Talk:Donkey punch/Archive 2

This article is terrible; this debate is absurd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Researched article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-reliable source?

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

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

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

Medical and Legal Warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffrey Bahr?

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

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

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

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

Gay Pimp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Danza!!!

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

egregious abuse of Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

Actual occurence?

The article Gia Paloma states that she has had the dubious "honor" of being (probably) the first person to be on the receiving end of one. The movie in question should serve as a verifiable source, although I still don't see why anyone would do this unless they're trying to knock the person out or harm/kill them, which would be Bad(tm).

Quite apart from that, this talk page itself is starting to look like a non-trivial work on the topic, and if the amount of "interest" (both positive and negative) in this as a topic is reflected anywhere else, the subject is probably as notable as other urban legends.

One wonders why people assume there is something misogynistic about having an article about an act, even if that act itself might reflect misogynistic tendencies or a really crappy sense of humour. Besides, it could just as easily (and equally ineffectively) be done on a man, whether by another man or by a woman. If we bury every single article that documents practices that are detrimental to women, that isn't doing them any favours, as it just paints an incorrect image of the world. Zuiram 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Zuiram, I'm sure some editors just don't feel that jokey "sex moves" belong in an encyclopedia, period, but generally the objection has been that the article did not meet attribution requirements. Some of us "saved" the article in the most recent AFD by ruthlessly removing original research and pop culture references, as well as dubious (even if probably true) stories about its origins, to conform to policy. If a reliable source such as Adult Video News (for one example) says that Gia Paloma etc. then we could use it, but I don't think it helps to include information from primary sources when an article is on shaky ground without scrupulous references.--Dhartung | Talk 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.iafd.com/title.rme/title=Gutter+Mouths+30/year=2004/Gutter-Mouths-30.htm The adult film database lists gia paloma and two other actresses as receiving a donkey punch in the supposed first film to feature it. While this doesn't confirm it as the first such film its an example of a film where it was performed. 88.144.9.251 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooops nevermind forgot DP means something else guess that link doesnt confirm it after all. 88.144.9.251 00:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, IAFD is not a reliable source. --Dhartung | Talk 18:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD Hilarity

I just read the most recent deletion voting and it's hilarious. I can't believe I just saw that many people voting to Strongly Keep "Donkey Punch." 153.106.4.94 10:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what's really hilarious? The fact that a small minority keep nominating it for deletion voting, but continue to fail because the majority wants to keep it. And they'll keep nominating and nominating.. Until they finally win. Pretty Good Satan 03:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything we can do with this?

Patrice Oneal Explains Donkey-Punching On Fox News. I don't know. --Maxamegalon2000 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Another donkey punch on film

I haven't seen it, but apparently there is a donkey punch in Joe Gallant's Avenue X, a 2006 video available on Greencine.