1822:
that would be a legitimate reason, as that is a sub-category of hardcore pornography.") I can't agree with your description of the picture, "As it is, it is a photograph of someone (Lucas) filming hardcore pornography. It is not a photo of hardcore pornpgraphy(sic), or an example of a specific genre of harcore(sic) pornography." as not pornographic, or not representing gay hardcore pornography, just because of the fact that there is someone filming the scene in the photo. A photo of someone with a camera filming a porn scene (of any genre) in which you do not see graphic content would fit that definition, but when the picture shows not only the act of making the hardcore pornography, but the act being filmed itself, that's pornographic. If I were to crop out the cameraman, it would be a picture of 2 men performing a sexual act. That there is a cameraman filming it in this picture doesn't make that not so. No major news outlet would print or carry the photo and claim it wasn't. And this is off-point, and not really central to the discussion. If you were writing that this is a good photo for use with a section on pornographic film making, I'd whole-heatedly agree, but it's still pornographic. (which is fine, especially when we are discussing it as a picture to represent hardcore pornography).
1911:
more restrictive, as the first amendment to the constitution (on which case law such as the Miller Test is based on) may not be restricted by an individual state. Goung out to the INternet is more difficult. Generally speaking most legal jurisdictions pursue the law as it applies at the location where the traffic is generated. Of course they need not be limited to that. In some places content from
Knowledge (XXG) may be against the law within that jurisdiction. As far as I know though, no one has pursued Knowledge (XXG) for content that did not violate Florida or U.S. law, but did their own laws. I assure you, the Miller test applies directly to Internet content, including Knowledge (XXG). The First amendment guarantees apply in any U.S. state, in any format. As for how it would be applied in Denmark or Japan?? My guess is that they do not have jurisdiction to people within the U.S. They probably do have jurisdiction to people who view illegal content in their own jurisdiction. I would be willing to bet that the images are different on the foreign language versions of Knowledge (XXG).
3416:
better represent the article (I wrote that over and over again, I won't cite the exact quotes here, but please feel free to read my posts prior to the addition of other images to verify). The current contention with Image 6 for whatever reason, is from several people (including 58.172.32.51, who has changed the image and I've had to revert it). 58.172.32.51 and I are aware that the photo has met with contention from others (NOT ME!! Again I'll state that I have no problem with Image 6 in the article right now. I'm fine with Image 6 in the article. I do not want to remove image 6 from the article. Clear enough yet?) and have simply brought it up when people on this talk page incorrectly stated that there has either been no objection to the photo or that I have been the only one to contest the article's inclusion in the page (Again, I do not want to remove Image 6 from the article). These are fallacious statements, and I thought I'd posted enough evidence to prove that. Again though, apparently I was incorrect.
1828:
transgendered not uncommon (where I am) you really could not be sure. Are they engaged in a sex act? Well, that would all be imagination. There is nothing obscene or graphic, or even hardcore about what they are doing. (Is standing on your hands hardcore?). I am interested in understanding why you think it is pornographic. Because there are two men? Because they seem to be naked? Because one person seems to have their face touching the other person? Because one person is doing a handstand? Because it is on a bed? I suspect that a major news organization could successfully print -- but that they would decline because of the perception by their readers similar to your expressed view and outrage over what they thought they were seeing. But, for that matter, when is the last time you saw a major news organization show an image on print of two men kissing each other? Would that be pornographic, or just not newsworthy?
3300:
as a good image. Even though I don't know why anyone would object to it I've stated that adding other images would not be a bad thing. What is it about that specific image that bothers you that it must be removed? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'd just like to understand as my perceptions of the image are that it is perfect for the article. Is your objection that the image shows two men? Or is it because they seem to be involved in a sex act? Or is it that it is an image of people filming a hardcore movie, rather than being a hardcore photo itself? Are you one of the people in the photo, and you'd rather not be on
Knowledge (XXG)? You have a phobia about handstands? (Sorry to be silly -- just a little humor to lighten things up). Seriously, I'm not sure I understand what objections you have. The image 7 doesn't appear to be as good of an image to me.
3390:"). Again, I have no problem with any of the images in the article, including Image 6 from Shankbone. Meaning that I would leave Image 6 in the article because I have no problem with it in the article now. I would appreciate you no longer implying (or saying outright) that I have a problem with Image 6, or that I'm the only one that has brought up objections to the image. Both of these implications (or statements) are incorrect, and would mislead the casual reader of this discussion. I was hoping that the detailed posts yesterday would have cleared that up, but unfortunately I was incorrect. I have never written that picture 6 should be removed from the article since more photos were added. So again, I do not want Image 6 removed (AS stated earlier I have readded it to the article a few times. If I thought it so objectionable, why would I have done that?)
3450:- It is only for clarity that I'll write this again: I have no objection to Image 6 being in the article. I don't want it removed. The ONLY time I objected to the image is when it was the only image, and I felt it was misrepresentative. I don't care what it shows. It is one photo and that simply not enough to show the spectrum that is Hardcore Pornography. (In fact I suggested that it may be a photo of shaven apes, I thought that was funny). Some have objected that it is either too graphic, or too narrow in its focus. I LIKE that it's a bit graphic, it is a picture of a sex act (according to Shankbone's own posts about it here on this talk page) and therefore it IS hardcore pornography, and represents the article well. With the other pictures on this page, it is good for the article.
3447:). I spoke to the photographers/copyright owners, and I made sure that all was done correctly to allow them to be used. If a consensus is reached they should be moved or need to be removed, I'm completely fine with that, as long as the arguments against them being in the article make sense, and that all edits are discussed here first to allow people to have their say. I didn't put them here for anything other than to improve the article. I don't care that they are the lede, and I truly don't care if anyone "likes" them. They are representative of the article and that's the only reason for adding them. If they were being removed or vandalized constanly, I think I'd consider that there was at least some resistance to them being here.
3856:." (emphasis is mine) "Knowledge (XXG) can be configured to hide these images if needed." I think perhaps you misunderstand. Knowledge (XXG) is an uncensored encyclopedia. For the most part everything in it is factual. If there are things that you do now wish your child to know or understand about the world, then you should monitor their use of Knowledge (XXG) like you do other Internet sites. If you don't want them to know about sexual matters such as pregnancy, circumcision, ejaculation and such then you should not let them go to those pages. We aren't going to take them off because your child is not ready to learn about them yet. If it is strictly the images that offend you, then you can turn those off.
1498:
market gay porn is in the same proportion. (although I think other factors may enter into it, as heterosexuals may be more inclined to buy porn that homosexuals, but I have no data supporting that. That translates in this case that an NPOV article, representing the spectrum of views would support 7%-10% of the photographs and content being on the gay pornography topic. As there is currently only one image in the article, of course it should stay as it is informational and on topic. The lack of balance of photographs representing the NPOV is not because a gay pornography photograph is in the article, but rather that no one has found suitable images for alternative viewpoints. For instance, the
2152:
mammal analogy is more on point. (Why are there many pictures of mammals on the mammal page? Or how about an article about colour with only a representation of one colour, say brown? If someone argued their needed to be be more colour to make the article more understandable, would this also be a "straw man" argument?). If the concept of the article is to be understood and it needs to have a visual to help understand it, one picture, of anything, will not suffice. This article needs more photos as examples or again (as stated before) the picture is misleading.
394:
367:
404:
3773:. There have been, historically, suggestions to get over this problem, all of which have failed to reach consensus. There is currently a proposal on one article to have a disputed image hidden by default and only viewable by clicking on "Show", but my knowledge of childrens' curiosity is that if they see "click to show", there's only one thing they're going to do. If you want to make such a proposal for all "questionable" images (and who is to decide where the boundary lies?), you should post it
1333:- you're welcome to review it for the piss scenes and descriptions - they are all over the internet. This photo is a tasteful depiction of an obvious hardcore scene (standing a person on his head whilst eat his ass out, chowing down on it like a pig at a trough). There's no need to be more explicit. The mind fills in the gaps, and that's perfect for an encyclopedia. I have far more explicit photos; 400 in all. They can get fare more explicit, but I think this is appropriate, don't you? --
229:
3115:
images to replace it only because you expressed a desire to replace it. There has been no solid consensus for replacement. You wanted to add additinal images, and no one had a problem with that. If you are really the only one that has any desire to replace it, then as the image with standing consensus, it should stay. Asking for other opinions is never a problem. The issue we want to look out for though is dealing with the homophobia that too many editors seem to have.
1269:
have. Not long ago someone threw in an image of a porn star giving oral sex to someone. The problem was the image was taken from Flickr, and ended up being a copyrighted image, not a free image. Also, it was extremely grainy, and as a close up, showed nothing discernible other than a small portion of what looked like oral sex being given by a woman. Not exactly a good substitute for the current image, even if it had been on topic, which was debatable in itself.
1447:
analogy is valid, and is certainly not original research. I am simply stating that a picture of a man performing analingus on another man is a very small part of what could be classified as hardcore porn (actually this is really a fetish picture if I were to objectively classify it). There MUST be statistics somewhere that would say back me up on this, I just don't have or know how to access this information. (NOTE: To give you more fuel for your
1163:". But given the subject matter, it does not seem to be particularly gratuitous - you can't even see genitals. Whilst I accept that images shouldn't always be added just for the sake of it, I do not see any evidence that this is the case here, nor am I convinced by any arguments put forward for its removal. If someone thinks there should be a better image, then please supply one - arguing about that seems pointless until another image comes along.
1037:
experience, so I'm pretty sure that a photo of someone eating ass isn't clarifying the subject for anyone. The picture has no purpose for being here, but if you want to cry and whine and hide behind technicalities, there's probably nothing that can be done about it, though, because unfortunately that's pretty much the standard for getting things done around here. Congratulations on being the sort of person that gives wikipedia a bad name.
283:
262:
726:
470:
293:
3228:
your behest
Atomaton) and I've been working with others here on the discussion page trying to improve the article. I've stated publicly here that I would be fine with this photo staying on the page. I have no desire to see the picture removed now, so please don't imply that the reason for the RfC would be to do that. I've never removed content or changed anything without discussing it here first.
220:
3206:. As you can see, there have bee a total of 92 edits to the images on this page, 76 directly dealing with Image 6,and 61 occurring prior to me looking at this page. To address the statement that "There was no impetus to change it until you came along." (referring to me); there are several editors that have voiced opinions against the image for one reason or another prior to me being here (see
3453:- As for your inability to comprehend other's objections to Image 6, even when they wrote reasons and opinions on it, I cannot say why this is; other than to offer that I've repeatedly written that I do not want to remove Image 6, and you are under the impression that I do, and that I still have an objection to it. You've been oblivious of written statements such as, "
3747:
I'm not saying the articles should be written using simple words or censored, but at a glance images, unlike text, will be noticed. I was using
Knowledge (XXG) because for the nature of my assignment I thought that this website would be safe than a search engine that randomly shows some image results in the text search, and without the chance of a misrepresented site.
533:. Unfortunately your verification tags have had to be removed because you are clearly POV in favour of porn. However, the section has been amended to clarify where the arguments come from and that research results are disputed. Moral arguments have to be included in this section to ensure NPOV regardless of whether any individual agrees with them or not.
3937:
should be a common or avearage image from a hardcore pornographic work produced since the term was coined. this image is a highly unusual choice, its focus is on raunchy, debauched humor, hardcore content is secondary, and doesnt adequately portray the subject. If we had an article on humor in pornography, it would be ideal for that. the commons has this
970:
that something explicitly pornographic has been, or will soon transpire on the film, but this image does not show that. I don't imagine that the image is simulated, but there is no reason to make assumptions as the miller test applies to reality, not to imagination or assumptions. Clearly the image does not satisfy any one of the three barbs of the
2239:
2400:
not depict anything the first two didn't already cover, and felt that there's no harm in switching to a different shot in the series that reveals more information that would be of interest to the reader. It's important to show that most often it's a production worked on by a team of people, not just two or three people filming themselves.
3800:
images without any warning. I chose this side because censorship and laws governing the internet would suck. However, a person should be allowed to choose and know before seeing something they may not want to. I have yet to learn of a way to forget a specific image, while sill retaining the information of what not to ever do again. --
2166:(the assumption here is that it's the standing subject's face-analog in the inverted subject's buttocks-analog). Analingus and cunnilingus, whether simulated or actual, are sexual acts. If this is not pornography, or the depiction of pornography, then why is it a solely necessary in an article to "represent" all hardcore pornography?
3852:"Knowledge (XXG) has similar safety issues to other equally open environments. Participation in Knowledge (XXG) requires youths to know basic Internet safety practices " "Knowledge (XXG) is not bowdlerized or censored. It contains articles on subjects such as racial slurs, controversial political and religious groups and movements,
2492:
conflict of interest. It is natural for someone to be attached to the work, and something they worked hard to produce. That is my opinion, not some kind of law. In this specific case, the artist provided a set of photographs, and his preference about which one he liked best in this article is probably for a good reason.
3489:. AGAIN I write that I have no objection to the picture being in this atricle NOW that there are other images). I'm not trying to be confrontational either. But I feel I've been pretty clear that I don't want Image 6 removed now, and you still seem to think that I do. Is there a correlation? I cannot answer that.
913:
is the best image for the lead, and what other images are effective at illustrating other points made in the article. My opinion is that this image as a lead image is better than no image. It is a picture of people making a pornographic film. The topic is hardcore pornography. This seems to be to be on topic.
3091:
between 3, 6, and 7 (and they are right in the fact that there WAS problem with 6 earlier. Many people voiced their opinion before, but simply have not continued to contribute. I understand you feel it's perfect Atom, but you are only one person.). I feel that 7 is too graphic, and could be problematic.
1618:
It is not a photo of hardcore pornpgraphy, or an example of a specific genre of harcore pornography. It is, inherently, non-hardcore and non-pornographic. It shows a camera operator and two actors on a set, in the process of filming a scene. This is entirely appropriate for the topic of this article.
3936:
the image currently here featuring intercourse is up for deletion, and will probably be deleted. however, even if its not, its inappropriate for this article. An image here should be one that would be appropriate for hardcore pornography, but not so much for pornographic film or pornography. thus, it
3799:
My report topic is a paper on internet pornography laws to protect children. I chose the argument that pornography is legal in other mediums, so the internet should not be picked on. I do think that random advertisements or misrepresented links are wrong, including sites that automatically show those
3639:
Just a couple, David: that it has the appearance of hardcore but with no genitals showing (which was the objection to 7), not narrow in focus (objections to 6 were that it is niche, not representative etc.). Also, some photos in the series show the production side of things, such as in 3 and 5, so it
2228:
2) The image is uploaded from Flikr, and there seem to be alot of copyrighted images that get transferred from Flikr. I note than the photographer, Larry
Knowles, charges for access a photo set where this image is included. One would think that he might object. Also, the photograph is not credited
2171:
I was not aware that increasing an article's "page hits" was the aim of adding content to a
Knowledge (XXG) article. I thought the whole point of Knowledge (XXG) was to present reader composed articles to enlighten and educate factually about the entire subject. A page's popularity has nothing to do
1764:
Point 2) I've not seen anyone write that this photo didn't represent a subset of hardcore pornography (they may have in previous posts here, but I may have missed it). But you are clearly stating that it is representative of the "subset". Therefore it should be viewed not as a general example, but a
939:
This image should not be there. Putting up this image does not elucidate the topic in any way. Given that essentially every human engages in one form or another of sexual intercourse, it requires no leap in logic to understand the concept of two people engaging in intercourse, and having that event
3516:
Support for 3 as well, or 7 or any other (but not 6, for reasons stated above). Atom has stated that whilst he feels 6 is perfect, he is flexible, and is fine with whichever David chooses. This is appreciated. Again, let's wait for David, he has said he has hundreds of photos. There's no reason that
3299:
Well, since you started participating, there have been two added photos, and the image that you don't like has moved from lede image, to a section image. The image you brought into the article is now the lede. I'm not sure I understand what your objections to image 6 are. I've stated why I see it
3241:
The point of this is there has been no consensus on the images (the constant editing activity over the past month is proof enough of that), other than agreeing that one of the photos from
Shankbone should be used (or that seems to be the current consensus for the time being). The edits and revisions
3011:
A dispute over the current images used in this article needs a resolution by consensus. Which image(s) should be used for this article to properly represent the sensitive subject of the article without being obscene. Please try to read all of the earlier discussion to get a clear view before asking
2778:
Contrary to apparent popular belief, this article should not be a battleground for straight versus gay. If you are concerned that the "straight" picture is more hardcore than the "gay" then I believe your focus is misplaced. Who cares? I don't, and if others do, well then they are also missing the
2278:
for use here on
Knowledge (XXG) (the downside is that now I have to figure out how to get it on the wiki commons or Knowledge (XXG) and have it cited that the owner and copyright holder has given it to Knowledge (XXG) without any of the "speedy deletion" warnings that are associated, but it's a fare
2084:
A square has a special property. I'm not sure that "two men" makes it a special property - it's no more special than "a man and a woman". The analogy would be complaining about a rectangle that's 100 pixels by 50 pixels, because someone might think that all rectangles must be exactly that ratio. You
1910:
The reference to the Miller test is because
Knowledge (XXG) servers are based in the State of Florida within the United States. The jurisdiction regarding free speech and obscenity is based on Florida, and U.S. Law. The Florida law on obscenity can be less restrictive than the federal law, but not
1876:
reference, is that valid here? That's a specific US Test for obscenity made prior to the emergence of the
Internets. I'm not certain our friends in Denmark or Japan would even care about that. The whole point of that test is that there are some places where this particular photo would be viewed as
1268:
and yet the image is not hardcore pornography. The part he is missing is that the image is of the filming of a hard core pornography movie. Which is on topic. Perhaps some other image could better illustrate the topic of the article, but at this writing, the current image described is the best we
912:
My first reaction of course is to prohibit people who want to remove an image only because it is, in their opinion, pornography. Getting past that, and establishing that the image, in fact is allowed on Knowledge (XXG) and is not, in fact pornographic in any way, leaves the discussion of what image
3794:
As a child, and even now, I restrain my curiosity when there is a strong reason to do so. Looking on a page about pornography, would definitely be one of those times. Another is spoilers that are hidden, about a story I have not finished. There are many times where my curiosity nags at me, even for
3658:
I like the article as it is. If we exaonded the text from being regional to also describing different Genre's of Hardcore, then additional photos could possible be in those sections. But, as it is, do we put a photo for each region? I think, for the moment, the article is okay, and needs no more
3473:
As there are no other pictures on here to represent the concept of hardcore pornography, it is misleading. If there were a layout of pictures, and the article discussed different types of HC pornography, then I'll assume this picture would be a good representation of gay pornography (I'll defer to
2463:
I have no problem with Image 3 being used as long as it's agreed to here by everyone (Atom, while I appreciate Shankbone's work to get his picture here, and his opinion on this is valuable, he is only one person. He shouldn't have the final say). There has been some contention over Image 6, and if
2399:
I apologise as I was unaware of a discussion. However, it's from the same photographer and set of photos, only it includes more of the background crew in the shot (script, makeup personnel etc.) and the production side of the article's topic. The main criticism I had was that the previous photo did
2157:
I apologize for my assumption that it is two men. Let's, for argument's sake say it's two people (I'll assume they are people but I don't know subjects or the artist so one or both may be shaven apes which would make it a far more interesting photo). This is a picture of a camera person (again an
1617:
I feel that the image IS representative of a subset of hardcore pornography. For one, if it were there to represent gay pornography, that would be a legitimate reason, as that is a sub-category of hardcore pornography. As it is, it is a photograph of someone (Lucas) filming hardcore pornography.
1446:
Who exactly are you quoting with "Straight hardcore porn is the standard and is the only thing that should be illustrated, if anything," above? I certainly didn't offer that or any other answer as to what "Standard" hardcore porn is. And for the record, this is a talk page.. isn't it? The rectangle
1399:
sized rectangle. While a square is a rectangle, it is a much smaller sub-set of the general set rectangle. So the question is how often do you use a picture of square to represent the concept of rectangle? Using this analogy, hardcore gay porn is a specific sub-set of hardcore porn, but I'm pretty
1036:
Atom, get off of your cross. The picture contributes nothing to the article. Pretty much ANY picture would contribute nothing to the article. The article is a blurb that basically says nothing more than "hardcore porn = porn with explicit sex acts". Sex is pretty much a cornerstone of the human
3764:
The problem with your suggestion is that we are a general encyclopedia and all illustrations have to fulfil a test of being valid in such terms, and once we start making exceptions, we are on a slippery slope to who knows where? For this reason, for example, there is strong consensus not to remove
3746:
I'm doing a report for school, and another Knowledge (XXG) page lead me to this one when mentioning a UK law. While I wasn't too interested in reading the page throughly to see if the images were even needed, I do feel that an encyclopedia should be work and parent friendly, if not child-friendly.
3415:
it was misleading and therefore not representative. Meaning that if there was only one photo on this page, I'm not sure I'd want it to be Image 6 (or ANY other image for that matter). To restate this, when Image 6 was the only image on the page, my objection was there needed to be more photos to
3227:
was not a good representation for the article as a single image, and the only time I suggested removing it was when there was no other image in the article. Since then I've been working to add images, and content from contacts in the industry. In fact I've restored this image a few times (once at
3179:
A RfC is probably overreacting, as there hasn't been a dispute. David switched to 7, which were the changes you refer to, but it doesn't seem that anyone was reverting each other. As everyone has stated that they are flexible, there's no reason that there isn't a photo that no one objects to. This
3090:
I don't understand then what the influx of new opinions would hurt here. If there wasn't a problem with consensus, then why all the changes in the last day? (I believe there were 4 image edits today) Shankbone is stuck on 6 or 7 for his reasons stated above, Atom likes 6 or 3, the anons vascilate
2652:
I object. We are putting hardcore porn photos on the article that are straight, but for some reason trying to lighten the gay one. I will support the use of 6 or 7, but not 3. There's no reason for a switch, though. With the use of a straight one that is more graphic than the gay one, the only
2381:
2) The photographer that provided the set of images, including the one that you removed to replace with your preference is one of the three people discussing the images. He placed that image in the article. I assume, although I could be wrong, that he placed that image from his image set, rather
2345:
An email was sent yesterday to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org (the at and the dot are @ and . respectively to prevent spam emailing) prior to it being uploaded to the server (after a few misfires). Also I have yet to get a hold of Mr. Knowles for more assurance of permissions, and to get more
2055:
I respect your opinion, I am sorry to disagree about its applicability. I see it as bringing useful information to the article whether it is perceived as a picture of a film being made, or as an example of gay porn. If you feel that this sways the article out of balance, and does not represent a
1821:
But your argument that this photo isn't pornographic or it is not simply a representation of the subset of gay pornography is confusing (especially after you wrote "I feel that the image IS representative of a subset of hardcore pornography. For one, if it were there to represent gay pornography,
1451:
contention (even though again, this is a talk page) I've watched a lot of hardcore porn that doesn't contain any male-on-male analingus (the actual number of times I've encountered this in hardcore porn that I've seen is zero). I feel confident in saying this is not just happenstance. But if your
1105:
That's pretty fallacious. In one breath you say, "I don't care if they are gay or not..." and then "I care that they are gay..." Why would the reasoning not be inverse if they were straight (that hardcore is straight)? The fact is, until people start putting up some free use pornography photos,
955:
Each person has their opinion. I've suggested that the image does relate to the topic. The topic is hardcore pornography, the image is a picture of a hardcore pornographic film being made. To me, in my opinion, those things relate. It is possible that another, better image will come along, but
3314:
The photo would have the same objections if it were a man and a woman. The gender of the persons depicted has never been objected to, only the specific content (for reasons stated in the discussion above and in the revision list by Feddx). To clarify though, you prefer 6 but would be fine with 7?
3137:
Agreed. Feddx, there's no need to create conflict if none exists. David Shankbone stated that he took hundreds of photos so it would be relatively easy for him to find one that isn't 6, but is identical in terms of the aspects expressed by Atom (looks hardcore but isn't), and shows the production
2949:
on its description and talk pages. That is the best place to attribute the photographer and identify the participants. That way any usage anyplace else will have that data. Also, the caption of the article should focus on a brief description, and how it relates to the article. I don't see any
2848:
Neutrality is not an issue here. The reason 6 is up is because it has been in the article a long time (preceded the other images even). It is the default consensus image -- we don't remove it just because one person complains, or because no one can agree whether to change it or not. If someone
2622:
I altered Shankbone's edit. Knowles picture was restored and placed on the right under the Margold picture. If your contention is that the picture shouldn't be on the left, then move it to the right (which I have done). But from now on please discuss possible objections and desired edits here.
2183:
I'm currently trying to reach old contacts in the industry to see if I can get permission to use an acceptable image or images to flesh-out the photo array. If I can get agreeable content that meets all guidelines, hopefully it will satisfy all parties. And also, how about it Mr Shankbone? I was
1769:
shows an array of pictures, not just one). I'm not saying the picture is not a valid representation, just not valid as the sole representation. As there are no other pictures on here to represent the concept of hardcore pornography, it is misleading. If there were a layout of pictures, and the
1533:
Not really the same thing. A penis is either in the picture or is not. The colour is a matter of the model in the picture (and unfortunately a matter for those who have a lot of free time to say something about it). The picture in that article doesn't "represent" what may be a penis, it IS of a
1502:
article has several images, including circumsized and non-circusized (natural) penises (penii). It does not, however, have an image of a hispanic, a black, or an indian penis. I am fairly certain that those racial groups have penises. Should we remove the pictures of penises representing white
1135:
article, should we delete the lead image because we don't want everyone to think that only white men have a penis? Maybe we should delete the current photo because we don't want to mislead anyone into thinking that when men have sex with other men that one of them always stands on his hands? Or
969:
As for it being pornographic. Again I don't see anything pornographic. You assume that the image is of a sex act, and you assume that the sex act is anilingus, and yet there is nothing in the image, or the caption to suggest either is the case. I see a film being made. My imagination suggests
546:
There's a *significant* difference from disagreeing with points, and wanting them to validated. You still have no real validation and the points have little basis in fact. I believe you're the one infringing upon the NPOV, especially relevant by your habit of removing past NPOVs. While moralistic
3460:
If anyone can provide statistical data as to the breakdown of which acts are the most prevalent in hardcore pornography over say the last 30 years, or provide what percentage of porn made is straight, bi, gay, transgendered, zoophilia, etc. and cite it for the community, (which would satisfy the
2151:
So then is the opposite true? Without the photo, the article cannot be understood? Is this photo then to be judged invaluable to the understanding of the article? And the Madonna analogy is off point. Madonna is one human being. There simply isn't 1 example of hardcore pornography. I think the
1497:
I disagree about the picture being removed. My thumbnail analysis, not statistical, but opinon and logic is that 7% to 10% of the population in the western world is gay/lesbian. This would suggest that roughly that the market for Gay porn, and therfore the sustainability of people who make and
1469:
If anyone can provide statistical data as to the breakdown of which acts are the most prevalent in hardcore pornography over say the last 30 years, or provide what percentage of porn made is straight, bi, gay, transgendered, zoophilia, etc. and cite it for the community, (which would satisfy the
1356:
pornography portrays. But, if you feel the need to add an explicit image do realize that you are helping to pave the way for when wikipedia will inevitably have to add a warning that will require visitors to aver that they are 18 years of age or older either before entering the main page or when
1299:
The questions that I see are (a) is a picture needed or is this picture relevant, and (b) whether it complies with the local laws where Knowledge (XXG) is hosted. Being offensive is not an issue - Knowledge (XXG) may host material that may be offensive to some people somewhere. In what way is it
916:
I can't imagine why anyone would be offended by this image. My guess at that would be 1) Some people are offended that pornography is made. 2) Some people are offended that men have sex with men and the image reminds them of that. 3) Some people consider nude buttocks to be offensive for some
3114:
I realize that I am only one editor. The image 6 has been on the article the longest. There was no impetus to change it until you came along. I respect your opinion to have a different one, although I don't understand why. Why don;t we add images, why remove it? Other people have suggested
2735:
6 has been up for a long time. It is the image with standing consensus. The other two are new, and so far no one has said they want to remove them. image 3 and image 7 have been suggested to replace 6 by one person, or another, but there has been no consensus for that, just one person or two
2491:
I am flexible. In general, firstly, I respect a photographers art. So, their vision on a photograph has some pertinence. On the other hand, I think that other people have better perspective on where the art is most appropriate. It is easy for a creative person to lose perspective and have a
1685:
Point-by-point: Point 1) Agreed, the photographer has the right to the image. The wiki community should then see if some photographers would submit their work as part of the GPL to allow Knowledge (XXG) to use it as explanatory content of hardcore pornography. That really doesn't validate this
851:
Well, seen as I was the first one to raise objections, I will give you my opinion. I really just fail to see what it contributes to the article at all. What does it answer? What information does it provide the reader that could not have been obtained from merely the written description? While I
595:
I've cleaned up the article somewhat and made it generally more presentable. I am not keen on the For and Against sections as they are just a list of vague objections/defenses with no real discussion. I suggest improving this section or deleting all of it except to mention the controversy among
2833:
Also agreed. However, it isn't a neutral stance to have 6 up during the discussion, if there is a disagreement. It may have been there a week or so, but the article has had no photos for most of the time. It would be neutral to remove 6, until a consensus is reached. There doesn't seem to be a
2177:
All of that is actually irrelevant. I don't care to talk of obscenity/pornography and what constitutes it. My point was simply this one photo is not, as a singularity, enough of an image to properly exemplify the concept of hardcore pornography. And I've never asked the photo to be removed for
2782:
Also if obscenity is a concern for the people who run the Knowledge (XXG) servers, then I'm not sure if 7 is appropriate. The picture chosen from Bill Margold was intentionally not that graphic. There is no real visible genitalia, but the reader/viewer knows this is a picture from a hardcore
2377:
1) There are three users who have been discussing and working thorugh the image son the talk page for the past week or so. You came in and changed one of the images without any prior discussion. This essentially steps on our toes. We welcome your opinions on the image, feel free to suggest
1351:
Whether appropriate or not the image isn't explicit. The sexual act is never fully revealing nor is there any indication of sexual arousal through the appearance of genitalia. Since you shed light on the title and description of the film one can gather that it is the filming of a scene from a
1158:
I agree also. If people are so concerned that it might "lead to people believing hardcore means gay", then please feel free to supply a free image feature opposite sex participants. But even then, that is no reason to remove the existing image (after all, we wouldn't want anyone thinking that
771:
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as
4222:
We have some figures on the size and turnover of the porn industry which are now over a decade out of date. In recent years, the free availability of porn on the Internet has made making pornography more and more difficult to monetize, and I would expect this to be reflected in the sales and
1555:
I'm sure that many a porn producer would be quite willing to allow a picture to be posted here, and give license to Knowledge (XXG) for its use (as I'm sure Mr. Lucas has for this image). I just feel that one picture that is by your admission (and I'm sure others) not representative of what
3912:
I don't know if either statement about Denmark is true, but the 1969 is for porn in general, it doesn't specify hardcore, so the sentences aren't necessarily icconsistent. I'm not sure why you can't believe the 2000 and 2006 dates - the date for the UK is correct (I have added sources), and
1827:
Different perspectives I guess. Well, cropping out the filmaker would be a different perspective for sure. In that case, you are left with sa photo that without caption or information leaves little facts and lots to the imagination. The two people seem to be men. But with Female to Male
943:
Secondly, how is this NOT pornographic in nature?? This is a picture of a man performing anilingus on another man, which is a sex act. As this is from a hardcore pornography movie, there is no reason to imagine that the act is merely simulated. Thus, the image is porn and should not be on
893:
I'm wondering if it is an image of gay porn, just to prove a point. I would imagine that there are other images more representative of Hardcore pornography. But there should be an image, however something that has more of the industry rather than just a basic porn shot would be interesting
1643:
As I said, if it WERE given as an example of gay hardcore pornography, and were explicit enough to qualify as hardcore pornography, and yet not obscene by the miller test, and so acceptable for the article, then it would be welcome in the article. The fact that we do not have other images
1877:
obscene and others where it would not (the test takes into account local sensibilities as well as national conscience). But it really has nothing to do with what I'm saying. This is not a discussion about this picture's specific value to the article weighted against it's obscene nature.
1314:
The image is irrelevant and misleading because it is not explicit, therefore, it isn't hardcore pornography. It's a softcore depiction of a sexual act. Due to the non-explicit display of sex and absence of information one cannot decipher whether it is indeed a making of a hardcore film.
2125:
career, since that one look may not be representative, or even current." We use what we have. Fact is, this is a major porn studio making a hardcore film. Besides, hits to the page on a daily basis are far high since the photo has been included. You can see an analysis pre-photo in
1283:
This article does not necessarily need a picture, and in my opinion, is better without the current picture being used. This picture is not only offensive to many people, but it is inappropriate to the subject matter; it is clearly unnecessary, and I do not know who keeps putting it up.
874:
I don't see the use of that picture either. On top of that, it seems to be one of those pictures in the, imo, rising trend of posting pornography on pages where it's not needed. I'm not shocked by pornography, far from, but there's no need to post it on pages to which it gives no extra
3640:
would be good to include that if possible. Objections to 5 were that it was too soft and the objection to 3 came from yourself. 3, 5, 6, 7 were out for different reasons, but if the reasons are taken into consideration when finding a new photo there shouldn't be any objections to it.
3941:, which is better. the image we have here from a porn set is good too, i suppose. sorry to add more fuel to the fire, but i really think its got to go. and if we dont have an image from an actual hardcore porn work thats free use, then this article just wont have an image like that.
852:
realise that wikipedia is not like 'other' encyclopaedias, I can hardly imagine anything like this appearing in something like Britannica, not necessarily because it may offend people or appear explicit, but merely because I fail to see how it adds or complements the article at all.
3043:
I don't perceive a dispute at this time. We welcome other opinions, of course. I think there is an existing consensus for the current images. Several people have made suggestions on changes, but none that have risen to the level of gaining acceptance by all users participating.
3455:
I've stated publicly here that I would be fine with this photo staying on the page. I have no desire to see the picture removed now, so please don't imply that the reason for the RfC would be to do that. I've never removed content or changed anything without discussing it here
920:
Reasons that would be good for removing the image might be: 1) The image is not on topic. 2) A better image is available for illustrating the topic. 3) Having no image is better than this image in illustratiung the topic. In my opinion, at this point, none of these are true.
2969:
My thought too. I tried to and just couldn't figure out how to edit the table or the image page (I see no, "edit this page" tab). If someone would take care of that, and feel free to edit the caption here as well, just citing the original article, I'd appreciate it. Thank
2464:
people here agree that it is more representative of the article then so-be-it. But it must be discussed here first to see if a consensus can be reached. If we cannot get resolution, then it should be submitted as an RfC to see what the community-at-large's opinion is. --
1106:
preferably from a major studio, the entire debate is moot. Even then, we would use both photos - but removing one just because they are gay is the exact thing many people here are claiming it is not: homophobic. Find other photos to add; we don't subtract free media. --
2120:
Agree with Mdwh and Atom. Saying that unless we can illustrate the full range of an article, we can't illustrate it at all is a strawman argument that is played too often. That's like saying, "We can't have one photo of Madonna unless we have photos throughout her
682:
Why has there been a gay porn picture added to describe the article? I don't care if they're gay or not, but a) doesn't providing a gay picture lead to people believing hardcore means gay, and also b) it seems that they've only used a gay picture because they can.
1085:
Why has there been a gay porn picture added to describe the article? I don't care if they're gay or not, but a) doesn't providing a gay picture lead to people believing hardcore means gay, and also b) it seems that they've only used a gay picture because they can.
3180:
probably won't be 6, as it has run into problems, or perhaps 3, but David has returned and should have an opportunity to respond (and no doubt has a range of alternative photos to suggest). If in a couple of weeks there is a dispute, then a RfC may be necessary.
1503:
people until we get an image of one, or all of the others? I think that article would welcome images including diversity. This article welcomes other information and factual image son the topic, including ones that represent heterosexual pornography.
2290:
Changed the image to Atom's suggested picture, as I'm in agreement that it's just better. Added more "hardcore photo" from above (Thank you Bill Margold!!) It probably needs to be moved around, but I'm new at this editing game. Thank you all for your
1719:
The photographer that provided that picture was David Shankbone. He went out of his way to get it for this article, Perhaps if you ask him he will look for an opportunity for an appropriate image that fits your liking as additional for the article?
2418:
58.172.32.51 Let's not get into some silly edit war. Let's put the original photo back (Number 6 in the series), and if you feel the need for changing the photo that has been up, then open an RfC. Ok? Hold off on further edits until a consensus is
2802:
Picture 6 was up for a while; although no consensus has been reached, please leave 6 up until either a consensus is reached here or an RfC can be submitted to determine what is best for the article. Can we all agree to that instead of the continual
2437:
I agree. We can talk about other options, which is what we were doing before you (58.172.32.51) decided to help out. I'd rather talk about it than have the images change every time a new editor finds the article and has a different preference.
3673:
I think he is referring to one all four of us can agree to, and I just submitted #15 as a compromise. Pretty good one, too - shows motioning by the director, no genitals, clearly hardcore filming...production, etc. How about this to replace?
1770:
article discussed different types of HC pornography, then I'll assume this picture would be a good representation of gay pornography (I'll defer to others on that point) but as the only picture, it's not really representing the whole concept.
2224:
1) The image isn't hardcore, at least some people might argue that. You could counter that it is a picture of a hardcore film being made, if that statement is true. (It might be a picture of a standard porno film being made, or softcore.)
1765:
specific one. Much in the way you could say that a human is a mammal, but a picture of a human clearly is not the only example you would use to represent all mammals. If you did, you would mislead the reader (a quick look at the article on
1591:
In this case, the photographer has rights to the image, and ask for permission to take the photos at that location. The photographer, as the artist, ownse the rights at the time of creation (under US copyright law, which applied in thos
2903:
I just received an email from Mr. Knowles telling me that indeed, the photos in question are available for use under the Creative Commons License. I also learned that the photos accompany an article called "One Fine Day on a Porn Set"
3482:
If the concept of the article is to be understood and it needs to have a visual to help understand it, one picture, of anything, will not suffice. This article needs more photos as examples or again (as stated before) the picture is
3246:
can only help solidify the content and improve the article. I've stated my opinion but if I need to repeat it, I am fine with Image 6 or Image 3 from Shankbone, and keeping the other 2 images as well (the current configuration of
3259:
is good for now). If we all decide by a consensus here that any of the images should go or new ones should be added then so-be-it. I'll wait a week or so before reopening the RfC, but I still feel there needs to be other input as
1352:
hardcore pornographic film. One can also try and assume that Michael Lucas just produces hardcore pornographic films. Technically speaking when regarding definition and going by the image alone it fares similar to anything that
789:
Gang, if you do any real research on the supreme court and this issue, you will see time and again that they come out AGAINST hard core pornography. There are many examples of this. THis should definitely be in the article.
2950:
problem with attributing the artist on the caption too, however. That is usually left off also, but it is up to the discretion of the editors, as in some instances the photographer requires attribution at each usage. (See
2282:
as it is a picture taken during a hardcore photo shoot, that is more candid but not explicitly obscene. This would satisfy many of the previous requirements brought up by those that have a problem with any picture being up
1644:
representative of other genres within hardcore pornography would not limit it usefulness in illustrating its genre. Our remedy would be to get further photos of other genres in order to give more balance to the article.
153:
835:
Since there seems to be an edit war, what are people's views on having this (or another) image? What reasons are there for and against having this image? I am not sure what is mean by being "explicit" or "graphic"?
610:
Suggest removal of the US rating system from the introduction. Unless, of course, the intention is to have yet another US-centric article. Or a listing of all the rating systems from everywhere else in the world
3878:* West Germany in 1976. (East Germany, which never legalized hardcore pornography, was unified with West Germany in 1990.) * Denmark in 1980 * Sweden in 1990 * United Kingdom in 2000 * Norway in 2006"
2926:, who wrote the article and took pictures to describe the quirkiness of the goings on behind-the-scenes on a porno set. The photographer we see pictured in the photos is only identified as Nicole in the article.--
3533:- As I am ok with Image 6, I have no objections to it. There's no longer any need to speculate on the reason(s) for my objection to it; Others have had objections to Image 6. Feel free to ask them why they object
1242:
I see no consensus here. I also note that your viewpoint seems to be the complete opposite of everyone else who wants it deleted - they think it's too sexually explicit, but you think it's unsuitable because it
518:
Completely unverified facts and baseless, moralistic accusations used in the "Against" column. Verification and References are the pinnacle of any Encyclopedia and thus should be so for Knowledge (XXG) as well.
2818:
I agree. Image 6 should stay up until we agree to change. It is good because it is not obscene. 7 is not obscene either, but as it shows genitals, may be harder to defend (people will remove it constantly).
1300:
inappropriate to an article on hardcore pornography? Being unnecessary comes under point (a), but I'm not sure that this is clear? And you can see who puts it back up by clicking on the History tab at the top.
479:
377:
3826:
for more information. The picture is unnecessary and doesn't even "fit" with the topic. A cover of an adult film (which does not need to portray any form of sexual contact) would suffice to describe the topic
3883:] that Denmark was the first country in the world to legalize pornography in 1969. The 2000 and 2006 dates I cannot believe at all. If no-one provides sources for those years, I will remove them altogether. –
1419:
Interesting theory that holds no water ("Straight hardcore porn is the standard and is the only thing that should be illustrated, if anything"). It also isn't a source theory on the article, which makes it
1141:
Sarcasm aside, the image is directly on topic without being offensive to any reasonable person -- how more perfect could it be? When people submit more images, we can add more images to give more variety?
3370:
Atomaton, I have stated this several times simply but apparently it still isn't being clearly communicated; I have NO problem with Image 6 as it is in the article now. (See quotes from16:34 8 August 2008,"
2184:
told to ask you if you could help with another picture to help with this argument. What else do you have that may add to this article and show us hardcore porn in a different light than just this photo? --
3777:
to gain the widest possible input. The problem exists in printed encyclopedias other than those specifically targetted at children, so I wish you luck, but my impression is that it won't happen. Cheers,
2623:
This discussion has been ongoing, and if the edits continue (including the changing of Shankbone's photo), prior to a consensus being reached, we will then have to find another means of solving this.--
2178:
content. But I would liketo see it be put with a group of photos that would more fully represent the subject. Alone it is misleading, along with other pictures it could enhance the article's content.
2014:
I'm simply stating that the picture, as a single photo, does not represent the general concept of hardcore pornography adequately and needs to be removed until it it is added to an array of others.--
3478:
I'm simply stating that the picture, as a single photo, does not represent the general concept of hardcore pornography adequately and needs to be removed until it it is added to an array of others.
4266:
1400:
sure it is not representative of the general concept. The picture should reflect the general and not a specific type of hardcore porn. Any statistics for what percentage of all porn is gay porn?
3210:), and there have been several deletions and reversions of the image as well. So that statement is not correct. There was an impetus prior to me being here, and there is evidence to back that up.
768:
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge (XXG) policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
2849:
where to throw in a new image, and there was disagreement about whether it should be there, or not, then we would probably remove until there was a consensus -- that was not the case with 6.
3983:
Recently, several prominent people in the porn industry have said that due to internet and free competition, porn sales are far below those that are reported. Paul Fishbein of trade magazine
3536:- Please refrain from future implications or statements that I do object to image 6. It's tiring to me to have to repeat that I don't over and over, and it is an outright misrepresentation.
460:
4286:
1534:
penis, and no one can really argue that fact. The difference here is that there are many different categorizations of hardcore pornography, and is not easily represented by one picture.
4301:
3440:- I'm not even sure I ever saw the article with Image 6 as the lede photo (Shankbone moved it a few hours prior to me visiting the page and posting to the talk page on 4 August 2008).
450:
624:
In reference to the image on the right. Is "New Devil In Miss Jones" really a classic? It came out in 2004, wouldn't it take a little longer for a movie to get "classic" status? -
3622:
Hey guys - so just by skimming the discussion, it appears a new photo is desired? Can someone please sketch out the criteria and I will try to upload something that meets it? --
4256:
1470:
non-original research guidelines of Knowledge (XXG)) then a more representative picture can be chosen, or several perhaps. Until then, the picture should probably be removed.--
4316:
4296:
4271:
2275:
a recognized expert in the history and study of pornography, and an ardent pro-porn activist, who graciously has agreed to allow me to use materials from his personal website
3461:
non-original research guidelines of Knowledge (XXG)) then a more representative picture can be chosen, or several perhaps. Until then, the picture should probably be removed.
426:
147:
3916:
actually claims that as of 2006, it's still banned in Norway. Btw, you can also use the {{fact}} to mark unsourced statements as a warning in the text, before deleting them.
3576:
Since yourself, myself, Shankbone and others are okay with image 6, and only one anon editor does not like image 6, let's just leave it in there and stop wasting time on it.
3138:
side. This would satisfy all aspects, including the ones expressed by anons. Let's give him the time to find one that fits the three criteria, as that would put it to rest.
556:
Several studies have proven quite the opposite, thus making such a claim not just against the NPOV, but completely and utterly factually wrong. See here for more details:
1090:
Can't add anything to that. I'm neutral towards gay people, and I don't have any problems with pornography. But I really don't see the use of this particular picture...
2085:
could make this argument about just about any picture on any Knowledge (XXG) article. If we think it's a problem, the answer is to add more pictures to show the range.
233:
2499:
of hardcore, and yet it is not hardcore, and not obscene. The other images being presented, although having many positive characteristics, do not provide that same
2495:
Speaking for myself, I liked that image (Image 6) the best, as it is edgy, in that it is a photo of the filming of hardcore, and looks like on the surface the image
3469:
I just feel that one picture that is by your admission (and I'm sure others) not representative of what constitutes a majority of hardcore porn, should not be used.
1452:
contention is that male-on-male analingus is a standard practice in hardcore pornography without any reliable source to back you up, then you'd be in violation of
1126:
on every point. If you want to add another free image that represents the topic, so that people can see that the topic is varied, I don't see a problem with that.
417:
372:
349:
2556:
I support 3 but not 6 as it does not show an aspect not already covered by the first two photos, and 3 shows much more of the production side which is important.
2638:
Agreed, and it seems Shankbone's photo has been ressolved. As the editors are fine with 3 but some have objected to 6, it can be agreed upon in switching to 3.
2172:
with it's encyclopedic value. I know some of the best written articles on Knowledge (XXG) get very few page visits, but are a wealth of insight and information.
638:
I think an example of Hardcore porn should be placed in the article. I think the cover art is not a good enough example. There should be a film screen shot.
79:
4281:
3961:
3938:
3372:
I'm fine with either Image 3 or Image 6 (Image 5 is ok, just not for this article on HC Porn, and I believe it's being used in two other articles currently:
2533:
I'm fine with either Image 3 or Image 6 (Image 5 is ok, just not for this article on HC Porn, and I believe it's being used in two other articles currently:
339:
44:
4251:
547:
reasons are a valid concern, *baseless* moralism has no place in an encyclopedia. Cite your references about pornography increasing rape among other things.
4261:
3979:
I've removed this text from the article because it is not about "hardcore" pornography. The videos offered in Marriott hotels are certainly not hardcore.
2232:. The image is credited to "The Naughty American" which I think is him. But, better to send him and email and ask him if he is okay with the images use.
3822:
The Bearly Legal pic was removed because it does not conform with Knowledge (XXG)'s stated policy with regard to the safety of the site for children. See
1159:
hardcore means straight...) Point (b) is speculation. As for the image being pornographic, I'm not sure this is a problem since this article is "hardcore
1972:
The Miller Test is relevant because Knowledge (XXG) servers are hosted in the US. The images have to be legal - it doesn't matter where the readers are.
749:, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with
746:
4311:
4291:
4276:
3964:, which doesn't show typical characteristics of hardcore pornography (you can't even really tell whether they're making a hardcore or softcore film).
484:
857:
I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but what is the point/relevance of this picture? It's more likely to offend than offer any actual insight. (
773:
765:
761:
742:
315:
654:
85:
3096:
A consensus has not been reached. And I feel pretty confident that others contributing to the discussion will only help this out. So why not do a
2422:
Also why not create a user account? While Knowledge (XXG) can be edited by anyone, it has always seemed that anonymous are under more scrutiny. --
2588:
It does seem that everyone is at least on the same page. Atom has stated that he prefers 6 but is flexible with 3 and Feddx is fine with either.
705:
Would you say the same thing if it was a straight porn picture? And I don't think we can make assumptions about the motivations of the uploader.
3388:
I've stated my opinion but if I need to repeat it, I am fine with Image 6 or Image 3 from Shankbone, and keeping the other 2 images as well...
4306:
3579:
I think the two images you suggested are great! You have taken great time and energy to work with other editors, and I know I appreciate it.
3256:
3070:
3066:
3062:
3056:
1395:
An analogy: There are many different types of rectangles. When showing a picture of a rectangle, we more often use the horizontally-oriented
777:
3465:
The difference here is that there are many different categorizations of hardcore pornography, and is not easily represented by one picture.
1376:
1014:
816:
It would be interesting to know what was illegal in the various countries - e.g., production, publication, distribution and/or possession?
690:
30:
3273:
What I don't want is an edit war, or a pissing contest for that matter. Neither will do anything to improve the content of the article.--
306:
267:
4246:
4116:
3750:
3718:
If 6 needs to go then the image to the right (15) seems suitable. Anyone? Anyone? Beuller? (waits for the anons to come out of hiding)--
2262:
Thank you for your input, I'll contact Mr. Knowles this evening to see if these photos are ok'ed to be used for this article as part of
1217:
An encyclopedia article explaining the meaning of hardcore pornography does not need a picture of a man tonguing another man's asshole.
1184:
1038:
797:
190:
875:
value/relevance....And does it really have to be gay pornography? It's not really the mainstream hardcore pornography as far as I know.
3801:
3691:
3641:
3518:
3316:
3181:
3139:
3029:
2864:
2835:
2787:
2702:
2639:
2589:
2557:
2401:
2374:
I assume good faith with the anon IP that changed the image to another image in the same set. Their are a couple problems with that.
99:
2698:
1285:
3248:
3048:
168:
104:
20:
4019:
2382:
than the one you chose, or another, because he prefferred that one for some reason. I know I prefer the previous image as well.
135:
74:
242:
4135:
298:
3795:
something simple or without much of a reason. However, I think a chance to think and be warned before viewing would be nice.
1916:
65:
3443:- The reason that there are 2 new images in this article is because I put them in, and one of them was at your suggestion (
3224:
1329:
That's not true. These photos are well known, and Michael Lucas himself blogged about our working together. The film is
3458:" that I write on this page over and over. When I initially DID object to the photo being here, I wrote such things as, "
4131:
4048:
2460:
Edit reverted. Please, no more changes until a consensus is reached here or through the resolution of an RfC if need be.
663:
Hear, hear. I am all for it. What does the the people say? A little consensus before going hardcore would be very nice.
314:-related topics on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
4087:
3164:
2230:
757:
733:
129:
3960:. I realise it's not a professional pornographic production, just an amateur photo, but I think it'll do better than
3348:(Apologies up front for the length of this, but I feel like I have to clarify with repetitiveness to be understood.)
4223:
production figures. This definitely merits a section in this article: would anyone be interested in writing it? --
4191:
2325:
The second one I like. The first one I think shouldn't be here. Also, Feddx, you need to have Margold go through
1225:
1111:
1071:
584:
185:
650:
583:
as there seems little information here that is not already included in the Pornography article. Discussion is at
109:
3995:
3957:
3946:
1362:
1320:
1233:
862:
125:
3609:
2701:
and other editors. Instead of removing it entirely, a switch to 3 or 7 is instead a compromise between the two.
199:
1228:
and doesn't represent what hardcore pornography is. Better not to have an image than just having a random one.
899:
694:
4176:
3770:
1380:
248:
219:
3754:
3513:- I don't want Image 6 removed; If a consensus is reached on Image 3 I'm ok with that too (Not with Image 7)
1188:
801:
646:
4120:
3805:
3784:
3695:
3645:
3522:
3320:
3185:
3143:
3033:
2868:
2839:
2791:
2706:
2643:
2593:
2561:
2405:
1042:
175:
4112:
3990:
Hardcore porn remains controversial in the United States, and is used as a campaign issue for politicians.
3202:
I have compiled a list of all the image edits on this page since the introduction of the Shankbone Image 6
3152:
1180:
793:
686:
642:
3999:
3987:
said that due to free and amateur Internet competition that rental sales are off 10 percent to 15 percent.
2915:
2834:
dispute here, or an edit war, but it does seem more time is needed now that David Shankbone has returned.
1803:
It is a picture of "The filming of a hardcore movie", and not an example of hardcore pornography itself.
1358:
1316:
1229:
409:
4172:
3914:
3690:
Agreed, 15 is a more appropriate photo, and the various objections to 3, 5, 6, 7 are not relevant to 15.
55:
4187:
3766:
1289:
1123:
1107:
1067:
425:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2951:
2280:
738:
560:
70:
2786:
Agreed, and this was why the arguments against 3 (that it was too soft) were difficult to understand.
520:
3942:
3902:
3888:
3679:
3627:
3412:
3411:
The ONLY problem I ever had with Image 6 was as a sole photographic representation of the article on
2720:
2658:
2334:
2139:
1429:
1338:
858:
615:
nevermind - removed it myself, as being irrelevant to the introduction, and culture/national specific
24:
3203:
2371:
I am reverting the image once again. It was replaced with a similar image from the same image set.
2263:
737:
is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
403:
393:
366:
4228:
4092:
3444:
3252:
3052:
2942:
2923:
2907:
895:
781:
161:
2919:
141:
4162:
4154:
3861:
3779:
3709:
3664:
3584:
3377:
3305:
3120:
3080:
2994:
2959:
2854:
2824:
2741:
2688:
2674:
2538:
2508:
2443:
2389:
2252:
2108:
2061:
1931:
1833:
1808:
1725:
1649:
1508:
1274:
1198:
This is not a vote. Please explain your reasons and respond to the points that people have made.
1147:
1056:
991:
926:
204:
3994:
decried the "cesspool" of pornography, but came under fire from social conservatives, including
3898:
3884:
2911:
596:
crackpot Christians and others. After all, this is dealt with in the main pornography article. -
4207:
4149:
Should there be an image in hardcore instead of none? or is there a reason there is not one. (
4066:
3474:
others on that point) but as the only picture, it's not really representing the whole concept.
2941:
I wonder if you would consider moving more of the detail fom the caption, to the image itself
664:
51:
2326:
2221:
Here are my comments. I like the image, and have no problems with it, but do have concerns.
1453:
530:
502:
4027:
3984:
2683:
Hmmm. I don't see consensus for chainging to 7 either. I have to admit, I like 6 better.
2056:
neutral POV, then we can add a POV tag to the article until the situation can be remedied.
1095:
880:
557:
201:
3774:
3243:
3097:
3028:
Please wait a couple of days. There is no clear dispute here, and it may not be necessary.
3723:
3544:
3278:
3160:
3105:
3017:
2975:
2931:
2808:
2628:
2546:
2469:
2427:
2351:
2315:
2296:
2272:
2210:
2189:
2019:
1561:
1475:
1408:
674:
422:
1448:
1421:
750:
3956:
I found a pretty good image featuring explicit depiction of penetration and oral sex at
4224:
4071:
4007:
3921:
2090:
1977:
1305:
1252:
1203:
1168:
1022:
841:
821:
745:
as to why its use in Knowledge (XXG) articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the
710:
2131:
2127:
1392:
How about this? I feel the picture should represent the general and not the specific.
725:
4240:
4158:
4150:
4011:
3965:
3857:
3705:
3660:
3580:
3301:
3116:
3076:
2990:
2955:
2850:
2820:
2737:
2684:
2670:
2504:
2439:
2385:
2248:
2104:
2057:
1927:
1829:
1804:
1721:
1645:
1504:
1270:
1143:
1052:
987:
922:
917:
reason. In my opinion, none of these reasons are sufficient for removing the image.
4003:
3485:", and now you repeatedly write that you don't know what my objection is (actually
3384:
I've stated publicly here that I would be fine with this photo staying on the page.
2863:
Agreed, though it was an attempt incorporate his point of view for the time being.
2783:
pornographic photo shoot, and is therefor correctly representative of the article.
1396:
534:
510:
3075:
Personally I don't see why we would want to change from image 6, it is perfect.
2653:
reason why the gay one is now under discussion is clearly because...it is gay. --
3573:
My apologies to you. I think it is clear that you have no objections to Image 6.
4023:
3991:
3373:
2534:
2163:
1873:
1091:
971:
876:
597:
580:
311:
203:
4232:
4212:
4195:
4180:
4166:
4139:
4124:
4031:
3968:
3950:
3925:
3906:
3892:
3865:
3809:
3789:
3758:
3727:
3713:
3699:
3685:
3668:
3649:
3633:
3588:
3548:
3526:
3324:
3309:
3282:
3207:
3189:
3147:
3124:
3109:
3084:
3037:
3021:
2998:
2979:
2963:
2935:
2872:
2858:
2843:
2828:
2812:
2795:
2745:
2726:
2710:
2692:
2678:
2664:
2647:
2632:
2597:
2565:
2550:
2512:
2473:
2447:
2431:
2409:
2393:
2355:
2340:
2319:
2300:
2256:
2214:
2193:
2145:
2112:
2094:
2065:
2023:
1981:
1935:
1837:
1812:
1729:
1653:
1565:
1512:
1479:
1435:
1412:
1384:
1366:
1344:
1324:
1309:
1293:
1278:
1256:
1237:
1207:
1192:
1172:
1151:
1115:
1099:
1075:
1060:
1046:
1026:
995:
930:
903:
884:
866:
845:
825:
805:
784:
714:
698:
677:
667:
628:
600:
563:
537:
523:
513:
509:
NPOV tag added with no explanation given, so removed unless a reason is given.
292:
282:
261:
3719:
3540:
3274:
3156:
3101:
3013:
2971:
2927:
2804:
2624:
2542:
2465:
2423:
2347:
2311:
2292:
2206:
2185:
2015:
1557:
1471:
1404:
625:
469:
399:
288:
2503:
of being hardcore while still being useable within wikipedia (not obscene).
2158:
assumption) filming the two subjects in either a genuine or simulated act of
3917:
2159:
2086:
1973:
1403:
Who knows, perhaps this is an argument against including a picture at all.--
1301:
1248:
1199:
1164:
1081:
I think the non-named guy above in the "needed example" part says the truth
1018:
837:
817:
706:
3608:
2271:
Also, through an odd series of events, I've just gotten off the phone with
3842:
Sorry. No one desires to offend you. A reading of the page you reference
3823:
940:
recorded. This image is utterly unnecessary in understanding the concept.
4053:
1353:
3618:- this seems to fit all criteria, and he's almost doing "jazz fingers."
3061:
Images that have been discussed, but failed to gain consensus include:
2238:
1912:
1766:
4006:
pornography generates a lot of revenue for hotels. Anti-porn activist
3100:? I'm not sure everyone feels so strongly as you that 6 is perfect. --
2946:
2310:
I'm also trying to get a few more pictures for this article as well.--
3769:
to placate one section of our readership; this consensus is based on
1686:
picture being included as the only representation of HC pornography.
585:
Talk:Pornography/Archive_3#Merge_Hard_Core_Pornography_article_here
3242:
between the images over the last few days bear me out on this. A
2669:
Looks like we will leave it at 6. No consensus for changing it.
1499:
1132:
1375:
Is the image necesary? It may be disturbing for some people...--
2989:
I updated the info on Commons. Now I will update the Caption.
1556:
constitutes a majority of hardcore porn, should not be used. --
1015:
Knowledge (XXG):What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored
3012:
questions or posing opinions that were previously discussed.--
213:
205:
15:
2346:
detail about the photo. I'll keep at it though. Thank you.--
2276:
673:
I think so too. We ought to have a more 'elaborate' example.
2715:
Drive-by removals don't count, but I'm fine with 6 or 7. --
2279:
trade off I think though). I'm leaning toward this picture
724:
468:
4014:, estimated up to $ 500 million is generated industrywide.
3257:
Image:The making of an adult film 6 by David Shankbone.JPG
3071:
Image:The making of an adult film 5 by David Shankbone.jpg
3067:
Image:The making of an adult film 7 by David Shankbone.JPG
3063:
Image:The making of an adult film 3 by David Shankbone.jpg
3057:
Image:The making of an adult film 6 by David Shankbone.JPG
558:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013
1011:"Thus, the image is porn and should not be on wikipedia"
956:
for the moment it is, in my opinion, the best available.
721:
Fair use rationale for Image:Newdevilinmissjones dvd.jpg
4267:
Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles in Everyday life
4010:, who served as California's lieutenant governor under
3539:
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Thank you--
1136:
maybe someone will think that all gay men have tattoos?
1924:
1920:
160:
3225:
The making of an adult film 6 by David Shankbone.JPG
2329:
to release those photos or they will be deleted. --
2205:
Added a new image from the Knowledge (XXG) Commons--
421:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
310:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
3897:
Paragraph deleted for the aforementioned reasons. –
3517:there isn't one (if not many) that all agree with.
1264:I understand his statement, I think. The topic is
776:. If you have any questions please ask them at the
174:
3881:That sounds pretty bogus. For example, it says at
2229:to him as the photographer (on the common site).
529:Knowledge (XXG) attempts to present topics from a
435:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
1051:Thanks for offering your opinion on the matter.
3437:And to address some of the claims in your reply:
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
4287:Start-Class Top-importance Pornography articles
4257:Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Everyday life
2697:6 has no consensus, however, particularly from
579:There is a proposal to merge this article with
4302:Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
3249:Image:Bearly Decent Bill Drea Bear-1980-82.jpg
3049:Image:Bearly Decent Bill Drea Bear-1980-82.jpg
4206:Doesn't this article need a history section?
3824:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:FAQ/Schools
8:
3962:File:Pierre Woodman at work in Australia.png
3939:File:Pierre Woodman at work in Australia.png
766:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use rationale guideline
4317:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
4297:Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
4272:Start-Class vital articles in Everyday life
4018:Maybe some of this could/should be used in
2922:and the photo(s) we have seen are taken by
438:Template:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
217:
3771:a long-standing and widely accepted policy
361:
256:
4057:, February 8, 2007; access August 4, 2008
3975:Removed text about hotels and Mitt Romney
3223:I have only ever asserted that the photo
974:, and it would have to satisfy all three.
4083:
4081:
4075:, July 21, 2008; accessed August 4, 2008
4002:, whose hotels profit from porn movies.
2237:
4096:, July 5, 2007; accessed August 1, 2008
4088:Romney Criticized for Hotel Pornography
4041:
3611:File:The making of an adult film 15.jpg
2918:website. The Director of the shoot was
363:
324:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Pornography
258:
4252:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles
2378:changing them and we can discuss it.
7:
4067:Turns Out Porn Isn't Recession-Proof
1424:; which is fine for a talk page. --
415:This article is within the scope of
304:This article is within the scope of
4282:Top-importance Pornography articles
944:wikipedia.03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
247:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
4262:Start-Class level-5 vital articles
418:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
14:
4049:Hard Times for the Porn Industry?
3998:, because he sat on the board of
2899:Porn Set Photos and Larry Knowles
734:Image:Newdevilinmissjones dvd.jpg
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
4312:Mid-importance Sex work articles
4292:WikiProject Pornography articles
4277:Start-Class Pornography articles
4020:Pornography in the United States
3382:"Â ; from 21:33 15 August 2008:"
2134:. Much higher daily average. --
764:. Using one of the templates at
402:
392:
365:
327:Template:WikiProject Pornography
291:
281:
260:
227:
218:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
4157:) 11:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC))
3704:I think 15 fits the criteria.
2906:]. The talent in the photo are
2235:3) Of the three images, I like
1013:This is incorrect - please see
455:This article has been rated as
441:Sexology and sexuality articles
344:This article has been rated as
3951:06:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
778:Media copyright questions page
299:Erotica and pornography portal
1:
4307:Start-Class Sex work articles
4233:10:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
4132:Jaden Wenzil Gaten Rondganger
1357:accessing filtered articles.
747:boilerplate fair use template
601:22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
564:17:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
538:08:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
524:17:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
477:This article is supported by
429:and see a list of open tasks.
318:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
4218:Decline of the porn industry
4140:11:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
4032:09:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
806:02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
774:criteria for speedy deletion
629:06:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
4213:12:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
4167:11:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
3728:03:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
3714:22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
3700:03:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
3686:23:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
3669:22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
3650:15:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
3634:12:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
3589:09:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
3549:23:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
3527:05:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
3325:17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
3310:13:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
3283:21:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
3190:04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
3148:16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
3125:12:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
3110:01:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
3085:23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
3038:23:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
3022:19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
2873:04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
2859:00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
2844:23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
2829:23:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
2813:19:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
2796:23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
2746:23:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
2727:00:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
2711:00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
2693:00:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
2679:23:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2665:23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2648:23:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2633:14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2598:22:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
514:06:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
4333:
4247:Start-Class vital articles
4196:02:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
4181:13:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
4125:07:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
3866:03:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
3810:19:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
3790:20:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
3759:20:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
3605:Criteria? Arbitrary break
2999:20:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2980:20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2964:19:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2936:17:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2566:17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2551:16:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2513:15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2474:15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2448:14:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2432:12:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2410:10:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2394:03:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2356:14:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
2341:23:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
2320:18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
2301:20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
2257:17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
2215:15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
2194:01:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
2146:23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
2113:22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
2095:22:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
2066:22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
2024:21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1982:22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1936:22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1838:22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1813:22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1730:22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1654:18:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1566:17:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1513:17:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1480:16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1436:23:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1413:20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1385:23:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
1367:06:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
1345:04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
1325:03:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
1226:sexually explicit material
1066:I agree with Atomaton. --
758:the image description page
461:project's importance scale
350:project's importance scale
3958:File:Strap-on pegging.jpg
3069:and one person mentioned
1310:10:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1294:08:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1279:13:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1257:10:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1238:06:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1208:09:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
1193:05:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
1177:I vote to remove image.
1173:23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
1152:21:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
1116:20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
1100:19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
1076:06:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
1061:23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
1047:18:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
1027:23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
996:04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
885:08:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
867:11:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
846:02:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
760:and edit it to include a
715:23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
699:23:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
668:16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
476:
454:
387:
343:
276:
255:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
4145:Image for hardcore porn?
3969:06:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
3926:02:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
3907:00:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
3893:04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
3047:The current images are:
931:16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
904:14:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
826:21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
785:16:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
743:explanation or rationale
2264:Knowledge (XXG) Commons
678:14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
620:New Devil In Miss Jones
480:the Sex work task force
307:WikiProject Pornography
4000:Marriott International
3619:
2242:
1088:
729:
473:
432:Sexology and sexuality
410:Human sexuality portal
373:Sexology and sexuality
75:avoid personal attacks
3767:Depiction of Muhammad
3614:
2241:
1124:User:A Knavish Bonded
1083:
728:
531:neutral point of view
472:
241:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
234:level-5 vital article
100:Neutral point of view
4069:, Betsey Schiffman,
3413:Hardcore Pornography
3253:Image:Porn Set 5.jpg
3053:Image:Porn Set 5.jpg
2916:The Naughty American
1872:Point 3) As for the
1266:hardcode pornography
1224:the image offers no
330:Pornography articles
105:No original research
25:Hardcore pornography
4093:The Washington Post
2952:Captions guidelines
1247:sexually explicit?
3620:
3378:Pornographic Actor
2539:Pornographic Actor
2243:
762:fair use rationale
730:
647:User:Nirvana Rules
474:
243:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
4115:comment added by
3168:
3155:comment added by
2245:slightly better.
1195:
1183:comment added by
808:
796:comment added by
701:
689:comment added by
659:
645:comment added by
575:Merge recommended
499:
498:
495:
494:
491:
490:
360:
359:
356:
355:
212:
211:
66:Assume good faith
43:
4324:
4210:
4188:Enjoyer of World
4127:
4097:
4090:, Glen Johnson,
4085:
4076:
4064:
4058:
4051:, Brian Braker,
4046:
3985:Adult Video News
3787:
3782:
3682:
3677:
3630:
3625:
3612:
3150:
2736:suggesting it.
2723:
2718:
2661:
2656:
2337:
2332:
2142:
2137:
1432:
1427:
1341:
1336:
1331:Flatiron Fuckers
1178:
1108:A Knavish Bonded
1068:A Knavish Bonded
791:
741:but there is no
684:
658:
639:
443:
442:
439:
436:
433:
412:
407:
406:
396:
389:
388:
383:
380:
369:
362:
332:
331:
328:
325:
322:
301:
296:
295:
285:
278:
277:
272:
264:
257:
240:
231:
230:
223:
222:
214:
206:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
4332:
4331:
4327:
4326:
4325:
4323:
4322:
4321:
4237:
4236:
4220:
4208:
4204:
4186:Totally agree.
4147:
4110:
4107:
4102:
4101:
4100:
4086:
4079:
4065:
4061:
4047:
4043:
3977:
3943:Mercurywoodrose
3934:
3879:
3873:
3854:and sexual acts
3785:
3780:
3744:
3742:Child Friendly?
3680:
3675:
3628:
3623:
3610:
3607:
3009:
3007:Image Consensus
2901:
2721:
2716:
2659:
2654:
2369:
2335:
2330:
2273:William Margold
2203:
2201:New image added
2140:
2135:
1430:
1425:
1359:CenterofGravity
1339:
1334:
1317:CenterofGravity
1230:CenterofGravity
859:Washboardplayer
833:
814:
723:
640:
636:
622:
608:
593:
577:
507:
440:
437:
434:
431:
430:
423:human sexuality
408:
401:
381:
375:
329:
326:
323:
320:
319:
297:
290:
270:
238:
228:
208:
207:
202:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
4330:
4328:
4320:
4319:
4314:
4309:
4304:
4299:
4294:
4289:
4284:
4279:
4274:
4269:
4264:
4259:
4254:
4249:
4239:
4238:
4219:
4216:
4203:
4200:
4199:
4198:
4173:Peter Pangyeom
4146:
4143:
4106:
4103:
4099:
4098:
4077:
4072:Wired Magazine
4059:
4040:
4039:
4035:
4016:
4015:
4008:John L. Harmer
3988:
3976:
3973:
3972:
3971:
3933:
3930:
3929:
3928:
3877:
3872:
3869:
3850:
3849:
3848:
3847:
3846:
3845:
3844:
3843:
3833:
3832:
3831:
3830:
3829:
3828:
3815:
3814:
3813:
3812:
3797:
3796:
3748:
3743:
3740:
3739:
3738:
3737:
3736:
3735:
3734:
3733:
3732:
3731:
3730:
3702:
3653:
3652:
3606:
3603:
3602:
3601:
3600:
3599:
3598:
3597:
3596:
3595:
3594:
3593:
3592:
3591:
3577:
3574:
3560:
3559:
3558:
3557:
3556:
3555:
3554:
3553:
3552:
3551:
3537:
3534:
3531:
3530:
3529:
3511:
3499:
3498:
3497:
3496:
3495:
3494:
3493:
3492:
3491:
3490:
3451:
3448:
3445:Porn Set 5.jpg
3441:
3438:
3426:
3425:
3424:
3423:
3422:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3418:
3417:
3400:
3399:
3398:
3397:
3396:
3395:
3394:
3393:
3392:
3391:
3359:
3358:
3357:
3356:
3355:
3354:
3353:
3352:
3351:
3350:
3336:
3335:
3334:
3333:
3332:
3331:
3330:
3329:
3328:
3327:
3290:
3289:
3288:
3287:
3286:
3285:
3266:
3265:
3264:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3234:
3233:
3232:
3231:
3230:
3229:
3216:
3215:
3214:
3213:
3212:
3211:
3195:
3194:
3193:
3192:
3174:
3173:
3172:
3171:
3170:
3169:
3130:
3129:
3128:
3127:
3093:
3092:
3041:
3040:
3008:
3005:
3004:
3003:
3002:
3001:
2984:
2983:
2900:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2889:
2888:
2887:
2886:
2885:
2884:
2883:
2882:
2881:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2875:
2831:
2816:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2780:
2759:
2758:
2757:
2756:
2755:
2754:
2753:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2748:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2695:
2681:
2667:
2636:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2568:
2554:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2493:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2461:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2435:
2420:
2413:
2412:
2368:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2285:
2284:
2268:
2267:
2220:
2202:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2180:
2179:
2174:
2173:
2168:
2167:
2154:
2153:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2098:
2097:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1669:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1439:
1438:
1389:
1377:201.143.67.158
1374:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1155:
1154:
1138:
1137:
1128:
1127:
1119:
1118:
1079:
1078:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
948:
947:
946:
945:
941:
934:
933:
918:
914:
909:
908:
907:
906:
896:Sennen goroshi
888:
887:
871:
870:
854:
853:
832:
829:
813:
810:
782:BetacommandBot
722:
719:
718:
717:
691:86.159.103.183
671:
670:
635:
634:Needed Example
632:
621:
618:
617:
616:
607:
604:
592:
589:
576:
573:
571:
569:
568:
567:
566:
551:
550:
549:
548:
541:
540:
506:
500:
497:
496:
493:
492:
489:
488:
485:Mid-importance
475:
465:
464:
457:Mid-importance
453:
447:
446:
444:
427:the discussion
414:
413:
397:
385:
384:
382:Mid‑importance
370:
358:
357:
354:
353:
346:Top-importance
342:
336:
335:
333:
316:the discussion
303:
302:
286:
274:
273:
271:Top‑importance
265:
253:
252:
246:
224:
210:
209:
200:
198:
197:
194:
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4329:
4318:
4315:
4313:
4310:
4308:
4305:
4303:
4300:
4298:
4295:
4293:
4290:
4288:
4285:
4283:
4280:
4278:
4275:
4273:
4270:
4268:
4265:
4263:
4260:
4258:
4255:
4253:
4250:
4248:
4245:
4244:
4242:
4235:
4234:
4230:
4226:
4217:
4215:
4214:
4211:
4201:
4197:
4193:
4189:
4185:
4184:
4183:
4182:
4178:
4174:
4169:
4168:
4164:
4160:
4156:
4152:
4144:
4142:
4141:
4137:
4133:
4128:
4126:
4122:
4118:
4117:92.40.254.249
4114:
4104:
4095:
4094:
4089:
4084:
4082:
4078:
4074:
4073:
4068:
4063:
4060:
4056:
4055:
4050:
4045:
4042:
4038:
4034:
4033:
4029:
4025:
4021:
4013:
4012:Ronald Reagan
4009:
4005:
4001:
3997:
3993:
3989:
3986:
3982:
3981:
3980:
3974:
3970:
3967:
3963:
3959:
3955:
3954:
3953:
3952:
3948:
3944:
3940:
3932:Images, redux
3931:
3927:
3923:
3919:
3915:
3911:
3910:
3909:
3908:
3904:
3900:
3895:
3894:
3890:
3886:
3882:
3876:
3870:
3868:
3867:
3863:
3859:
3855:
3841:
3840:
3839:
3838:
3837:
3836:
3835:
3834:
3825:
3821:
3820:
3819:
3818:
3817:
3816:
3811:
3807:
3803:
3798:
3793:
3792:
3791:
3788:
3783:
3776:
3772:
3768:
3763:
3762:
3761:
3760:
3756:
3752:
3751:99.50.224.163
3741:
3729:
3725:
3721:
3717:
3716:
3715:
3711:
3707:
3703:
3701:
3697:
3693:
3689:
3688:
3687:
3684:
3683:
3672:
3671:
3670:
3666:
3662:
3657:
3656:
3655:
3654:
3651:
3647:
3643:
3638:
3637:
3636:
3635:
3632:
3631:
3617:
3613:
3604:
3590:
3586:
3582:
3578:
3575:
3572:
3571:
3570:
3569:
3568:
3567:
3566:
3565:
3564:
3563:
3562:
3561:
3550:
3546:
3542:
3538:
3535:
3532:
3528:
3524:
3520:
3515:
3514:
3512:
3509:
3508:
3507:
3506:
3505:
3504:
3503:
3502:
3501:
3500:
3488:
3484:
3479:
3475:
3470:
3466:
3462:
3457:
3452:
3449:
3446:
3442:
3439:
3436:
3435:
3434:
3433:
3432:
3431:
3430:
3429:
3428:
3427:
3414:
3410:
3409:
3408:
3407:
3406:
3405:
3404:
3403:
3402:
3401:
3389:
3385:
3381:
3379:
3375:
3369:
3368:
3367:
3366:
3365:
3364:
3363:
3362:
3361:
3360:
3349:
3346:
3345:
3344:
3343:
3342:
3341:
3340:
3339:
3338:
3337:
3326:
3322:
3318:
3313:
3312:
3311:
3307:
3303:
3298:
3297:
3296:
3295:
3294:
3293:
3292:
3291:
3284:
3280:
3276:
3272:
3271:
3270:
3269:
3268:
3267:
3258:
3254:
3250:
3245:
3240:
3239:
3238:
3237:
3236:
3235:
3226:
3222:
3221:
3220:
3219:
3218:
3217:
3209:
3205:
3201:
3200:
3199:
3198:
3197:
3196:
3191:
3187:
3183:
3178:
3177:
3176:
3175:
3166:
3162:
3158:
3154:
3149:
3145:
3141:
3136:
3135:
3134:
3133:
3132:
3131:
3126:
3122:
3118:
3113:
3112:
3111:
3107:
3103:
3099:
3095:
3094:
3089:
3088:
3087:
3086:
3082:
3078:
3073:
3072:
3068:
3064:
3059:
3058:
3054:
3050:
3045:
3039:
3035:
3031:
3027:
3026:
3025:
3023:
3019:
3015:
3006:
3000:
2996:
2992:
2988:
2987:
2986:
2985:
2981:
2977:
2973:
2968:
2967:
2966:
2965:
2961:
2957:
2953:
2948:
2944:
2939:
2937:
2933:
2929:
2925:
2924:Larry Knowles
2921:
2917:
2913:
2909:
2908:Mikey Butders
2905:
2898:
2874:
2870:
2866:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2856:
2852:
2847:
2846:
2845:
2841:
2837:
2832:
2830:
2826:
2822:
2817:
2814:
2810:
2806:
2801:
2797:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2784:
2781:
2777:
2776:
2775:
2774:
2773:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2761:
2760:
2747:
2743:
2739:
2734:
2728:
2725:
2724:
2714:
2713:
2712:
2708:
2704:
2700:
2696:
2694:
2690:
2686:
2682:
2680:
2676:
2672:
2668:
2666:
2663:
2662:
2651:
2650:
2649:
2645:
2641:
2637:
2634:
2630:
2626:
2621:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2567:
2563:
2559:
2555:
2552:
2548:
2544:
2540:
2536:
2532:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2526:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2514:
2510:
2506:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2475:
2471:
2467:
2462:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2436:
2433:
2429:
2425:
2421:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2411:
2407:
2403:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2395:
2391:
2387:
2383:
2379:
2375:
2372:
2366:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2339:
2338:
2328:
2324:
2323:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2309:
2308:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2281:
2277:
2274:
2270:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2254:
2250:
2246:
2240:
2236:
2233:
2231:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2216:
2212:
2208:
2200:
2195:
2191:
2187:
2182:
2181:
2176:
2175:
2170:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2156:
2155:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2144:
2143:
2133:
2129:
2124:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2083:
2082:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1875:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1820:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1768:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1501:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1455:
1450:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1437:
1434:
1433:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1401:
1398:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1355:
1350:
1346:
1343:
1342:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1281:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1267:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1185:68.192.37.127
1182:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1157:
1156:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1140:
1139:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1125:
1122:I agree with
1121:
1120:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1087:
1082:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1039:71.202.112.38
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
997:
993:
989:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
973:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
942:
938:
937:
936:
935:
932:
928:
924:
919:
915:
911:
910:
905:
901:
897:
892:
891:
890:
889:
886:
882:
878:
873:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
855:
850:
849:
848:
847:
843:
839:
830:
828:
827:
823:
819:
812:Legalization?
811:
809:
807:
803:
799:
798:65.79.135.239
795:
787:
786:
783:
779:
775:
772:described on
769:
767:
763:
759:
756:Please go to
754:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
735:
727:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
703:
702:
700:
696:
692:
688:
680:
679:
676:
669:
666:
662:
661:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
633:
631:
630:
627:
619:
614:
613:
612:
605:
603:
602:
599:
590:
588:
586:
582:
574:
572:
565:
562:
559:
555:
554:
553:
552:
545:
544:
543:
542:
539:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
525:
522:
516:
515:
512:
504:
501:
486:
483:(assessed as
482:
481:
471:
467:
466:
462:
458:
452:
449:
448:
445:
428:
424:
420:
419:
411:
405:
400:
398:
395:
391:
390:
386:
379:
374:
371:
368:
364:
351:
347:
341:
338:
337:
334:
317:
313:
309:
308:
300:
294:
289:
287:
284:
280:
279:
275:
269:
266:
263:
259:
254:
250:
244:
236:
235:
225:
221:
216:
215:
196:
195:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
4221:
4205:
4170:
4148:
4129:
4111:— Preceding
4108:
4091:
4070:
4062:
4052:
4044:
4036:
4017:
4004:Pay-per-view
3996:Tony Perkins
3978:
3935:
3896:
3880:
3874:
3853:
3851:
3802:99.14.209.69
3765:images from
3745:
3692:58.172.32.51
3678:
3642:58.172.32.51
3626:
3621:
3615:
3519:58.172.32.51
3510:So to recap:
3486:
3481:
3477:
3472:
3468:
3464:
3459:
3454:
3387:
3383:
3371:
3347:
3317:58.172.32.51
3182:58.172.32.51
3140:58.172.32.51
3074:
3060:
3046:
3042:
3030:58.172.32.51
3010:
2940:
2920:Brett Brando
2902:
2865:58.172.32.51
2836:58.172.32.51
2788:58.172.32.51
2719:
2703:58.172.32.51
2657:
2640:58.172.32.51
2590:58.172.32.51
2558:58.172.32.51
2500:
2496:
2402:58.172.32.51
2384:
2380:
2376:
2373:
2370:
2367:Image change
2333:
2247:
2244:
2234:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2204:
2162:or possibly
2138:
2130:, versus in
2122:
2119:
1668:
1428:
1402:
1397:golden ratio
1394:
1391:
1388:
1373:
1337:
1330:
1282:
1265:
1263:
1244:
1221:
1216:
1160:
1089:
1084:
1080:
1050:
1035:
1010:
834:
815:
788:
780:. Thank you.
770:
755:
732:
731:
681:
672:
665:Aditya Kabir
637:
623:
609:
606:Introduction
594:
578:
570:
561:70.77.41.100
517:
508:
478:
456:
416:
345:
305:
249:WikiProjects
232:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
3992:Mitt Romney
3483:misleading.
3374:Pornography
3151:—Preceding
2699:64.212.80.6
2535:Pornography
2164:cunnilingus
2103:Well said.
1874:Miller Test
1286:64.212.80.6
1179:—Preceding
1161:pornography
972:miller test
792:—Preceding
685:—Preceding
641:—Preceding
581:Pornography
521:70.77.41.16
321:Pornography
312:pornography
268:Pornography
239:Start-class
148:free images
31:not a forum
4241:Categories
4037:References
3616:Compromise
2912:Cali Chase
675:Kendirangu
4225:The Anome
4171:Why this
3875:It says:
3681:Shankbone
3659:photos.
3629:Shankbone
2722:Shankbone
2660:Shankbone
2336:Shankbone
2160:analingus
2141:Shankbone
1431:Shankbone
1340:Shankbone
237:is rated
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
4202:History?
4159:Mudak568
4151:Mudak568
4113:unsigned
4054:Newsweek
3966:Dcoetzee
3871:Legality
3386:",and "
3165:contribs
3153:unsigned
2803:edits?--
2419:reached.
1354:softcore
1181:unsigned
794:unsigned
751:fair use
739:fair use
687:unsigned
655:contribs
643:unsigned
378:Sex work
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
3827:itself.
3781:Rodhull
3480:", or "
2945:and/or
2327:WP:OTRS
2291:help.--
1913:Denmark
1767:mammals
1454:WP:CITE
1131:In the
591:Cleanup
535:Jezzerk
511:Jezzerk
459:on the
348:on the
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
4209:Aditya
4024:Gronky
3786:andemu
3456:first.
3244:WP:RfC
3098:WP:RfC
3024:Feddx
2970:you.--
2938:Feddx
2779:point.
2322:Feddx
2217:Feddx
2123:entire
1921:Norway
1592:case).
1415:Feddx
1222:Delete
1092:Firipu
877:Firipu
598:Neural
245:scale.
126:Google
3899:Kloth
3885:Kloth
3720:Feddx
3676:David
3624:David
3541:Feddx
3471:", "
3275:Feddx
3260:well.
3157:Feddx
3102:Feddx
3014:Feddx
2982:Feddx
2972:Feddx
2928:Feddx
2815:Feddx
2805:Feddx
2717:David
2655:David
2635:Feddx
2625:Feddx
2553:Feddx
2543:Feddx
2476:Feddx
2466:Feddx
2434:Feddx
2424:Feddx
2358:Feddx
2348:Feddx
2331:David
2312:Feddx
2303:Feddx
2293:Feddx
2283:here.
2207:Feddx
2196:Feddx
2186:Feddx
2136:David
2128:March
2026:Feddx
2016:Feddx
1925:Czech
1917:Japan
1568:Feddx
1558:Feddx
1500:penis
1482:Feddx
1472:Feddx
1449:WP:OR
1426:David
1422:WP:OR
1405:Feddx
1335:David
1245:isn't
1133:Penis
831:Image
626:OPaul
226:This
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
4229:talk
4192:talk
4177:talk
4163:talk
4155:talk
4136:talk
4130:Yes
4121:talk
4109:Hi
4028:talk
3947:talk
3922:talk
3918:Mdwh
3903:talk
3889:talk
3862:talk
3858:Atom
3806:talk
3775:here
3755:talk
3724:talk
3710:talk
3706:Atom
3696:talk
3665:talk
3661:Atom
3646:talk
3585:talk
3581:Atom
3545:talk
3523:talk
3476:", "
3467:", "
3463:", "
3376:and
3321:talk
3306:talk
3302:Atom
3279:talk
3255:and
3208:here
3204:here
3186:talk
3161:talk
3144:talk
3121:talk
3117:Atom
3106:talk
3081:talk
3077:Atom
3065:and
3055:and
3034:talk
3018:talk
2995:talk
2991:Atom
2976:talk
2960:talk
2956:Atom
2954:)
2947:Here
2943:Here
2932:talk
2914:for
2910:and
2869:talk
2855:talk
2851:Atom
2840:talk
2825:talk
2821:Atom
2809:talk
2792:talk
2742:talk
2738:Atom
2707:talk
2689:talk
2685:Atom
2675:talk
2671:Atom
2644:talk
2629:talk
2594:talk
2562:talk
2547:talk
2541:).--
2537:and
2509:talk
2505:Atom
2501:look
2470:talk
2444:talk
2440:Atom
2428:talk
2406:talk
2390:talk
2386:Atom
2352:talk
2316:talk
2297:talk
2253:talk
2249:Atom
2211:talk
2190:talk
2132:June
2109:talk
2105:Atom
2091:talk
2087:Mdwh
2062:talk
2058:Atom
2020:talk
1978:talk
1974:Mdwh
1932:talk
1928:Atom
1923:and
1919:and
1915:and
1834:talk
1830:Atom
1809:talk
1805:Atom
1726:talk
1722:Atom
1650:talk
1646:Atom
1562:talk
1509:talk
1505:Atom
1476:talk
1409:talk
1381:talk
1363:talk
1321:talk
1306:talk
1302:Mdwh
1290:talk
1275:talk
1271:Atom
1253:talk
1249:Mdwh
1234:talk
1204:talk
1200:Mdwh
1189:talk
1169:talk
1165:Mdwh
1148:talk
1144:Atom
1112:talk
1096:talk
1072:talk
1057:talk
1053:Atom
1043:talk
1023:talk
1019:Mdwh
992:talk
988:Atom
927:talk
923:Atom
900:talk
881:talk
863:talk
842:talk
838:Mdwh
822:talk
818:Mdwh
802:talk
711:talk
707:Mdwh
695:talk
651:talk
503:NPOV
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
3487:was
451:Mid
340:Top
176:TWL
4243::
4231:)
4194:)
4179:)
4165:)
4138:)
4123:)
4105:Me
4080:^
4030:)
4022:.
3949:)
3924:)
3905:)
3891:)
3864:)
3808:)
3757:)
3749:--
3726:)
3712:)
3698:)
3674:--
3667:)
3648:)
3587:)
3547:)
3525:)
3380:).
3323:)
3308:)
3281:)
3251:,
3188:)
3167:)
3163:•
3146:)
3123:)
3108:)
3083:)
3051:,
3036:)
3020:)
2997:)
2978:)
2962:)
2934:)
2871:)
2857:)
2842:)
2827:)
2811:)
2794:)
2744:)
2709:)
2691:)
2677:)
2646:)
2631:)
2596:)
2564:)
2549:)
2511:)
2497:is
2472:)
2446:)
2430:)
2408:)
2392:)
2354:)
2318:)
2299:)
2255:)
2213:)
2192:)
2111:)
2093:)
2064:)
2022:)
1980:)
1934:)
1836:)
1811:)
1728:)
1652:)
1564:)
1511:)
1478:)
1456:))
1411:)
1383:)
1365:)
1323:)
1308:)
1292:)
1277:)
1255:)
1236:)
1206:)
1191:)
1171:)
1150:)
1114:)
1098:)
1074:)
1059:)
1045:)
1025:)
1017:.
994:)
929:)
902:)
883:)
865:)
844:)
824:)
804:)
753:.
713:)
697:)
657:)
653:•
587:.
487:).
376::
156:)
54:;
4227:(
4190:(
4175:(
4161:(
4153:(
4134:(
4119:(
4026:(
3945:(
3920:(
3901:(
3887:(
3860:(
3804:(
3753:(
3722:(
3708:(
3694:(
3663:(
3644:(
3583:(
3543:(
3521:(
3319:(
3304:(
3277:(
3184:(
3159:(
3142:(
3119:(
3104:(
3079:(
3032:(
3016:(
2993:(
2974:(
2958:(
2930:(
2867:(
2853:(
2838:(
2823:(
2807:(
2790:(
2740:(
2705:(
2687:(
2673:(
2642:(
2627:(
2592:(
2560:(
2545:(
2507:(
2468:(
2442:(
2426:(
2404:(
2388:(
2350:(
2314:(
2295:(
2266:.
2251:(
2209:(
2188:(
2107:(
2089:(
2060:(
2018:(
1976:(
1930:(
1832:(
1807:(
1724:(
1648:(
1560:(
1507:(
1474:(
1407:(
1379:(
1361:(
1319:(
1304:(
1288:(
1273:(
1251:(
1232:(
1202:(
1187:(
1167:(
1146:(
1110:(
1094:(
1070:(
1055:(
1041:(
1021:(
990:(
925:(
898:(
879:(
869:)
861:(
840:(
820:(
800:(
709:(
693:(
649:(
505:?
463:.
352:.
251::
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
