhat more than three), and mounting personal attacks is simply unacceptable. The bar is set high for this very problematic article, and that's a good thing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The bar should not be set any higher for this article than it is for any other. Apart from that, I agree with you. Badgerpatrol 10:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what total horseshit. Deleting information out of an article claiming it's not verifiable after you've already verified it by googling. I didn't directly accuse you of bad faith before but I damn sure am now. And the revert war? Hmm, who started that with the gang-up removals. And as far as arguing against inclusion because Stern's comments aren't included, that's also horseshit. Being unable to verify one thing has no bearing on being able to verify another. But hey, if it makes you feel better to delete factual information out of an encyclopedia despite having looked the information up on Google your own self, good on ya. But please, for the record, how much more verification of the information do you need for this to be included? If google isn't good enough, if my having listened to the actual podcasts isn't good enough, what exactly would satisfy your lofty standards of inclusion for this article which is, again, about something that doesn't even exist? Otto4711 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A Google search is not a reliable source in almost any circumstances. The podcast itself however might be, depending on what assertion it is intended to verify. That's certainly potentially up for discussion, but it's unlikely to make a great source either. See e.g. WP:V and WP:RS. In any case, you don't appear to have properly cited the reference (e.g. by including a link or properly formatted ref.) and it is never acceptable to edit war or to spit out personal attacks and incivility. By the same token, if you can properly cite this or any other encyclopaedic fact then it is most welcome; the original edit seems to have been made in good faith (subsequent events- not so much). It is a basic fact of Wikipedia that any uncited information can be removed at any time; there is an unfortunate problem here in that Donkey punch and similar articles are being picked on because of their content, whilst uncited info in other types of articles is perhaps not so quickly removed; that isn't right, but it doesn't make this an excpeption to the general rule- all material must be properly cited. Badgerpatrol 20:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Otto, you have broken the three-revert rule and now you are breaking WP:CIVIL. I'm afraid even if you could cite it through an independent source it would still not be very notable or even interesting. It's barely a step up from the jokes the weatherman makes. Some people think that it's acceptable to fill up Wikipedia articles with every time the topic has been mentioned in a song or video game. For the most part, this is completely unnecessary and can even detract from an article. Very few such items survive a featured article candidacy, for example. The information on the podcast is an appropriate illustrative example for the host's article. Here it's at best tangential. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo, I use rough language on a talk page for an article about punching people in the head while fucking them in the ass and that's uncivil. Whatever. If it's horseshit it's horseshit and calling it equine excrement doesn't make it smell any better. And as for 3RR, hmm, who started the revert party? No words for that supposed violation? Interesting. And since 3RR is meant to address vandalism and I didn't vandalize the article, that accusation too is horseshit. Oh excuse me, equine excrement. I've already let myself get way over-invested in this nonsense. Have fun the next time you gangbang-edit someone acting in good faith. Enjoy your donkey punches. Otto4711 21:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The three-revert rule is not at all meant to address vandalism. In fact, reverting vandalism is the exception to the 3RR. It's meant to address the problem of reverting repeatedly in a content dispute instead of working it out with discussion first.

Secondly, the fact that this article is about a violent sex act in no way obviates the need for us to treat each other respectfully. If you think others are treating you incivilly, the best and most effective response is always to treat them more respectfully and with more dignity - raise the bar, don't lower it.

Like Badgerpatrol said above, whether or not a certain source is an acceptable source for the information in question, and whether that information is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, are certainly up for discussion, but repeatedly inserting information that others remove is simply not productive, nor likely to be so. Thank you for understanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Danza!!!

Where has Tony Danza gone from this article!?Yeago 00:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] egregious abuse of Wikipedia

It is reprehensible to leave this kind of article posted, particularly when it has been nominated various times for deletion. The amateurish writing is the least of its shortcomings. The sophomoric sense of humor... the prurient thrill that is apparent in the author's attitude toward the subject matter is nauseating, as evidenced by his selection of the "cellmate's cock" comment. I even think he means to be evenhanded, but in the most disingenuous way. Do you have any idea how ridiculously misogynist this concept is? And do you have any notion of the types of readers that peruse your site? Let's do a "how would you feel" thought experiment: How would you feel if your ten year-old daughter read something like this? Would you feel that this is an appropriate way for her to learn about sexuality? What makes this encyclopedia great is that it's free, online and can be enjoyed by all... a new Library of Alexandria and a tribute to human beings' incredible capacity to SHARE... not to HIJACK. And I'll add to this: Not only does this kind of gratuitous prurience threaten to destroy the good work you people have done... eventually, you're going to find yourself slapped with lawsuits when a young boy pulls a stunt like this on a young girl, and the girl's mother finds out the he got the idea for it on Wikipedia. Trust me. I'm not going to be the one to do it, but, as a JD, I can guarantee you I'd take that case. If you want, I can show you all the cases in which you could be held liable. 75.49.71.78 07:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Steve

Wikipedia aims to cover all aspects of human knowledge, even things that are disgusting/misogynistic/hateful/etc. and it is certainly not censored for anyone. I really doubt anyone's ten year old daughter is going to go searching for a slang sexual term like "donkey punch" on wikipedia, but even if they do, better they learn about it from this article than from some 14 year old schoolmate. As to the claim that someone is going to sue us for having this article, perhaps you should read Wikipedia:General disclaimer and the other disclaimers. btw, we're also lawyered up.--Kchase T 07:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a 10-year old daughter, but I think Wikipedia would be a great place to learn about sexuality compared to the rest of the Internet or her friends. Of course this article is about a mysogynist concept, but certainly you agree that we should have articles on the Holocaust, the Ku Klux Klan, and George W. Bush despite moral objections? (See, what I did there was use two examples that are pretty much universally held as reprehensible, and then I threw in one that would be contriversial, to point out that different people hold different beliefs about what is objectionable.) And I would certainly object that being the subject of multiple deletion debates is grounds for automatic deletion. Also, are you assiging the "prurient thrill" to the sources or to the article itself, and, if the latter, are you sure that you aren't simply noticing a neutral point of view instead of condemnation, which I assume from your comment that you would prefer? --Maxamegalon2000 15:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Steve above and I have earmarked today for the important business of perusing the dictionary and scoring out naughty words like "penis" and "vagina" with a black marker pen. (For the sake of the kiddies!!!!!) Badgerpatrol 09:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/n/Talk%7EDonkey_punch_2422.html"