Talk:Johan Paulik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class.

I changed "sizeable endownment" since it's not npov to be prudish Hotlorp

Yes, thank you. As the original writer of the page, I have to say, there are very clearly differences in penis size, and there is a point at which a penis size becomes enormous. There is statistical data that, while not entirely conlusive, shows evidence of what the average male penis size is (approximately 5 inches,) and as this particular actor's penis size is nearly 10 inches, I would consider that to be an enormous penis. It's not NPOV to state a fact. If I said "oooh big hot sexy penis," they yeah, I'd be slipping from factuality into grotesque opinon. So please leave it as is. -EB-

Anything preceded by "I would consider that to be..." is an opinion. - Montréalais

Yes, but that's not the way it's phrased in the entry, is it? In the entry it is stated as fact: "he has...enormous penis."

Just because it's phrased as a fact doesn't make it one. - Montréalais

Which, based on the size of his penis and the statistical information I just mentioned, is a factual evaluation. But then, EVERY descriptive word is somewhat going to be based in relative terms, isn't it? I could call a twenty story building big, but you could consider it large, perhaps, in relation to a fifty story building.

People need to stop being so damned DIFFICULT here at the wikipedia. Otherwise, how would you have the entry read?

"He has a muscular body (in comparison to Paul Reubens,) which is hairless (but somehwat hairy compared to a four year old girl,) and he has an enormous penis (in direct relation to statistical information gathered by various groups like Kinsey which indicates that the average male erect penis size is five inches."

Give some freaking leeway, ces't vouz plait. -EB-

That's s'il vous plaît. And this is an encyclopedia. If you find it difficult to phrase what you have to say both honestly and NPOV-ly, you should consider the possibility that it is not encyclopedic in nature. - Montréalais

If you're not going to pay attention to a word I have to say, then I don't wish to discuss this with you. You're just pulling power trip and trying to make me look like an idiot, when everything I've said is both accurate and rational. If his cock is freaking big, it's big. FACT is ALWAYS negotiable, ALWAYS. There is not a single thing as "fact" that cannot be contradicted by any one single person at any time, depending on that person's viewpoint - even if that person is clearly insane. It is what is COMMONLY BELIEVED to be fact that is accepted as such, and it is commonly believed, based on MAJOR STUDIES, that the average penis size is five inches. The penis of Johan Paulik is 9 and a half inches long. Therefore, based on FACT, it is LARGER THAN USUAL. So if you want to change it to read "larger than usual penis," then do it, but don't pretend that the phrasing has a fundamentally different meaning than "enormous," because it doesn't. And I'm through arguing because I'm *RIGHT*. -EB-

Just say what you mean. If you mean "larger than average," say so. If you mean "considered" or "commonly believed to be huge", say so. Opinions needn't be left out entirely, but they should be attributed. This is not difficult and it's not new. I commend the article on NPOV to your reading - it contains a thorough philosophical exploration of these issues. And I am not pulling any kind of a power trip. I'm not a moderator, just a garden-variety user like yourself. - Montrealais

Spotted another one for you, Mont, over at elephant - "An Elephant is one of two species of large greyish land mammals". Change to "larger than average", fine, but I'm not sure about "greyer than average"... -- Hotlorp

One more thing Mont - were you serious about improving the npov when you switched "enormous penis" to "sizeable endowment"? To me (and yes I have read the npov article) you haven't made the size aspect any more npov, and you *added* the non-npov element of prudery. Hotlorp

Well, I was working under pressure. I've changed it again now - che pensi? - Montréalais

It reads fine, but your npov-based attacks on EB were unjustified. The comparative is not necessary here, and insisting on it renders UN-NPOV long hair, big ears, short sight... Hotlorp

According to [1] the size of his penis is 7". I knew the figure of 9-10 inches was a bit on the large size. --mav

Cleary proving that I not only DONT know how to spell things in French, but also am crap at converting metric to standard. But on another note, Montrealais, perhaps it would behoove you in the future to look into exactly WHOM you are addressing before lecturing, as you would then see that I am quite experienced with Wikipedia and very familiar with NPOV standards. I'm not just a random newbie blabbering without reference or aquaintence with rules. -EB-

I know to whom I'm speaking. Everyone has problems with NPOV, even old hands. That's why this encyclopedia is peer-reviewed. - Montréalais

--Dieresis 10:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC) What is this junk about "It is the alleged appeal of watching "heterosexual" boys have sex with one another that has made his films...such huge successes." The vast majority of people who watch and buy his films have no idea what the sexual identity of the performers is and probably don't care. Even if there is a small minority who do know and care, there is no evidence that they have made the films successful. I removed this claim.

[edit] Is he still active?

I read in an interview to Lukas Ridgeston that Johan Paulik is no longer in the porn industry. Is it true?

He's 31 and has only ever worked as a twink. At this age, he's pretty much either going to have to redefine his image or retire. —Angr 07:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The picture

I'm wondering if it's a bit gratuitous to have a full frontal nudity picture right at the top of the page. Someone who doesn't know who Johan Paulik is might get a shock when they clicked onto this page, and it just seems unnecessary to me. It would be better to just show his upper body, like most photos we have of people. Note: the picture in question doesn't have any copyright information either. It may not be okay for Wikipedia in any form... but I'll crop it for now, and leave copyright issues to someone else (because I don't know much about them). -kotra 06:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a "fair use" picture (a DVD cover). If anyone wishes to add other pictures that may not be fair use, please do not remove this picture. We can have more that one picture per article. Zeromacnoo 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't use a DVD cover to show what a person looks like, it's inconsistent with the {{DVDcover}} tag. In fact, per Wikipedia's fair use policy, you can't use fair use images just to show what a living person looks like at all. —Angr 07:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Dieresis 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Why is there a review of 'Lukas Story' among the links? The review doesn't mention Paulik much. He seems to be in just one scene.