Talk:Fleshlight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fleshlight article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:

Updated photo according to the request on this page. Noisejunky 23:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this article survived 3 attempts to delete, and each time the decision was STRONG KEEP, so if you want to try and delete this article, I'd appreciate if you initiated a discussion instead of arbitrarily deleting. Arbitrary deletions will just cause me to recreate the article. If a decision by concensus is made to delete the article I will respect that.FleshJoe 04:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some other articles that should be deleted if the Fleshlight article is deleted because it describes a product:

I'll stop at ten, I'm sure I could easily get 100s of product names to bolster my case. In fact I have not encountered one case where I was thinking up a product name, typed it in the search box, and did not hit a Wikipedia page for that product. About notability, please use Google to determine that: there are 2.4 million pages about Fleshlight and 275000 about Mazda Miata, 2.2 million about Dell XPS. FleshJoe 05:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Due to the controversy on this article, I have added a Advertisment link. Regardless of the number of for and agaist votes in the last request for deletion, there was also a number of clean-up requests. Percz 23:08, 3 October 2006 (BST)

Alan I'm committed to making this article conform to the style guidelines. Please point out exactly what would help it conform. Would it help to point to some competitors? If yes, which ones? What other information would you like to see? I also have a comment about those requests for cleanup: as you know, Wikipedia is open to anyone. So whoever wants things cleaned up should do it themselves. I'm going beyond the call of duty and cooperation in agreeing to do the work myself. In the meantime, because I agree to clean it up, I'm removing your Advert tag. FleshJoe 22:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For reference of previous deletion vote - [1] FleshJoe, the Wikipedia Advert tag needs to stay until the cleanup has been completed even though you are kindly agreeing to edit the article. Untill the edit is done there still needs to be a warning as the problem remains - this is Wikipedia policy. Percz 00:34, 4 October 2006 (BST)

Contents

[edit] Page deleted

Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that they have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone. Danny 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Danny, was this a WP:OFFICE action? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There were concerns given to the office about this article and Danny acted upon them from my understanding. Despite not using the Dannyisme account, it's best to not restore this without asking him first, of course. Cowman109Talk 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Concerns are fine, but there's also a greater consensus at work here. If this indeed wasn't an office decision, then something needs to be done. Some further explanation is necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As Brad made clear in a post to the mailing list, we should be doing everything we can to prevent using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. This page was created for promotional purposes. It is a page for a specific brand of a product, not even for the product itself. The manufacturers have admitted that it is promotional and have requested that they have sole discretion over what content is included and removed so as not to hurt their product placement. They have also requested that links to rival brands be removed. As for this being a brand, there are a heck of a lotta brands out there. Are we an encyclopedia or a marketers' forum. Are we going to maintain open editing, or are we going to fall subject to locking articles, just because people want control over them. Are we about to provide free advertising on the 11th largest website in the world, anf if so, are we going to start with minor products of no real significance? Are we going to put up with edit wars between rival marketing campaigns? Would anyone even care if this was some third rate laundry detergent or adult incontinence product, instead of a sex toy? No. Danny 21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So it was or was not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Danny, I very strongly disagree with the conclusion that Fleshlight is non-notable. It's quite notorious among the sex toy industry. As far as I know they have no legal basis for demanding that sort of control, and if the article wasn't NPOV that could easily be fixed. Georgewilliamherbert 23:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether this page's deletion was a WP:OFFICE action or not, could it at the very least be a protected redirect to artificial vagina? Even if you argue that the specific product is non-notable (which would honestly be extremely difficult) it's still a likely search term. --keepsleeping slack off! 22:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should also make Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola redirects to Cola.

As Danny has edited quite a bit since my question above, and has failed to respond, I've listed this at deletion review. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Three thing I have to say:

I wasn't here when the above convo was going on but from what I understand, the makers of fleshlight contacted Danny and told him that they wanted control of this article? If so, I don't think any company has the right to control an article unless they take it to the administration of wikipedia. I agree with Georgewilliamherbert above, the makers have no legal standing to assume control.
Fleshlight is a notable product, and would not be best to redirect it to artificial vagina - imagine redirecting Sybian to Dildo, that's not accurate.
The current page is nothing but a depository for reviews. before this edit war took place, the page looked something like this: [2], why don't we just revert back to it and clean it up from there?--Philo 18:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ask yourself why this product is notable. Because of their aggressive marketing from supposedly "neutral" sources, their attempts to control Wikipedia being a good example of this. That is the only reason why this product has any notability. Debolaz 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This page is currently a repository for online reviews of the fleshlight. people feel this is better than a page that is about the fleshlight because of copyright paranoia? Even if ILF, the company that makes fleshlight, did request that they have full creative control of the page, they still don't have the right. ILF having creative control over this article is like Nintendo having full creative control over the Nintendo 64 or Wii articles, or Frito Lay over the Doritos article.--Philo 20:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on new Fleshlight page

IMHO the article sourced from the Village Voice has no business there because it points at a lot of affiliate sites (e.g. babeland.com). Its just a crass attempt to get traffic to flow from wikipedia to an affiliate business. 192.18.43.11 19:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's actually an attempt to demonstrate the notability of the Fleshlight product. As we're not endorsing or advertising any specific product, it's not a crass attempt at anything other than a neutral, sourced article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The objection to URLs such as http://fleshjoe.com/fleshlight/videos/ was that its an affiliate site. What's different here, if anything? The Village Voice is an affiliate of babeland and is getting paid for the article. I fail to see any distinction at all. 192.18.43.11 20:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a failed attempt to demonstrate the notability of the Fleshlight product. At best, even if the Village Voice and babeland.com were not associated, the article might be used as evidence that babeland was notable, and Fleshlight was notable at babeland. It doesn't not rationally imply that Fleshlight is notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new FL article

how come this article doesn't look like this anymore? [3]? the current page looks like a sales guide that mainly consists of reviews. --Philo 15:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removals

A few points for the editor who is repeatedly removing entire paragraphs from the article. Sourced material is usually not cut from articles without an explanation. An edit summary of "copyedit" is deceptive when removing blocks of material. It is standard practice to include an extensive description of product usage and criticism for articles on products. For examples, see diaphragm, dildo or even lawn mower. Please do not do this again without seeking consensus here. --JJay 20:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

One does not need consensus to edit an article. I like to get consensus when I can. I this case it seemed pretty clear cut. We aren't trying to write an instruction manual for a product. Also, the article isn't about masturbation, there is another article about that. Trying to push the book "illustrated guide to the usage of the Fleshlight" is not why the article is here. It is here to describe a notable product. What does it do? Why is it notable? Some detail about the nature of the product is acceptable. A guide on using the product, where to buy it, and advertising from people who like it has no place in the article. The second paragraph I deleted (shortcomings) was put there to give a faux NPOV to the previous paragraph.

What SHOULD be there instead of these two paragraphs are references to news stories about the product. Controversial aspects of the product (such as a recall, or injury, or lawsuit) might be appropriate if cited and referenced.

As to your comment about using "copyedit" when removing mnaterial, I agree with you. My apologies.

Atom 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • In this case it is not clear cut at all. An understanding of how a product is used is essential information. It explains "what the product does" to use your terminology. Without that information I would have only a very hazy idea of what the fleshlight is, particularly without a picture. This is all comparable to the Sybian article. Your remarks about "advertising" or where to buy the product or "faux NPOV" are completely off base; I would suggest you review the references. For example, both books are from major publishers and established writers in this field. They go a long way to proving the "notability" of this product (although "notability" is not an editing topic. If you are concerned about "notability" review the AfD discussion). I can see no justification for your removal of those references. Otherwise, if you have news stories regarding injuries or lawsuits, please add them to the article. --JJay 22:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your view. As I said earlier, information to explain why it is notable is the purpose of the article, so I don't disagree with that. The AfD discussion is in the past. I wasn't suggesting that I had information about injuries or lawsuits, I was giving an example of the types of information that would be valid for a product article. Product usage, in my opinion belongs in the users guide. I took it out as a simple edit to improve the quality of ther article. It seems obvious that we disagree on that. Other editors can make their own opinions. Atom 22:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You also removed: "one of the best-known male sex toys" from the opening line - even though that is confirmed by multiple sources (which you also removed). Frankly, it's a tad bit difficult to meet your stated concerns regarding notability when you remove evidence to that effect throughout the article. The article exists to explain the product in all its facets. That means usage as well as the points you focus on. I have searched the references, though, and have found no evidence of either injuries or lawsuits. The negatives I managed to find from the em & lo book are in the article. Please add more. But let's not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about two short paragraphs in what is still a fairly short discussion of the fleshlight. The article needs expansion, not the constant slash & burn approach that some editors have been taking. --JJay 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
"one of the best-known male sex toys" sounds like a sales pitch, and several other users complained that it sounded like advertising. As it is subjective opinion, not citeable fact, it is easier to make the article stick to the point of describing the product, rather than a subjective characterization.
As for notability, no one is requiring a proof of notability. The AfD has establisged that it is notable. My comments are that the article should explain the notable aspects of the product, not "claim" it is notable.
As for expansion, I made several ghood suggestions as to ways to expand it. Expansion should be facts related to the product, not more claims, opinions or reviews about how great it is. Have there every been any laws suits? Is STI transfer a possiblity with the product? What characteristics of the product make it more popular than its competitors? All good material for adding meat to the article.
Atom 23:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It may sound like a sales pitch, but it is the reason why we have the article. If this wasn't one of the best known sex toys it wouldn't qualify for inclusion. That needs to be made explicit in the article. The statement is also fully sourcable and thus not our "claim" or "subjective opinion". It is the subjective opinion of leading experts in the field based on their research and publications. One of the other lines you removed was from Anne Semans where she called the product "the most popular sleeve on the market today". Hence, the statement was fully verifiable per WP:V standards. I'll add back a section on the product's popularity with footnotes. Regarding the "advertising" issue, complaints have been voiced by you and a user with 15 edits who suddenly appeared here after a three month "absence" from wikipedia. That is not exactly "several" users. I rewrote this article from scratch without even consulting the fleshlight website. I don't want to "advertise" the product. I want a comprehensive overview of its use and any related issues including popularity - not a a sanitized stub that fails to explain the fleshlight because of puritanism or fears that somehow wikipedia "advertising" is going to boost fleshlight sales (which is entirely laughable). Besides that, I have no problem whatsoever with your questions. They are all good. Responses require research and I can only encourage you to seek the answers and add material to the article. --JJay 02:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, let me reassure you that I am about as far from a puritan as it is possible to get. I edit many, sexology and sexuality articles, and so supressing sexuality is not my nature at all. Footnotes are always nice. But, really, my goal is readabilty and quality of the article. "The most popular sleeve on the market", how does that tell us what it does, or how it works? If it were a TV program, and it ran for 20 years (Gunsmoke) then popularity would be a key. This product is new, and its competitors are new. Even if we could correctly source and and cite sales figures compared to its competitors, that wouldn't be useful. If the product was heavily used in a clinical setting, and the effectiveness of the product was the subject of research studies showing how it did what it does well, that kind of information would be good to show.

I respect your efforts to build a good article. You have to open to letting others do their part as well. Part of trhat is writing, and part of it is editing. Having a huge paragraph about something usually nets a yawn from your reader who wants the highlights of the product quickly.

We aren't here to laud the product, we should be objectively giving information to describe how it works and what it is. Atom 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement

I think this page is too much like a tesimonial page for Fleshlight, what do you all think? DanMonkey 22:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It describes the product and its use. Don't confuse information with advertising. --JJay 22:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I also disagree; why would an advertisement include shortcomings? --NE2 22:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above. The para on usage, and the book is advertising. The para after that is made to try and make it look "balanced" with a weak attempt at "shortcomings". I've tried to remove both para's and I've got reverted. See comments above. Atom 22:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There is no para on "the book". The books are sources. Why not just remove the name of the books in the text if that is what's bothering you. Furthermore, if you believe the "shortcomings" part is weak, then add more sourced negative material. --JJay 23:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I should mention that Fleshlight has had a very aggressive Internet campaign where the product is promoted from a supposedly neutral source. This includes myspace (And here in Norway, the corresponding service Blink) accounts promoting the product. I'd also like to mention that I brought up this page on #wikipedia @ freenode when it was in a much more blatant state of shameless advertising than it is now (Now it's just messy and non-notable) and it seemed several people there thought such advertisements were ok on wikipedia so I didn't take any actions on it. Debolaz 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of this product

This page leaves a lot to the imagination, it would be good if there were a photo of this product and it's attachments JayKeaton 11:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With a photo, this page would look like an advertisement. Anyone can search for Fleshlight on http://images.google.com, perhaps with no SafeSearch Filtering in preferences. 9,380 hits. --JULEBRYG 00:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
-Maybe a sketch would describe the product better, without looking like an advertisement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.74.33 (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
I ordered it and can possibly take some pictures when it comes in the mail. SakotGrimshine 13:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I am aware that EL "allows" listing the official web site for a notable article. In some cases it is valuable, in some cases it is not. That leaves it to editorial oversight. In this case it is a product for sale and various users have complained that the article seems like an advertisement. No one argues whether inclusion is possible, or whether it is allowed by policy. WP:EL allows it, but does not require it. As such, it is my opinion that it offers no value other than directing people to a commercial web site. The article contains content about the product. If there is other information that would improve the article, it should be added here, in the article, and not through an external link. Since other editors differ with my opinion as to whether the link should be here or not, I think we should discuss the pros and cons, and then take a straw poll in order to get a consensus as to whether inclusion of the external link has merit. Atom 13:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with User:Badlydrawnjeff and his reasoning in including the link; see point 1 of WP:EL#What_should_be_linked. It's still subject to editorial oversight, but the guidelines say that it should generally be included. If you want to discuss arguments further, go ahead, but it should remain until concensus is obtained that it be removed. (Note that I voted delete in one or more of the AfDs, but the link should remain if the article is here.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

After a discussion on the wp:EL page, apparently it IS up to editor consensus whether the link is included or not. The policy reads, the "official" site for a "organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any". I clarified that this does not require it to be listed. I note that also the policy is written intentionally to cover organizations and people, but not specifically commercial products, nor is the policy intended to promote commercial products.

So, I contend that we aren't required to list the official web site, and in this case, there is no desirable reason to do so. Atom 12:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • People who read this short article (which needs expansion) are most probably interested in the fleshlight. The place to get more information on the fleshlight is the official site. That's why it's linked. The link is more than desirable. It is essential if we intend to do a proper article on the product. --JJay 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
So what's the actual argument for not having it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

First, this is a commercial product. The guidelines are written for the general case, not the specific case. The purpose of the Wikipedia article is encyclopedic, not business oriented. The history of this article includes development of the article by people from the company itself as a marketing source. The AfD's discussed some of this, but the overall opinion was that regardless, it was a notable product. As part of the attempt to commercialize, various people from that company did their best to introduce the product into other articles, including the masturbation article, ad also did their best to remove any citations to competitive products, such as the onacup, using a variety of rationale.

So, I agree that the product is notable, and we should give encylopedic information that informs the average reader. I think, in general, we should minimize or eliminiate the possibility for commercialization of Wikipedia, including giving companies free advertising. Especially in a case like this where employees of the company have worked to push their product, and to eliminate competitive products. Trying to prevent them from doing that again, and a general approach that reduces commercialization in general by other companies is desirable.

Wikipedia EL does allow for a link to the "official" web site, but I have clarified there that an external link is not required, but up to editor discretion. I advocate, in this specific case, based on the history and attempt at commercialization, to make the article informed, correct and encylopedic, but quash attempts to use it for improving sales. Atom 12:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Free advertising" does not depend on a link to the company's website. If someone reads the article and wants to buy one, they will find the site, whether or not we link it. Any reader, whether or not he wants to buy one, can find more information on the official site that is too "crufty" for the article. It's a matter of being useful, not of "free advertising". --NE2 13:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We all have our opinions on the matter. My point is the same as yours. If someone is interested they can find the site just fine. No need to put a link here. We aren't required to put a link, it is up to editorial discretion. Atom 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is standard and not controversial to put a link to the website of the subject of an article. Please don't go around deleting things randomly. You do not have consensus on this. Georgewilliamherbert 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that a link to an official site is very common. That doesn't make it required. In most cases it is not controversial. In this case people at the company that manufacturers the product placed it in Wikipedia, and helped it to survive the AfD's. They also worked to limit competitive products, such as onacup from having visibility. So, we do need to have the article, since it is notable, we don't need to point to the web site for them. Thanks, Atom 03:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So far, you're the only person arguing that we should remove it. We have an external link guideline backing our argument, what's yours? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The external link guideline, as I have said if you had read any of the comments, does not require the link. I discussed this in detail on the talk pages of the external link to confirm that it is optional. You are right that I have been the only one so far advocating not putting it in. If you read the above section, and several other parts of the discussion, you woldn;t need to ask. Atom 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying it does require the link. I do not see anyone else saying that the link should be removed, however - you've been warring over this for a week and no one else seems to want to back you up. The consensus is apparent that the link should stay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We're rejecting your reason. Please stop. --NE2 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As one of the people who fought to get the article back during the multifarious debates, and who is NOT associated with the company, I find the assertion that "only the company" wants the link in offensive. Please stop doing this. It's perfectly normal to have the link. There's no specific reason here not to have it. You're out-consensused on whether having it is a good idea or not. Please accept that and move on. Georgewilliamherbert 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with GWH here. I have great respect for your opinion, Atom, but it really does make sense to link to the official site here. LWizard @ 10:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. My position, and the history of this article are unusual. I've already suggested why there *is* a specific reason to not have the external link here. I'm not an advocate of censoring any article, especially if it is about sexuality. I don't advocate censoring this article. I objected to the way that the people who are associated with the company bullied others into keeping the article, and tried to shut down competitors on Wikipedia. I didn't suggest in saying that now, or previously, that *all* people for putting the article back worked for the company, or had anything to do with what I perceive as the kind of competitive self-interest that the people who introduced the article used. I think that they acted in good faith, based on the product being notable. I think that they are still acting in good faith in trying to keep the external link too. But, by doing so they are unwittingly supporting the commercial competitive tactics originated by the people who work for the company to sell their product. I can understand how people not seeing the whole picture would see my position as counter to the conventional way we do things on other commercial articles. But, who says we have to do things the same way in every article? Just because we suggest putting the link to an "official site" as the general case for all articles (most of which are not commercial) in the EL policy doesn't mean that we have to for *all* articles, or *all* commercial articles. Especially in the case where the company that sells this product has been unfriendly and abused Wikipedia, we could choose to be unfriendly and not support there attempts to use Wikepeida to sell their product. Those who say: "People interested will find the product anyway", may be correct, but, where do we draw the line. Should we just commercialize all of Wikipedia, because people will buy the products anyway whether we prohibit or allow commericial interests? Even if you don't agree, as apparently quite a few here have indicated. I think most do see attempts by commercial interests to use Wikipedia as a growing threat.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting boycotting this or any other commercial product, but merely pointing out that we don't have to help commercial interests. Atom 15:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We should (this is a moral "should", not specifically relating to guidelines) ignore commercial interests in our editing. Although I don't think this product is notable, I've been out-argued in that matter, so I consider that matter closed for the moment. If the article is to be here, then the official link should be here in the article (unless, possibly, it's a banned link). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, this product is notable but only because of the way it has been marketed, something which ironically isn't mentioned on the page. Debolaz 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Color options

I have to agree that I don't think that the color options adds anything valuable to the article, or its quality. The product itself and how it works is well described. Atom 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Shape of holes and colors are information. I think it's strange with a blue color, or the transparent one. It's the job of an encyclopedia to inform its readers, also about odd things. What is the issue here: fear of advertising, Christian morals or are the colors of Fleshlight common knowledge?--JULEBRYG 01:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Material?

Some information on the used material should be added. Does it contain harmful chemical compounds, like phthalates or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.144.128.16 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

  • If you have information on the Fledhlight's chemical composition please add it to the article. --JJay 00:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless there are documented medical problems with the product related to its chemical composition, I don't think it is neccesary to include it. Debolaz 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm just wondering, having read Dildo#Materials and the possible problems with jelly-rubber. 212.144.130.176 23:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the fleshlight made of? --JJay 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
they won't say. it's a trade secret I suppose. --Philo 08:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Paraphrasing from US patents numbers 5,782,818 and 5,807,360: The elastomeric gel is formed from a mixture of plasticizing oil and a block copolymer selected from styrene ethylene butylene styrene block copolymers ( SEBS) and styrene ethylene propylene styrene block copolymers ( SEPS) . The gel is formed from a mixture of 5-9% by weight of the block copolymer and 90-94% by weight of the plasticizing oil, and trace amounts of pigments and fillers. 193.229.159.16 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headline text

Flesh Light Helpful hint:

Where the gent states: "Another review called the Fleshlight the "king of boy toys," but also observed that it took awhile to get used to cleaning it." it is much easier to just put it in the dishwasher. Just my 2 cents worth. Hey! It works for me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.1.59.67 (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

The manufacturer advises NOT to put it in the dishwasher as it will degrade the material. --Philo 15:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ILF backstory

At some point the design went from one policeman to a company called ILF and the article is missing the whole backstory on this. Just a note for the future. SakotGrimshine 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And what is ILF, and for what does the acronym stand? All of a sudden it just appears in the article with no explanation.24.165.188.30 01:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Interactive Life Forms. I'll add that now. — Northgrove 04:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Perhaps it should be described why this artificial vagina is notable on the page? I mean, there are plenty of other ones as far as I know and they do not have their own dedicated wikipedia page. As far as I can tell, the only thing notable about this product is how aggressively (And often deceptively, previous versions of this article being a good example) it has been marketed on the Internet, but this is not mentioned in the article. Debolaz 13:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Check the references. Entire sections of books have been devoted to this product. That means it is notable per guidelines. --JJay 13:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
But there's a reason why these books exist. There's a reason why seemingly arbitrary people try to market it. Namely the company's admittedly very creative marketing. They've paid people to make blogs, to write books, to modify this wikipedia article, etc. So you've really missed most of my point. Debolaz 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Current references include 1) Semans, Anne (2004). The Many Joys of Sex Toys: The Ultimate How-to Handbook for Couples and Singles. Broadway Books, 62-4. 2) or 2) Em & Lo (2006). Em & Lo's Sex Toy: An A–Z Guide to Bedside Accessories. Chronicle Books. The reason why the books exist is because they were published by major publishers. The rest of your allegations strike me as absurd or irrelevant, not the least because I wrote most of the article and have never seen a fleshlight let alone used or "marketed" one. --JJay 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
...and with that note, this article remains in the list of examples of why wikipedia could be better. Debolaz 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Every article at wikipedia is in that list. --JJay 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reviews section

Okay, the reviews and criticisms section is starting to read like a trivia section (see: WP:trivia). --Philip Laurence (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)