text:
Talk:Pegging (sexual practice)/Archive 1

Sources pls
Could someone please get some sources on this? particularly that survey that two people just quibbled about through edits earlier. Jacqui ★ 14:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, according to a major CDC survey in 2002 %40 of males 25-44 years old have reported anal with the opposite sex (PDF)  and  -- as the Slate article says, a major trend not being reported. This is USA only of course and doesnt include older generation - in other words GenX are a bunch of freaks. Well, do with that what you want, im unwatching from the article, too freaky for me. Stbalbach 16:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * A major sexual survey published in 2002 by the CDC has shown that 40% of hetrosexual men in the United States between the ages of 25 and 44 have had at least one experience with anal sex, though not necessarily with pegging.

 * How is this at all related? The survey specifically asked men, "Have you ever put your penis in a female’s rectum or butt (also known as anal sex)?"  This has absolutely nothing to do with pegging, and its inclusion is seriously misleading.  The survey did not ask any questions about heterosexual male-recipient anal penetration.  I've removed the text for now.  Please discuss if you disagree with the edit.  -- Dpark 05:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, unless someone objects (or I forget), I'll remove the "verify" tag in a couple of days. It seems best to completely omit references to stats unless someone can produce some that directly discuss pegging (or possibly some other form of male anal stimulation). -- Dpark 05:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Removed. -- Dpark 01:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sodomy?
Regarding the sodomy line -- unless someone can show me every single sodomy law in the entire world, we can't unilaterally say that this pratice is controlled by every sodomy law out there. In fact, I've heard that a lot of sodomy laws only cover homosexual activity, which would therefore not affect this practice. Jacqui ★ 19:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the above, sodomy refers to any sexual activity not performed for the purpose of procreation, and sodomy laws in the united states technically do prohibit even such things as heterosexual oral intercourse, but the laws were enacted (and enforced) only to control homosexuality and rape.

If a man anally penetrates his male or female partner with a strap-on dildo, is that still pegging? Exploding Boy 00:49, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup
I can't be bothered to do this, but if this article is going to be on the front page, then it should really be of a higher quality than the fucking tripe displayed currently. Come on, people. This is shoddy.

DicDef?
If this is just a definition of a neologism, shouldn't it be in the Wiktionary? Avriette 02:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) Wow...learn sumhin every day
 * Current article text is way beyond that now. Marking this topic "Resolved". —  SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Females
I'm a bit confused by this statement "women may enjoy receptive anal sex, through harness attachments" does this mean a woman can er peg herself while pegging her partner or does it mean a woman may enjoy being pegged by another women? Nil Einne 13:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It's clear to me that that part is either invalid, or somebody was being overinclusive. If you remove the part about women being stimulated anally, it makes more sense, and since this article is about the happenings of female-to-male heterosexual sex acts, it seems to make sense to remove that bit, and cleanup around it, which I'll do.  --Flata 23:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I can,t see another place to put my comments so here seems good my husband & I recently bought a strap on as we wanted to try reverse roles after much discussion with a very nice girl we decided on a strap on & a hand held vibrator as the girl said with a vibrator you can penetrate him whilst he is inside you.we got home & within ten minutes I had stripped my husband lubricated him & had him on his hands & knees I started slowly but I soon had him begging for me to do it harder I could see his hand moving frantically so I thought lets turn him over so I can get a better view & I was so glad I did he soon shot a huge load all over his chest, he later told me it was the most intense orgasm he had ever had.As for the hand held its still in the box.--Marta 63 15:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)marta

 * That's... great for you. I'm glad you're enjoying yourselves, but what exactly are you trying to tell us? This is not a discussion forum for sexual practices. It's common knowledge that stimulation of the prostate is considered arousing my some men, and anal sex is apparently enjoyable for both ends, so apart from the extremely graphical account of your sex life, you don't seem to intend to add anything to the topic.
 * As for the original topic: I think the point was that some harnesses have attachments, i.e. "internal" dildos or plugs. I leave the rest to your imagination. A simple mention that such attachments exist should be enough to cover them.
 * I do wonder whether the female-to-female use of strap-ons is considered "pegging" as well, though, as that's the context from which I knew the term before encountering this article. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 20:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't see what in God's name the above post is doing in an encyclopaedic setting. If anyone has any response to the irrelevance of the above rambling, please let me know. -- Mcsc09 23:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 * And I don't see what god have in this encyclopaedic discussion. Ran4 10:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit to first paragraph
"Occasionally, the term is also used if a woman gives anal sex to another woman." -- does anyone have a source for this? When the term was introduced by Dan Savage it was specifically meant to describe a woman giving anal sex to a man, and I'm not aware of any common usage of the term for woman/woman anal sex. Catamorphism 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Savage is a gay sex columnist not gay-sex columnist
Removed notation that Dan Savage is a gay sex columnist. He has always stated he is an advice columnist and his advice column focuses on sex (not gay sex, just sex in general). He does happen to be gay, but the intent of the statement was unclear.

Who was it that said ...
"Behind every successful man there is a woman." Sasabune 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Very clever =P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.16.250 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 April 2007

Participants
I wonder if there is any information about the sexuality of individuals who participate and/or enjoy this activity. I have done some reading on this activity in relationship advice columns, and in the questions and answers it seems that the authors go out of their way to imply that it does not imply homosexuality on the part of the male. But how about bi-sexuality? Is it used by bisexual males who are in relationships with females as a substitute to satisfy that part of their sexuality?

Also, to what extent might females enjoy or participate in this? Maybe those that enjoy male homoerotica, or thrill seekers, or those who like to explore the taboo...?

I think this is a fascinating area of sexuality and deserves study.

 * Well, I heard a while ago someone calling into either FH&F or Tom Leykis, that 1/10 of her friends had been asked by a man to peg them. While highly annecdotal, it does give you some place to start. As for my own self, I dont find the male form in any way arousing, however I would most definately enjoy this activity. To me pegging is not in any way homosexual. Sexuality is attraction, not activity, at least in my book. Carterhawk 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done
Just have to say after reading even the first three paragraphs that I'm impressed by the NPOV, broad and sensistive wording of this article. FWIW. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested clarifications to the "pegging" page
As the producers of Bend Over Boyfriend, we read this article with great interest. We'd like to suggest a couple clarifications:

1. Bend Over Boyfriend stars (or features) Carol Queen. It was directed by Shar Rednour. Fatale Media, Inc. is the producer.

2. We would appreciate a link to http://www.fatalemedia.com/videos/bend_over_boyfriend.html.

3. We would also suggest an external link to http://www.fatalemedia.com/videos/bend_over_boyfriend.html.

The image of the cover of Bend Over Boyfriend appears to be tagged correctly, and we appreciate that.

Lastly, please forgive our newbie status when it comes to Wikipedia. There are many links to Fatale from different articles here, but we would like credit for producing Bend Over Boyfriend.

Thank you!

--17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Christi Cassidy

 * I've responded on your talk page. Bushytails 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

See below for requested move. From WP:RM:
 * Pegging (sexual practice) → Pegging — There is only one other usage mentioned at Pegging (disambiguation), the usage means "to score points in cribbage", and that usage does not have its own article titled "pegging". There were previously several other uses listed at the dab, but none were upheld in their respective articles. WP search for "pegging" reveals nothing else. — Joie de Vivre 14:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Pegging" has plenty of other meanings: see the verb meanings at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/peg . Pegging out clothes to dry, level-pegging, pegging prices at a fixed level, etc. There is no one dominant meaning: leave pegging as the disambig page, or redirecting to the disambig page.I see no sense in treating Pegging (sexual practice) as the dominant meaning to the general population who are not interested in odd sexual practices. Anthony Appleyard 16:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The word "pegging" is only significant enough for its own encyclopedia article when it comes to this definition, logically, the word should redirect here.  Your personal opinion of which things are "odd" should have no bearing whatsoever on the structure of an encyclopedia.  Joie de Vivre 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * If this article were not on a sexual subject, there would be no controversy. The question we need to address is "Should Wikipedia protect users from seeing adult-oriented pages by accident?". Should we be concerned by a child finding this page while searching for information on pegging(UK)/staking(US) out a tent? Wikipedia has a clear policy of non-censorship, which is mentioned in the list of perennial proposals at the Village pump. However, I personally feel that it should be made as difficult as possible for users to open an adult-themed page unintentionally. If a child goes to Wikipedia and types the word blowjob, Wikipedia is not responsible for compromising the child's innocence; the child almost certainly knows the word is naughty, and would not have difficulty satisfying his/her curiosity elsewhere on the internet. Pegging is different, and there may be a case for keeping a disambiguation page to say "is this really what you want?" before you see the interesting pictures. Such a policy would not constitute censorship in my view, provided the content remains accessible to those who actually want it. However, this is really an issue beyond the scope of this talk page. Mtford 08:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I would say no, wikipedia should not make any effort whatsoever to "protect" people. Until someone comes up with a good argument that accidentally finding adult pages will harm people, people do not need to be protected from them.  However, as to the name of the article...  Using the good old google test, 'pegging dildo OR strapon OR anal OR sex OR strap-on' finds 213K results, 'tent pegging' (both a sport and what you do to pitch a tent; I don't know a query to make google only find one or the other) finds 77K results, 'cribbage pegging' 11K results, 'pegging memory' 120K results, 'garden pegging' 127K results, and 'pegging exchange rate' finds 1.2M results.  So, fixed exchange rate is definitely in the lead, and given the large numbers of matches found for other things, having pegging be a disambig page might be best.  Of course, pegging alone with no other qualifiers rarely refers to the other definitions...  Bushytails 16:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, a disambiguation page can't hurt. And this is the opinion of a woman who's pegged a number of guys...

 * Oppose the move. The dab page is fine as it is; neither usage is so widely known as to make it the default. Mike Christie (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Rationale: There are only two meanings listed at Pegging (disambiguation); the sexual practice, and a definition for the act of scoring points in cribbage. Google returns 213K for 'pegging dildo OR strapon OR anal OR sex OR strap-on'; while 'cribbage pegging' gets 11K. "Pegging" to describe the sexual practice gets nearly twenty times more Google hits than the cribbage-related definition. Also, an encyclopedia article cannot be written about the act of winning a game of cribbage. There is an encyclopedia article about pegging, so this move is sensible. Joie de Vivre 17:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * While I'm all for increasing the visibility of this article, I'm getting the feeling you are pushing an agenda here... Firstly, don't quote people out of context, as you just did.  If you quote the whole thing, you'll note a simple search for exchange rate pegging returned six times the matches as did sexual pegging, and broader searches find even more results.  Making out it to be clear-cut by ignoring other definitions is poor practice.  I'm pretty indifferent about the actual move, but I'm strongly against abusing statistics and misquoting people.  Bushytails 18:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)  Oh, and keep in mind that a fair portion of the pegging results are probably porn spam sites, skewing the results higher.  Bushytails 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Quoting people out of context?  I went to Google and performed the exact same tests as you just did (to make sure they were correct).  No one owns Google results.  It's silly to suggest that I'm required to quote your "Google research".  =)  Come on, now.  Joie de Vivre 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not an agenda. The only reasoning people have given is "that's odd" and "we have to protect the children", both of which are bogus.  If there were different articles about different forms of pegging it would be a different scenario.  As it is, there is one other definition, and it is far more obscure than the other.  There are no other definitions that deserve their own articles, so the parenthetical clarification in Pegging (sexual practice) is totally unnecessary.  Joie de Vivre 18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * My reason falls into neither category: I don't think there is a strong priority in usage. Bushytails' point about porn sites skewing the statistics is also plausible, but not necessary to the argument.  With regard to the other usage deserving its own article: dabs don't have to point to an article, but can point to sections if required.  That doesn't make the dab less appropriate a target for a link.  Mike Christie (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * There are no sections that describe "pegging" in either Cribbage or Fixed exchange rate, and the latter doesn't mention "pegging" at all. I suppose someone could rush to create sections now to prove a point, but that wouldn't look good.  Joie de Vivre 18:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Apparently User:Bushytails did recently add multiple definitions to Pegging (disambiguation), but I have reverted these per the Manual of Style (see explanation here). Joie de Vivre 19:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Somehow, those two are not the only reasons people have given. As to those two reasons...  I nominated strap-on dildo for DYK, complete with a picture for the main page.  Needless to say I'm not arguing from either of those two positions.  I'm just not convinced this definition of pegging is more popular than any of the _several_ others, and unless there's a clear-cut case, I'm a big fan of disambiguation pages.  Bushytails 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Oppose the move. The dab page is fine as it is; neither usage is so widely known as to make it the default. Mike Christie (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The other definition is 1) far more obscure and 2) not worthy of its own article. Joie de Vivre 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Oppose as per User:Mike Christie; plenty of common uses of the term outside of the sexual practice, keeping it as a dab page seems the best solution for the greatest number of readers. --DeLarge 23:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

Regarding "peg", "pegged", and "pegging"
Peg, Pegged and Pegging each have their own disambiguation pages, because the words have different meanings. The only meaning of "pegging" that is a discrete concept, worthy of its own encyclopedia article, is that found at Pegging (sexual practice). We have a dictionary definition, that is mentioned only in passing in a related encyclopedia article (pegging as regards to Cribbage), and a dicdef that is not mentioned in the article at all ("pegging" as regards to Fixed exchange rate). These should not stand in the way of properly categorizing this encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We are categorizing concepts, not defining words.

Notably, two editors have come forward to express disgust as regards to the subject matter of the article in question. I advise administrators and others to carefully avoid discriminating based on personal taste. Joie de Vivre 18:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions to Pegging (disambiguation)
User:Bushytails recently added multiple definitions to Pegging (disambiguation). I have reverted these to comply with the Manual of Style:

The relevant section of the Manual of Style is found here. Per that section, the following additions are not appropriate, because "pegging" is not mentioned in the linked article of any of them.

 * Pegging a currency holds it at a fixed exchange rate.
 * A type of memorization system.
 * The act of pitching a Tent.
 * A gardening procedure to change the shape of plants.

Additionally, Tent pegging was removed because I cannot find any sources that refer to the sport as "pegging". It's either "tent pegging", "tent-pegging" or "tentpegging", never "pegging". Joie de Vivre 19:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Allow me to quote the first line of fixed exchange rate: "A fixed exchange rate, sometimes (less commonly) called a pegged exchange rate"...  I am sorry the relationship between "pegged" and "pegging" is difficult to see, however it's still the most common usage of the term by a very large factor.  Must I remind you that pegging is a relatively new term, that the vast majority of the population has likely never heard of?
 * However, in the time I'm wasting pointing things out to you, I could be actually writing an article, or benefitting the encyclopedia in more useful ways than keeping one disambig page organized properly. Bushytails 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Please don't make personal comments; thanks. If you feel that there are better ways you could spend your time, no one is forcing you to spend it here.  Moving on...

 * The word "pegging" on its own does not refer to exchange rates; contextual phrasing is necessary. There is nothing in the MOS that says that parts of phrases which are not mentioned in related articles must be considered of equal importance to discrete encyclopedic concepts.  The word "pegging", on its own, without any qualifiers, refers to the sexual act.  Infrequently, it refers to scoring points in cribbage.  Never on its own does it refer to exchange rates.

 * Think about it, if someone is looking up fixed exchange rates, and they know it as a "pegged rate", they are going to look up "pegged rate", or "currency peg", not just the word "pegging" on its own.  No one is going to say "Thailand employed this method of pegging".  No one would understand.  They are going to say "Thailand employed this method of pegging its exchange rate."  Why?  Because "pegging" on its own does not refer to exchange rates.  You have to specify that it's an exchange rate for people to know what you're talking about.  What's more, when it comes to exchange rates, "pegging" is essentially a slang term; Pegged exchange rate redirects to Fixed exchange rate.

 * You are comparing a slang term in a rarely-used verb tense to a discrete concept of such relevance that it has its own article. They are not of comparable relevance.  Moving Pegging (sexual practice) to Pegging and placing a link to the disambiguation page is an appropriate solution.   Joie de Vivre 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 08:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

plagiarism
This page contains whole blocks of text from: http://www.blogto.com/tno/2007/05/bend_over_boyfriend/

 * Which?  J o ie de Vivre  °  05:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes. It appears whomever wrote that article copied from the wikipedia article, violating the GFDL in several ways.  Perhaps you should contact the author of the article?  Bushytails 05:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No references question
I added several references, both to discussion of preferences and to media representations. So, I removed the no references tag.Arbol25 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Length, edits
I removed the "pegging in popular culture" section per WP:TRIVIA: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts". If more information about pegging can be found, great, but a long list of instances of pegging (usually used as a gag) in various TV shows, etc does not provide much benefit to readers. Whatever404 (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the section (minus what remains in the article):

Examples in popular media There is also a pegging scene in the movie Acid House based on the book of the same name by Irvine Welsh.

There is a depiction of pegging in the William S. Burroughs novel Naked Lunch. The dildo used in the scene is called a Steely Dan III, and is the source from which the musical group Steely Dan takes its name.

Pegging is mentioned in the Chuck Palahniuk short story "Guts", from his book Haunted.

The award winning 1992 movie Tokyo Decadence by Japanese director Ryu Murakami features an SM-Scene with a Dominatrix pegging her customer.

The character Abby pegs her husband, Andrew, in the film Young People Fucking.

The practice has received burgeoning "mainstream attention" in the online world.

Two characters from 2008 comedy movie Zack and Miri Make a Porno also perform an act of pegging.

Television

Recently, pegging was featured in the television show Weeds, during the episode "Crush Girl Love Panic," in a scene where Andy Botwin, expecting to have sex with Yael Hoffman in her apartment, is surprised when she refuses to have vaginal sex with him, and dons a large strap-on. A similar scene was also featured in the UK comedy Peep Show. Jeremy and his girlfriend decide to act out each other's biggest fantasy. After having Jeremy's threesome, his girlfriend takes him to a bedroom. He doesn't know what she intends; she turns around and is wearing a large strap-on.

Even more recently, one of the plot threads begun in the pilot episode of Dirt involved Lucy Spiller blackmailing basketball superstar and "family man" Prince Tyreese for story information on a missing (and murdered, as it is revealed) rap star after entrapping Tyreese with photos of him being pegged by a prostitute, Stormy (played by pornographic actress Stormy Daniels), whom Lucy had hired for precisely such purpose.

Channel 4's Manchester-based comedy/drama Shameless also regularly featured Sheila, Frank Gallagher's then girlfriend in strap-on episodes.

More recently, BBC's program Love Soup featured a scene where an 18-year-old topless model surprises her boss (with whom she's about to undertake sexual intercourse) by wearing a strap-on.

Music

Singer/songwriter/record producer Peaches has a song titled "Back it Up, Boys" about pegging on her album Fatherfucker, and on her album The Teaches of Peaches: Expanded, the song "Casanova" on the bonus disc mentions pegging.

Comic books

In Vertigo's series Preacher, it's hinted that the main villain, Herr Starr, is regularly pegged by prostitutes after a sexual assault leaves him unable to enjoy vaginal sex. Also published by Vertigo is the graphic novel The Filth. In chapter 6 Miami, a heroine, pegs villain Tex Porneu.

 * After much consideration I have reinstated the above content to the article.

 * Firstly, I note what you say regarding the policy on creating lists of trivia, but if you look at the policy again on WP:TRIVIA is also makes clear, with a headed section, that "Not all list sections are trivia sections".

 * It states:
 * "In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information."

 * It is arguable that this is not a disorganized and unselective list, rather it is a selective list of reasonable length, which is indeed on a narrow theme. Even if you could describe it as unselective (which to do you would need to show that it contains every single example of the act) it is still of a reasonable length.  The act is still not so common in popular media that it would be ridiculous to list several specific examples, in the same way as it might be to list examples of traditional heterosexual sex which are far too numerous to count and for which there would be no particular justification in choosing any particular example over others.

 * Secondly, the article overall is still of a reasonable length. Notwithstanding this, were it to reach the point that it became too long and unwieldy, it would probably be more appropriate to create a spin-off article rather than remove the information altogether.

 * Thirdly, there is varying opinion on whether these types of "in popular culture" lists are appropriate. On one view, a list of examples may not be considered to be of much use if it does not educate the reader further, but on another view, what distinguishes Wikipedia from other encyclopediae is that it is a "living" work of reference and is intended to remain up to date, rather than being a "snapshot" of information at the time a work is published.  Examples in popular culture are particularly relevant here since they show the reader what is current.

 * I think, since there is varying opinion, that it ought not to be deleted on the basis of one opinion, when it may well be the work of several contributors. Rather, until a consensus of opinion can be reached on the issue in the talk pages, the status quo should be preserved.--90.213.159.111 (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I have added the template.  In my opinion, the current format, as a disjointed list of facts, it fails to demonstrate the impact of the topic upon popular culture in any cohesive fashion.  As you have reinstated the content, please take the time to ensure that this content adheres to WP's quality standards.  Whatever404 (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I note the edit war is continuing. I've actually looked at WP:TRIVIA.  Nowhere does it advocate removing this sort of section.  (Trivia sections are defined as collections of miscellaneous facts, which this is not).  It goes so far as to say This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections!!!  The guideline is about how a page is arranged and contains no justification for removing content whatsoever.  Any further removal of material must be justified on the basis of content policies. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Heterosexual

 * In the column, it was a specifically heterosexual term

I'm not seeing this in the linked column. All it says is that it refers to women using strap-ons to penetrate men. Nowhere can I see anywhere it says either partner must be heterosexual. Did I miss something? The Wednesday Island 01:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I can understand the concept of not wanting to "pigeonhole" or categorise, but this is really going too far in terms of literal interpretation. A man and a woman engaging in a sexual activity together are by definition engaging in a heterosexual act.

 * Yes you could say that the participants could possibly each be homosexual and are engaging in the act nonetheless, but then we might as well do away with the concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality since you would be trying to define something that cannot be defined. Does a heterosexual man who engages in a sexual act with a man become homosexual? Or is he bisexual?  Is he homosexual until he again engages in an act with a woman, at which point he becomes bisexual, or is he bisexual until he makes a conscious decision never to engage in a sexual act with a woman again, at which point he becomes homosexual?

 * Reference to "Heterosexual" in this context only therefore makes sense if it is in terms of the act, and not necessarily the adopted state of mind of the participants. Since "Pegging" is specifically defined as a woman penetrating a man with a strap-on dildo, and no other combination, it is entirely correct to define it as a heterosexual act.--81.152.196.247 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Anytime a male and a female have sexual contact it is by definition "heterosexual." It may be a lot of other things as well, but it still heterosex.174.25.16.197 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Consensual
The article states that all “pegging” is consensual. I disagree; There are cases where the “consent” was non existent. The article must be revised to reflect this. The simplest way would be simply to remove the word construal from the article, the more effective way would be a sub-section addressing rape in this fashion.174.25.49.114 (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON
 * I don't see the word "consensual" in the article.   Will Beback    talk    06:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been removed; However, there is still the "Pleasure" sections. The article should be revised to include rape in this manner. (If it's there and I missed it call me an idiot. But I didn't see it.)174.25.16.197 (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Is that picture necessary?
I fully realize Wikipedia is not censored, but is that picture really necessary? I think most people can visualize pegging in their head without needing a sexually explicit graphic. I know removing it wont improve the article, but it wouldnt make it worse, either. Yonskii (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The picture is a good quality illustration of the subject of the article (in fact that seems to be the only thing that's being objected to). An article is supposed to educate those who don't know about its subject matter and illustrations help. Sexuality illustrations should not be subject to harsher criteria than would apply elsewhere. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe if she were wearing a bra the prudes wwould drop the subject. Just a thought. (Me, I like the pic as-is, but then I'm no prude.) 174.25.16.197 (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

I see another image File:Strap-on pegging.jpg has just been added and removed. I agree with the removal:- it doesn't illustrate the subject nearly as well as the main image and doesn't add anything (apart from being a photo). I don't like photographic illustrations of sex acts when artwork is available: they're usually not as clear (for those who don't already know what the act is) and they give the page the look of a porn-site. Illustrations (though they may still offend the prudish) are associated with sex-ed which creates a more useful and accurate impression for any casual reader or anyone discovering another viewing the page. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

 * @Yonskii, I think most people visualize things far more dramatically than is typically illustrated and that leaving certain things to the imagination can make topics like these worse. Also the text of the article can change and could become misleading at some point while the image will always remain accurate to the subject. I believe that since our goal is to disseminate information we should favor those who do want to learn about sexual topics above those that are offended and just accidentally stumble upon a sexual article and don't want to even look at the subject.AerobicFox (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate graphic?
Is the sidebox really that appropriate to have presented like this? The unnecessary display of breast or genitalia (which could be hidden with some creativity) along with the facial expressions seems a bit graphic for Wikipedia? 24.96.44.208 (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry, Wikipedia is not censored. —EqualRights (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * How would hiding parts improve the article any? Bushytails (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't at all if you were 15. Get a grip. It's inappropriate adult content. 69.24.112.147 (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

female to female pegging
How is it that called if not pegging? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.83.199.22 (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

in bondage sex culture
This section is completely inaccurate and seems to have no references. My only references are from first hand experience, though. Unless someone has some actual references for this, I recommend that we just delete it all together. Also the title is inaccurate, because bondage is not directly related to pegging. I assume the editor meant bdsm, or domination. Silentninjadesu (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Gone. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Dan Savage
Is Dan Savage significant enough for his statement on the subject to comprise the entire "Psychological pleasure" section, or even be mentioned? Not to mention the picture of him. The2crowrox (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! I had the same issue with this article, it looks like there's an attempt to promote Mr.Savage through this page - 4 links to his page in addition on a whole WP:Template about him. -Pavithran (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Pavithran, well, the article does currently credit Dan Savage with popularizing the term; if it's the case that he did, that point belongs in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of referenced content
EvergreenFir:

As for “reliable sources”, while I agree that the source I added isn't the ideal standard of “reliable”, it is sufficient (good enough), and it is near the best we have in this topic. Ideally, we would like to cite several systematic reviews of multiple primary studies who examined the psychologically pleasurable aspects of pegging through surveys applied in a representative population, in turn analyzed with the accepted good practices of statistical methods. However, that is completely unrealistic. I'm almost sure that no such studies have been done related to pegging. I have searched for studies done about pegging in the academic literature and I did not find any; therefore I conclude with reasonable confidence that there are no such studies so far. There are some studies about trends in pornography that mention pegging, but they are not specific about it. There is also a study about prostate cancer that seems to allude to pegging, because it mentions receptive anal sex in heterosexual men, but it didn't specify any further (pegging it not the only possibility). Finally, there are books that mention pegging and elaborate to varying degrees, but all such books that I'm aware of are popular books on sexuality, not scientific books.

I don't see how your recent edit that removed content makes Wikipedia better; on the contrary, it removes useful and within-scope information. I am therefore restoring the content. Per the relevant policy: “Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia”. In this case, I provided a source that I believe to be sufficient; now it is your obligation to “articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia”. Since you have not done that, I'm restoring the material your removed. If you disagree with the phrasing, then try to improve it instead of deleting, which adds nothing to the encyclopedia.

Also, in what way is the content you removed “non-neutral”?.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Pegging101.com is not a reliable source about this sexual practice. We cannot claim things about pleasure and intimacy, using broad sweeping language, using wikipedia's voice. It's an opinion of the author of that website, nothing more. is an editor of this page... let's get a third opinion.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please {{re}} 20:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Helps if I ping the right name... .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please {{re}} 20:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 * EvergreenFir:
 * Again, if you do not like the phrasing, then try to improve it; that, but not just removing the content you disagree with, could result in an improvement for Wikipedia.
 * Also again, your standard for reliable sources is going to hinder the development of this article, because there are very few reliable sources on the matter. Read my previous message in this talk page. The medical literature, which is the source for reliable sources (per WP:MEDRS), has almost nothing or plain nothing to say about pegging. If you apply the same reasoning to the section Physical pleasure, you would have to delete it as well. Why didn't you either deleted it too, or why didn't you keep the content added to this section?. Why the double standard?. Although Wikipedia policy doesn't compels you to publicly state a reason (as far as I can tell), intellectual honesty and cognitive congruence compels you to have a reason.
 * See how I handled the situation in the article “skin whitening”: I noticed some garbage references, I researched the history to try to recover them (because I thought that they had been vandalized), but since they were wrong since they were added, I removed them. I did not remove the associated content because I know from my research of the topic that it is reasonable. On the contrary, I added content to that section with its own sources, rewrote a part, left the rest in place (Special:Diff/728058676/727451221) and I documented why I deleted those references in the talk page.
 * “We cannot claim things about pleasure and intimacy, using broad sweeping language, using wikipedia's voice. It's an opinion of the author of that website, nothing more.”
 * No, that is incorrect. It's not just “an opinion of the author of that website, nothing more”. The author (Ruby Ryder) receives many comments from practitioners or non-practicing enthusiasts of pegging and her writings are based upon those comments and her personal experience. In some posts, she includes relevant quotes from the men and women that describe their experiences. This methodology (synthesis based on self-reported experience) is accepted as the standard in the literature for studies on highly subjective human behavior, and even for preliminary studies on human behavior that can be studied more objectively (those more objective studies come later).
 * For example. in the studies of Alfred Kinsey documenting human sexual response, he (Kinsey) mostly relied on self-reports and even reports about the sexual response of third parties, which are more unreliable that first-hand reports!. Kinsey studies are still quoted up to today. For an example of a study published in a scientific journal with a methodology almost identical to that of Ruby Ryder see Dunn, Trost (1989). Even systematic reviews take into account self-reports about subjective experience; e.g: Wibowo, Wassersug (2016). The systematic review by Wibowo and Wassersug quotes Dunn and Trost, quotes one of the aforesaid studies by Kinsey, and quotes self-published self-reports of sexual behavior (it quotes directly the Aneros forum)!. The important point to note is that self-published reports based on personal experience not published in the academic literature were good enough to be cited in a systematic review.

 * Therefore, note that the methodology of my source, Ruby Ryder, is not very different from that of some studies published in academic journals or some book edited by scientific publishers/presses.

 * Inviting any number of third parties is not going to compensate for a lack of experience with the methods of scientific publishing, or a lack of willingness to fix problems rather than to delete them.

 * I propose that we change “Females enjoy the experience [...]” to “Some females enjoy the experience [...]” and restore the content. Although you didn't state it that way, I think that the fact that this statement was unquantified made you object to it. Does this change address your concern?. Free feel to propose a better phrasing. We are trying to find ways to improve the encyclopedia, not to leave it as it is.

 * Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Please see WP:WallofText. If you have peer-reviewed sources, that would be awesome. But the author of the website's opinion alone is not notable. We can attribute opinions to their authors when appropriate, but typically the person is an expert or notable. This would be something to discuss on WP:RSN. I'd like a second opinion from one of the people who watch this page. As for equating a website to peer-review journal publishing... I'm very familiar with academic publishing and I can see the parallels to qualitative methodologies. However, the authors works is not rooted in any theory or methodological tradition (e.g., grounded theory) and more along the lines of journalism. The difference between websites and news outlets or academic journals is the editorial/peer-review oversight and vetting done. You cannot compare the output of them. See also WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Note, I'm sympathetic to marginalized knowledges and voices being published in non-traditional media, but Wikipedia's mission and content is a reflection of traditional knowledge outlets. There's no WP:DEADLINE here. Let's see what others think.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please {{re}} 22:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 * EvergreenFir:
 * First you linked me to WP:WallofText and WP:DEADLINE which are essay, not policy or even guidelines. Literally, this is just an opinion. I have no problem with essays about Wikipedia editing, but you should note that by linking to them you aren't backing up your point, you are just stating your opinion. This is some contradictory from you, given that some hours ago you accused me to linking to an opinion article (which it isn't) under the premise that an opinion isn't enough to back up a point. To further add to the self-contradictory behavior, note that WP:WallofText is itself a “wall of text” by its own terminology, and so is WP:DEADLINE.
 * If you do not like “walls of text” (that is your term, not mine), then I honestly suggest that you refrain from engaging in discussions in Wikipedia and any action that may lead to them. As you already know, discussions in Wikipedia are very often lengthy and if you are not willing to read them in its entirely, you are being dishonest and very uncivil with those that are discussing with you, because you say what you want to say, and therefore make us reply back, but you are not willing to read what we have to say in response.
 * Did you read all of what I wrote in this discussion?. If you are not interested enough in this article to read what people have to say when you delete content, then please be civil and leave the content as-is.
 * “However, the authors works is not rooted in any theory or methodological tradition (e.g., grounded theory) and more along the lines of journalism.”
 * As for “theory”, this can mean a lot of things. In biology, knowledge is mostly organized ad-hoc instead of in “theories” (“theory” in the sense of an almost self-contained and consistent framework of thought, like propositional logic, classic mechanics, theory of relativity or graph theory). There is no policy in Wikipedia that mandates that sources are rooted in “ground theory” or any “theory”, whatever your idea of what “theory” means is.
 * Your claim that Ruby Ryder's work is “not rooted in any [...] methodological tradition” is wrong. As for “methodological tradition”, I described what Ruby Ryder's methodology is and compared it with that of some papers published in scientific journals ‒that is the part concerning “methodological”)‒. I showed that there is a tradition for such a methodology, going back at least 70 years (it is much older, but Kinsey studies are roughly 70 years old), ‒that is the part concerning “tradition”‒.
 * “As for equating a website to peer-review journal publishing”
 * “The difference between websites and news outlets or academic journals is the editorial/peer-review oversight and vetting done.”
 * Yes, I am aware of that. Hence that I said that the methodology is not very different. I never “equated” Ruby Ryder's work with a peer reviewed scientific article. All on the contrary, I noted that ‒as far as I can tell, after having researched that‒ there are no peer-reviewed scientific articles that can be used as a source for the content you removed.
 * Are you aware of any study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that analyzed the psychological pleasure a woman experiences from pegging?. Do you have a reason to be reasonably confident that there is any such study?. My answer to both of those questions would be “no”, the rationale of which I already wrote about, but I am making those questions to you. If your answer is “yes”, then you can easily solve this problem by providing such a reliable source yourself, and if your answer is “no”, then you have no justification on which to think that one such source can be given, so your request for one such source is not reasonable. I have already provided a source. Furthermore, I tried to provide an ideal source but there seems to be none on the topic. If you want a better source, provide it yourself.
 * You are being disruptive and inconsistent in deleting sourced content because the sources are not ideal. If you are intellectually honest and carry your standard to its logical implication, then we would have to delete all references and the associated content except this one. All of the other references do not come from peer reviewed academic journals.
 * WP:V is not a license to delete any content you don't like. It's meant as a method to keep falsehoods out of Wikipedia. I think that the content you deleted is accurate (true), and I provided a source for it. Now, if you think that it's true, leave it as is, and if you think that it is false, support your claim!.
 * I ask you to reflex on whether, and how, your current course of action is going to make Wikipedia better. Suppose that you “win” (term used for conciseness) and the content is left out of Wikipedia. How does that makes it any better?. Would be leaving out a falsehood?. If so, then how do you know that it is false?.
 * Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC).
 * There are norms regarding discussions on Wikipedia and one is to avoid huge amounts of text and to be concise in writing. Ignore it if you wish. I read your post, though understanding the key points can be difficult with such verbosity. I'm not being rude/incivil by informing you of the norms of Wikipedia as you are a (presumably) new editor. (I say presumably because you could be long-term IP editor and you've shown some familiarity with Wikipedia; this was not an insult, just that based on the newness of you account I am assuming some lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's norms).
 * I mention theory and methodology in attempt to explain some of the differences in sources and why Wikipedia values some over others. Nothing more. A purely descriptive, atheoretical, explanatory study can be used as a source too, but the source needs to be consider acceptable per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That Kinsey did interviews and case studies does not mean anyone doing a similar activity and self-publishing it can be consider a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. If there are no reliable sources regarding information you wish to add to the article, then it cannot be added sadly. Per WP:V, information must be verifiable using reliable sources. The burden is on you as the editor to provide an appropriate source for the content you're adding, not on me. I have objected to your source. If you wish to "prove" it a "reliable source", then WP:RSN is the place to go to seek other opinions from experienced editors and form consensus regarding the source. You have challenged me to find better sources and though I'm not obligated to, this is a team project and I'm rather interested to see if there's academic literature on pegging. (I'm sure Flyer22 would be a good source of where to look too). I'll take a quick look on EbscoHost and GoogleBooks and report back.
 * Editors who object to content that is boldly added can remove it and discuss the edit per the bold-revert-discuss cycle. This, again, is a norm of Wikipedia. That you consider the material to be "true" or "false" does not impact this process. See WP:TRUTH (an essay, but a good one).
 * Calling me disruptive or suggesting I'm intellectually dishonest is a personal attack. Please refrain from make them.
 * I hope I have adequately replied to your points.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please {{re}} 00:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see I am mistaken about the newness of your account. My apologies.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please {{re}} 00:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 * This is the edit in question. While WP:MEDRS-sourcing is not needed for that content, I agree that the source in question is poor. It would be best to take this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Mario, I agree with Flyer22 Reborn. If you're convinced that Ruby Ryder's blog is a reliable source, please take the discussion to WP:RS/N. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There's an interesting ASA conference paper about pegging called “Straight Up Confusing”: Heterosexuality, Homophobia, and Sexual Pleasure by Lauren Charles Stewart of University of Oregon. They talk about pleasure, but mostly seems to be about men's pleasure and issues of homophobia, sexual identity, etc. One I'm unable to access but looks interesting is "Bend Over Boyfriend to Take it Like a Man: pegging pornography and the queer representation of straight sex." by Curran Nault. There are some articles in Diva magazine but they appear to be more about sex tips (pun not intended).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please {{re}} 00:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 * EvergreenFir, that paper is cited as a source in the article. Here it is at the Wayback Machine. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's still available on its original website: — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thank you! Quick read summary related to above discussion: That article does talk about female empowerment. Also about a woman (Queen) getting sexual pleasuring in the video. Generally talks about the porn aspect of it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please {{re}} 01:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 * EvergreenFir:
 * “There are norms regarding discussions on Wikipedia and one is to avoid huge amounts of text and to be concise in writing.”
 * You seem to think that I wrote a “huge amount of text”. This is not a fact, but your opinion. It's not so by mine. In my opinion, a detailed reply is called for in almost all discussions because they are non-trivial. Thus, writing a reply in full is a sign that the user cares for the topic and is willing to put effort into it; this is in my opinion, a sign of respect and civility, not a point to complain about.
 * Also, what are those “norms” that you speak about?. So far you have not mentioned any “norm”. You linked to an essay which is nothing more that your opinion and of those who have written it. If you try to pass this as a “norm”, then that would be intellectual honestly, especially given that you are very stringent in applying an high standard for verifiability and you failed to verify the existence of any such norm, providing an opinion instead (note that this is not a conditional accusation of breaking WP:V in the talk page as I am aware that WP:V does not apply to talk pages, but of breaking your own standard).
 * “Calling me disruptive or suggesting I'm intellectually dishonest is a personal attack. Please refrain from make them.”
 * Incorrect. I have not done any of the things listed under the relevant policy. I have several mentioned several times intellectual honestly, and I may continue mentioning it, because I think that by applying it, editors would focus less on removing content which is true and focus more on adding content and improving existing content. I think that you may be referring to this this conditional (which is the only one, and note that it converts to a backed-up accusation if the condition holds): “if you are not willing to read them in its entirely, you are being dishonest and very uncivil with those that are discussing with you, because you say what you want to say, and therefore make us reply back, but you are not willing to read what we have to say in response.”.
 * “That Kinsey did interviews and case studies does not mean anyone doing a similar activity and self-publishing it can be consider a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. If there are no reliable sources regarding information you wish to add to the article, then it cannot be added sadly.”
 * You are putting the means before the ends. WP:V is a means to the goal of keeping inaccurate, false, and (secondarily) non-notable content outside of Wikipedia. Please reflex on these questions: Hypothetically, if the content you removed is true and you “win” (again, term used for conciseness) and keep it out of the article, how does that make the article better?. Would such an outcome (removing relevant, and accurate content) be what WP:V is intended to do?.
 * Anyway, since you are very stringent about the literal text of policy: per WP:V, the work of Ruby Ryder is a reliable source about itself, just like the work of Dan Savage (already used as sources in this article) is reliable source on itself. I was hoping that I would not have to resort to discussing the merits of sources based on the literal interpretation of WP:V, but on the intention of it, which is keeping content accurate, hence that my messages in this talk page section were focused on showing that Ruby Ryder work is an accurate source of information of pegging.
 * As you have already realized in your search of the literature, there are no medical publications that study specifically pegging. I mentioned this (not with certainty but with an high degree of confidence) several messages ago. Does the article on Jump Cult meets WP:MEDRS?. I doubt so. I am aware of the existence of sources like this which do not meet WP:MEDRS (again see above).
 * I see I am mistaken about the newness of your account. My apologies.
 * I take no offense of that mistake. However, this is evidence that you do not take the discussion seriously enough to verify that what you write is factually accurate before saying it.
 * Malik Shabazz:
 * “Mario, I agree with Flyer22 Reborn. If you're convinced that Ruby Ryder's blog is a reliable source, please take the discussion to WP:RS/N. Thank you.”
 * Please see what I replied to EvergreenFir: Ruby Ryder works are a reliable source about themselves per WP:V. The policy is completely clear on this.

 * For those of you who object to the paragraph in question: What suggestions do you have to improve it?. Remember, removing content doesn't makes Wikipedia better, it leaves it as-is before it was added.
 * Proposed phrasing closer to what Ruby Ryder says:
 * “According to the advocate of pegging Ruby Ryder, females can enjoy the experience of being active in pleasing their partner, reversing the typical roles, the strong intimacy implied in the exposed vulnerability, and the breaking of taboos. ”
 * In addition to this, other not-medically-reliable sources can be used since they are reliable source of itself, which implies that we have to explicitly attribute the content and we have to keep the description close to what the source says (roughly paraphrasing it).
 * In addition to this, other not-medically-reliable sources can be used since they are reliable source of itself, which implies that we have to explicitly attribute the content and we have to keep the description close to what the source says (roughly paraphrasing it).

 * Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC).

 * Mario, you're rapidly approaching WP:IDHT territory. How many editors have to tell you that Ruby Ryder's blog is not a reliable source and that if you disagree you need to take the discussion to a noticeboard before you understand? And please read and follow the talk page guidelines. Be concise. Stop copying everybody else's comments. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Pegging (sexual practice). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120302065043/http://www.budapestsun.com/news/54577 to http://www.budapestsun.com/news/54577

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Spelling error in reference link correction request
Reference link 5. currently reads: "Ruby Rider's Pegging Paradise." Correct spelling for link: "Ruby Ryder's Pegging Paradise." Editing is unavailable for this area of the page. (No Wikipedia account, but this is Ruby Ryder.) Thank you for your help. 2605:E000:7D0F:6D00:347F:A966:7909:A308 (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I fixed it. Thank you for pointing out the error. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


text: Talk:Pittsburgh Locomotive and Car Works

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Communism/Archive 3

POV
this is one of the   most pathetically  POV  articles i have ever seen. jesus christ on a cracker. you people need to get with the program and develop a little perspective. you also need to cut your hair and take a bath.

Definitions
I do not care about who is right or wrong on this issue, but the basic definitions of the word "communism" must remain in the beginning of the article. Please, dear partisans, stop meddling around with these definitions, since they are essentially dictionary definitions, which must be available at the beginning of the article, as they used to be, before these passionate recent changes.--McCorrection 19:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but not all definitions must be in one basket. there is main definition, and there are derivations. Of course, we must present common usage, but we must not contribute to confusion. Mikkalai 20:48, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Your division of the definitions and concepts in the first part of the article was superb, Mikkalai! That is what an encyclopedia article must look like. --McCorrection 21:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way, is someone going to make order with triplicate Marxism, Leninism and Marxism-Leninism sections? I am not. Mikkalai 20:48, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello! My name is Fredrik Bendz, in case it won't show here. Anyway, I think the three-adjective-definition of communist is wrong. It just doesn't compute. A person is not an adjective, and neither is a political party. Why would there be a difference if the same adjective is applied to people or parties? Isn't the adjective the same? This should be clairified in the article.

Origin of the term
The following piece deleted, until solid confdirmation:

Though communism is generally concieved of as marxism, the word communism was in fact not coined by Karl Marx, but by the French philosopher Étienne Cabet in his book...

The person who inserted this phrase proceeded further with provably distorted history (fixed), so after some thought I decided to doubt in this phrase as well. Mikkalai 00:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BTW, Talk:Communism/Archive1 contains a big piece about utopian socialism removed from elsewhere, that can be recycled here or in utopian socialism. Mikkalai 00:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

De-Alienation?
Just a question or two to whomever wrote that sub-section, or to anyone else who can help me; but where in the "Economic and Political Manuscripts of 1844" does Marx use the term "de-alienation"? Also, should this be in the article since it is a criticism of the communist state and not communism per se?
 * 1) Another problem is that alienation isn't correctly explicated on in the article, totally leaving out reification, and I think that it is incorrect that a new concept is introduced into the article at the same time that it is compared against the states that claimed themselves to be socialist. Is it possible that a neutral particular section on alienation would not be too repetitive since it theoretically is covered in the Marxism article?

Capone 07:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I should have prefaced the above by saying that I do think it is a valid point which is ok by my understanding of wiki standards to include a critical view that alienation was not overcome in the societies which claimed to be socialist.  It is important to note however that this is a failure from the perspective of its own goals as seen through the eyes of other communists, socialists, and anarchists who critically analyzed the claims by the USSR (and like wise China) that it was socialist in the Marxist sense of the word.

I wanted to simply repair what was factually wrong about the section on "de-alienation", to start with that Marx never even uses the term at any time. The definition of alienation needed more than just tuning, it needs re-writing. Capone 08:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Expand Criticisms Section

 * 1) I propose to further expand the criticisms section, there could be another section of criticism. This one could be a criticism of the self described socialist states (called communist states in the United States) from the view of classical communist theory of Marx and even Lenin.  I do not know if i could do this without help but it seems to me that there is a.) a criticism to live up to its own standards b.) a criticism that it didn't live up to western standards.

I am sure that there will be some overlap, and those would also be of special interest to a reader who is just starting to learn about communism, and will not be entirely boring to others potential readers with more background in the area. Capone 07:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest to differentiate criticisms of the ideas of communism theory from criticisms of particular implementations by particular states. In the latter case the place of the criticiasm is in the Communist state article. Mikkalai

"Self-proclaimed" China

 * 1) There are two Chinas.
 * 2) They are not only "Self-proclaimed". Others would call them communist regardles how they proclaim themselves. By the way, Vietnam is "self-proclaimed" "Socialist". Mikkalai 05:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capone 07:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Are you referring to taiwan or what do you mean?
 * Um, a self-proclaimed socialist state is what is called communist state by outsiders. I am not clear what you mean.
 * Ask the author, not me. He used the expression "self-proclaimed communist state". I don't know such ones. Mikkalai 07:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai, you got confused. The author, myself - I wrote "self described socialist states", because they call themselves "socialist" whether or not a.) they are objectively socialist or b.) there can be an objective determination of what socialism is or isn't. Capone69.111.189.126 21:36, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * We may be talking about different things here. I had changed "People's Republic of China" to "China" and added "self-proclaimed" before "communist states". Mikkalai and I seem to have reached a consensus on this matter. See the recent changes if you're interested in the details. Shorne 22:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Taiwan can be called Taiwan if necessary. It is nothing but a rump-state and certainly doesn't deserve to be regarded as "China". It is a part of China that is internationally regarded as such, even in the two dozen countries (Honduras and the like) that it has bribed into recognising the "Republic of China". And the UN recognises only one state in China (including Taiwan Province). I will add "(the PRC)" for clarity.
 * The issue of "communist" and "socialist" is annoying. Technically it is wrong, and even nonsensical, to speak of a "communist state". As for "self-proclaimed", it is accurate. To say that those countries are communist or socialist is POV. If we're going to accept a country's self-description, we might as well call North Korea democratic ("Democratic People's Republic of Korea"). I'm not convinced that others universally call those countries communist. Certainly I don't. Even the Western media, hardly a Marxist-Leninist stronghold, often correctly say that China is capitalist. Shorne 13:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You're confusing China and the People's Republic of China; the very good and impartial Wikipedia article on China clarifies the issue: "China is an ancient cultural and geographic entity in continental East Asia with some offshore islands which since 1949 has been divided between the People's Republic of China (governing Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau) and the Republic of China (governing Taiwan and several outlying islands of Fujian Province)."--McCorrection 15:52, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I know very well what China and the PRC are, thank you. Shorne 16:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It's convention throughout Wikipedia, that we're always using People's Republic of China when referring to the country. Aris Katsaris 16:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The country is China. The state is the People's Republic of China. If we're going to have "People's Republic of China", we should also have "Lao People's Democratic Republic" instead of "Laos". Shorne 19:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * If there was any part of Laos that called itself "Republic of Laos" then I assure you we'd have used "Lao People's Democratic Republic" to distinguish between the two states. Right now there's no need. Aris Katsaris 19:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Primitive communism
The paragraph added after the section on primitive communism is out of place. It should be moved to the article "primitive communism" and perhaps expanded. Here only a brief mention of the dispute is appropriate. A long one interrupts the flow of the article.

Also, the quotation marks ("historical 'proof'") are POV. Change to "view of history" or something similar. Shorne 23:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Crimes of communism
I'll repeat what I wrote yesterday:

 * It is estimated by critics of Marxism-Leninism that deaths during the 20th century due to Communist revolutions, repression, induced famines, and failed social and economic experimentation number about 100 million in addition to tens of millions of man-years spent in the concentration camps of the gulag and laogai.

 * I am dismayed and indignant that Shorne removed the part above. The sentence above is NPOV. It says that critics of Marxism-Leninism claim that comunnist rule is responsible for death of millions of people. And this is true, they claim so. The sentence does not allege that the estimate is necessarily correct, this is why it is NPOV. Anyway, it is evident that communists intentionally killed a huge amount of people, and that the communist economical system lead to horrible (and well documented) situations, when millions of people died out of hunger near public granaries full of grain, just because the central plan was based on false assumptions. To try to hide that truth is deeply immoral. It increases the likelihood that a similar situation will happen in the future, because we will not pay attention to that horrible experience. And to try to hide the truth, to remove correct information and to accuse it of being "dishonest" for no specified reason is a disgrace for a Wikipedian. I would like to express my deep disapproval for that kind of lack of respect for human life, for the truth and for other Wikipedians.

You can agree with the data from the Black book or not. We can add a note that these data are often questioned, no problem. But to try to ignore those data and to keep silence over the effects of communism is deeply immoral. Maybe we should put that information in another article. But let's discuss the matter instead of calling the data "propaganda" and removing them. I know you may not like it, but communists ARE responsible for deaths of millions of people. Boraczek 09:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Your "data" is contradicted by just about every other historian on the planet (see this List of Sources and Detailed Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century), and it seems you can't even name the country where your "well documented" situations took place. You're acting exactly like the people who use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as "evidence" of a massive Jewish conspiracy bent on world domination. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * An apt analogy. Shorne 11:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the link referenced by Mihnea itself recognizes that Stalin was directly responsible for the deaths of 20 million people. But, "of course", even though he was recognized by most communists as their leader during his lifetime, the supreme guide of almost all Communist Parties, from the US to South America, from Mongolia to Japan, his bloody legacy is now rejected. I am still not sure if the millions of deaths caused directly by Communist regimes should be mentioned in this article, but the permanent refusal even to acknowledge the direct cause-effect relationship between Communism, Communist regimes, and the deaths of millions of innocents during the 20th century is mindboggling. Even more disturbing is the slandering of any reasonable person who mentions the death and destruction wrought by Communist regimes as "fascists", while the Communist partisans themselves are the ones acting in ways similar to the Holocaust deniers. My aim in Wikipedia is to correct partisanship, but the narrowmindedness of the ideologues is always unfathomable. --McCorrection 23:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Utterly distorted. I have nothing more to say; I've wasted enough time this week on this sort of rubbishy complaint. Shorne 00:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Notice the key word in the above paragraph: most communists - but by no means all. There were a good number of communists who strongly opposed Stalin with every fiber of their being during his lifetime. So how exactly can you hold them responsible for his crimes? Why should Stalin's bloody legacy be accepted by those communists who opposed him from the very beginning, and their intellectual heirs? Do you, as a capitalist, accept the bloody legacy of all brutal capitalist dictators in history? Or do you argue that they did not represent the kind of capitalism you support?

 * And notice another thing: No one here is denying the fact that Stalin, Mao & co. killed many people. We are only showing you that the death toll is nowhere near as high as the absurd numbers claimed by the Black Book. If a book claimed that Hitler killed 7289328566168578413 Jews, such a book would be utter garbage, and rejecting it would certainly not make you a "Holocaust denier!" -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response to the petulant demand for the use of the Black Book of Communism
Text taken from Communist state. Shorne 09:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I have already expressed my objections to the use of the absurd accusation of "100 million" deaths from "communism" on other pages, and I must admit that I'm becoming tired of going through the issues over and over again. Here is a summary.

 * The claim of "100 million" deaths is an absurd lie cooked up in a single source, Black Book of Communism. Two of the authors of that book have since distanced themselves from the work, claiming that Stéphane Courtois, one of their co-authors, had been infatuated with puffing up the death toll and that he had deliberately inflated the numbers in a quest to reach the big nine-figure goal (which he didn't even do: he got only to 85 million but still claimed 100 million). Courtois has also come under attack for the absurd claim of "only" 25 million deaths caused by the Nazis and that Nazism is therefore "better" than communism. Is he a Holocaust denier? More than 20 million were killed (yes, killed; they didn't die of starvation) in the Soviet Union alone by the invading German army during World War II.

 * No one who looks seriously at the book will say that it is anything but crude propaganda. Fred Bauder posted elsewhere (on which page, Fred?) several links to articles that refute it more easily than I can, since I don't have a copy to hand. The book has also been roundly criticised in such mainstream publications as the French newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique. (Here's a link for those who read French: .)

 * Now, on with the notion that the claim in this article "is NPOV". It is anything but. Although it is a fact that someone somewhere has accused socialist states of collectively causing "100 million" deaths, mere verisimilitude does not imply NPOV. You are favouring a high estimate over a low one. In addition, need I point out that there is no reference to the "estimate"? Furthermore, "critics of Marxism-Leninism" implies much more general agreement on this absurd "100 million" lie than in fact exists. "Concentration camps" is also POV. Shall I go on?

 * Even if the "100 million" had any basis in reality, it would be a distortion without an explanation—and without a standard of comparison. If even more people would have died under the ancien régime, for example, that death toll would actually be a feather in communism's cap. What are the facts? Don't look to the Black Book of Communism for any answers. Certainly don't look to it for information on lives saved or prolonged by socialism; that would get in the way of the monochromatic picture being painted. China, for example, doubled its people's life expectancy in 27 years under Mao. Count that as, oh, a quarter of a life saved per person, just to underestimate the gain. For a population of 600 million, that's 150 million lives saved—a number that easily offsets all the "100 million" deaths that Courtois & Cie cooked up.

 * Also don't expect any information about deaths under capitalism. UNICEF reports that 40 thousand children in today's capitalist world die every day of malnutrition. That's almost 15 million per year, or 100 million in seven years, done to death by capitalism. Already the "100 million" dishonestly blamed on communism are entirely offset by this one factor alone—every seven years. Add in adult deaths from malnutrition and all deaths from other capitalist causes (such as war), and the number vastly exceeds even the wildest accusations of your "critics of Marxism-Leninism". Funny, you won't find a word about this on the page capitalism (although I'm going to see to correcting that).

 * Your undocumented claims about peasants' starving next to granaries suggest a low degree of knowledge of the subject. Such claims could not mean anything without at least a mention of the time and place (country, at a minimum) of the alleged dying next to granaries. In fact, you have it exactly the wrong way around. People in many capitalist countries starve to death next to supplies of grain, fruit, fish, and other foods destined for the North, in many cases to be rendered into cat food so that Fluffy in London will better than Felipe in Lima. And "failed social and economic experimentation" also reflects a heavy bias. Certainly the entire period cannot be summed up as one great big unmitigated failure. The Soviet Union did not become a superpower by failing at everything.

 * Generalities about "repression", "induced famines", and the like are simply unacceptable in an article with any pretence of fairness and accuracy. Prove to me that any "communists" ever induced a famine. How would they even go about it? By spreading exotic plant and animal diseases over farms, as the CIA has done in Cuba? As for tens of millions of man-years spent in prison, shall we do the calculation for the United States, which has for many decades had by far the world's highest rate of imprisonment?

 * What is disrespectful of human life is to treat whole populations as pawns in a propaganda game. The "100 million" become a mass of faceless numbers to hurl at people who are trying to create something better than the status quo. Wikipedia is not the place for ideological battles. The aim is neutral, accurate, fair, useful reporting of facts, and propaganda gets in the way of that.

 * I stand by my removal of this "100 million" lie and am prepared to defend my decision before a panel of arbitrators. Shorne 18:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I already answered to that post in Talk:Communist state and I don't need to do it again.

 * Oh, don't worry about me. I probably shouldn't have cast my pearls before swine in the first place. More fool I. Shorne 12:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please read this part from Neutral point of view: ''The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." ''

If you say that my point of view is anti-communist propaganda and I say that your point of view is communist propaganda, we won't get anywhere. Asserting that the data from the Black Book are necessarily true is POV and removing the data just because they are not advantageous to communism is POV as well. Let's present conflicting views without asserting them. Maybe the data from the Black Book are exaggerated. But this is not a reason to remove them completely and to ignore the fact of communist terror and other disastrous consequences of the communist system. It is a reason to add in the article, that the data are questioned. And I agree that they are questioned by many people. But it's not true that they are questioned by all people. Boraczek 10:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, my first suggestion is that we move those "Crimes of Communism" to a new article. Maybe we should create an article "Black Book of Communism"? What do you think? Boraczek 10:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Fine. By all means, go right ahead and follow this link: The Black Book of Communism. Start by writing the article, and then we'll see what needs to be edited. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I read Shorne's message, of course, and I think it is a piece of disgusting communist propaganda, aiming at denying communist crimes. Are you happy knowing this? We won't get anywhere this way.

 * I should have expected that. When insane anti-communists run out of arguments, they always resort to pathetic insults. So, yes, you're right - we'll never get anywhere this way. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

 * Actually, it is you who "resorted to pathetic insults" first. Let me quote what you wrote: remove the idiotic propaganda of the Black Book. And now you're insulting me, which is definitely not a way to solve the problem. Boraczek 11:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we create a separate article, report what the Black Book says and then list objections to it. It is not our task to judge who is right and who is wrong. Our task is to present conflicting views. I'd only like to ask Shorne not to add objections to the article, because if he starts writing the article, we will fall in an endless edit war. Shorne, please don't do it. Let Mihnea or some other Wikipedian do it. Boraczek 11:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * By what right do you decide what I may and may not do? Who the hell made you God? In any event, I sincerely doubt whether Black Book of Communism (have you even read the thing, or do you just brandish it as a fundamentalist Christian brandishes his unread Bible?) deserves an article. This is not the place for book reviews. If it does get an article, it will have to be treated fully, and that means that you most certainly will not be able to control the POV or "objections" to what you say. Shorne 11:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * At least it will move the controversy away from the main Communism article, and place Boraczek's claims in a more appropriate place, where they can be dissected and analyzed at leisure. Therefore, I support the creation of an article on The Black Book of Communism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it's just an attempt to establish credibility for the 856-page bundle of coarse toilet paper by getting it mentioned in Wikipedia. This deserves an article about as much as my local telephone directory does—nay, less, for at least the data in the telephone directory are 95% correct or better. Furthermore, I doubt very much whether Boraczek intends to write an article about the book itself—its authors, its (ahem) style, the quality of its research—; almost certainly he just wants a space to promote its fanciful claims. Sort of like the believers in the Evil Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy". They slip their trash in through the back door on the grounds that the "controversy" surrounding it or its "historical value" makes it worthy of attention, then they proceed to erect a bully pulpit from which to spew their anti-Jewish venom.
 * That said, I won't oppose the article. Mihnea's points have some merit. Go ahead and write the article if you wish. We'll see how "NPOV" it ends up being. Shorne 12:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * You have to be joking. Everyone here has heard of the Black Book of Communism, that book has won worldwide fame and infamy -- and you claim it doesn't "deserve" an article in Wikipedia? Aris Katsaris 03:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, we've given it an article, all right: The Black Book of Communism. Has Boraczek contributed to it? Hell, no! What a lying propagandist! Claiming that it was important that the words of his sacred anticommunist bible be shared on Wikipedia, then failing to write one word when given the chance. I'll bet ten roubles that he's never even read the goddam book. Shorne 04:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I just can't think of any other way to stop Boraczek's continued trolling on this article... So, Boraczek, do you agree to start writing about the "Black Book" in its own separate article? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, I know what you mean. Like some other people here whose right-wing outlook rests on nothing but unfounded opinions, he'll wail and wail of persecution until we yield to his demands. Sure, go off and write the stupid article. I can't promise, however, that I won't modify it. Shorne 12:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Differentiation of wages
For example, the differentiation of wages in Poland in 1987 was at nearly the same level as the differentiation of wages in highly developed capitalist countries.

Why do you remove this part? These are just statistical data. I gave a reference. The source is in Polish, so probably many of you won't be able to read it without a translator. But if you want, I can scan the source and send it to you. Or I can search for an English version. These are just true statistical data, why do you remove them? Is anything that is not in agreement with a left-wing point of view necessarily an "anti-communist" propaganda? Can't you discuss or add something instead of automatically removng any data you don't like? Wikipedia is a place for providing information and not for promoting communism, I think. Please discuss. Boraczek 09:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Why don't you take your own advice and reply to Shorne's lengthy post right above yours? You do insert ridiculous and self-contradictory anti-communist propaganda (the Black Book claims "100 million" but even its own over-inflated numbers only add up to 92.36), and then accuse us of supporting "communist propaganda" when we merely want to remove the kind of statements that can be summarized as "cOmmUnizM is t3H eVil". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * That communists killed many people is a fact. I can't help it. If that means that communism is evil, I can't help it. And to try to hide that fact is definitely POV. You just removed the data and that brought about the edit war. Then you inserted a POV message and that was OK. We can think how to make the article NPOV. Oh, well, Shorne came and started the edit war again. That man is unbelievable. Boraczek 10:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Of course the communists killed people. And the capitalists killed people too. The question is how many. And, as Shorne pointed out, you have to balance this out with the number of lives saved (or at least improved) by the communists. And how exactly was my message POV? I just did the math. 92.36 does not equal 100. That's a mathematical fact, which exposes the most blatant and unforgivable lie in the Black Book. And just because I didn't continue the revert war, that doesn't mean I don't agree with Shorne. He is absolutely correct, and you are, frankly, a troll. But since you seem to be a very persistent troll, I must try to find some way to reason with you. So, let us begin. Please answer these two simple questions: (1) Have you read Shorne's lengthy post which explains why the Black Book is an unreliable, POV piece of propaganda? (2) Do you understand that allegations regarding the "crimes of communism" don't belong in this article?

Sorry, I didn't write it correctly, I meant the "NPOV dispute" message rather than a message that was POV. For the rest of my reply, please see above. Boraczek 11:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * But I'm asking: why do you remove the part about the differentiation of wages? What do you think is wrong with it? Boraczek 10:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I never removed it, and I have no intention to ever remove it. Keep your differentiation of wages, but please, for God's sake, remove the idiotic propaganda of the Black Book. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The Black Book is not propaganda, but a serious academic study. No wonder it has been published in the US not by a rightwing think tank, but by Harvard University Press. Naturally, not even Harvard is serious enough for the passionate ideologues.--McCorrection 00:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Tell me, would you accept the factual accuracy of a book published by the equivalent of Harvard University Press in a communist country? If not, then why are you insinuating that people should accept the factual accuracy of a book published by the Harvard University Press in a capitalist country? Especially when there is concrete proof that many of the book's claims are whooping lies. Hell, the book can't even agree with ITSELF! It claims that communist regimes killed "100 million" people, but when you add up their own numbers, you only get a little over 90 million! -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:07, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mediation requested
User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I support this request and have requested joining the mediation. I will also request that others who have have been involved in the disputes with respect to this article also join. Fred Bauder 13:45, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Please note, as I have already mentioned on that page, that no one else is welcome to "join" the dispute at this time, for reasons that shall become apparent soon. Contributions, however, are invited. Shorne 13:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Personally, I believe that this article is beyond mediation -- and even arbitration -- due to flaws inherant to it's title (too vague. This dispute has been 'resolved' at least twice now, and apparently it's cropped up a third time. The primary reason for this, I believe, is because the article is named improperly, to horrific results displayed by the perhaps-twice-monthly Flame- and Edit Wars here.
 * Therefore, the system of articles should be rebuilt. I have one such plan here.
 * --Oceanhahn 03:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I like your plan as elaborated so far, but it would essentially require coöperation—something that's not going to happen when we're overrun with the reds-under-the-beds crowd. Shorne 00:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"92.36 million"
Even 92.36 million is an overstatement. Most of the fantastic figures are given to only one significant digit of accuracy; therefore, the total is properly 90 million, not 92.36 million. The claim of 100 million represents more than 10% on top of an already whopping lie. Shorne 13:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's the amazing thing - not only did they exaggerate all the numbers completely out of proportion, but they also added nearly 10 million deaths out of thin air, without even pretending to have any sort of sources for them. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Last edits by Shorne
Please discuss your changes here before you revert and put them in the article again. In my opinion, those changes blatantly violated the NPOV policy and were not justified. Boraczek 10:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Why? Just because you didn't like them? Shorne 11:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Because you deleted true (at least IMHO) information without giving any reason, even if the fact that you only deleted the parts disadvantegeous for communism and left the parts advantageous for communism lets us guess the reason. Please discuss the changes before making them. Boraczek 19:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It is a shame that this article must be constantly policed, but partisan remarks that obliterate neutrality must be erased.--McCorrection 17:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Who is being partisan? Ruy Lopez correctly removed some material that was out of place. The content of the material has not (yet) been in question. He told you where to put it. Go and put it there if you wish. Shorne 20:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd expect some explanation why the material is out of place. I think the material is relevant, because it substantiates the statement that communism may look beautiful in theory, but its implementation brings about negative consequences. Maybe there's good reason to move it to another article. But Ruy Lopez didn't move it to another article, he just deleted it. I'd like to get to know your arguments. Boraczek 22:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

overthrown
both the communist states of Eastern Europe and the government of the Soviet Union were overthrown

I have a doubt about the word "overthrown". Eastern and Central Europe countries followed different paths. What happened in Romania was a mass revolt. What happened in Poland and Hungary was a pact between communists and the opposition. What happened in Czechoslovakia was an implosion of the system. I am not a native speaker of English, so I can't be sure, but I guess the word "overthrown" can be too strong in some of these cases. Boraczek 21:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * For once I agree with Boraczek. They weren't overthrown; they fell apart. I'll make the change. Shorne 22:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the path was different in each country, see The Strange Death of the Soviet Empire, ISBN 0805041540 which contains extensive interviews with the last rulers and those who suplanted them. In all cases the ruling role of the Communist Party was abandoned. Fred Bauder 23:00, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * Then why did you restore "overthrown"? I shall remove it again. Shorne 23:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because I couldn't think of a better word. Your replacement, "Both the communist states of Eastern Europe and the government of the Soviet Union collapsed." seems rather insipid. You also removed this sentence, "On the other hand, the theory and practice of achieving this society usually involved systemic application of terror." In what way is this POV? It was Lenin's and the other leaders of the Soviet state's point of view, see pages 59 and 76 of The Black Book of Communism. Further down you removed "When the threat of terror was removed under the leadership of Gorbachev both the communist states of Eastern Europe and the government of the Soviet Union were overthrown and replaced it with "Both the communist states of Eastern Europe and the government of the Soviet Union were overthrown" with the comment, "POV reference to "terror" deleted, for reasons too obvious to mention to anyone more intelligent than a canary" leaving the reference . The cited reference is full of references to a use of force and to both Gorbachev's refusal to use it and to fear that if they did try to use force it would result in disaster as indeed it did in Romania.

I will try for better language than "overthrown" but terror belongs in the article. The Soviet leaders talked the talk and walked the walk and we would not be honest to not credit them. Fred Bauder 00:47, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Insipid? I wish I had a kopek for every time I've heard "the collapse of communism" in the Western press. I merely chose a common word to replace one that we all agree to be inaccurate. As for terror, why don't you go and read the article terrorism yourself? It admits that the term is merely a political slogan, therefore POV. I don't understand how you can honestly assert that terror is factual and NPOV. You apparently need to be given lessons, preferably in one-syllable words. Shorne 01:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chaotic
This article is still much too chaotic. Stuff about Ceauşescu is mixed in with Plato and hippies. The whole thing needs to be restructured before we add more details about tangential stuff, to say nothing of quadrillions of alleged murders and "concentration camps". Shorne 21:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Communism/Archive 3


text:
Talk:Pittsburgh Locomotive and Car Works/to do

 * Add a photo or two of Pittsburgh locomotives
 * Expand the history section


text: User talk:4.244.39.87

title: User talk:4.244.39.87


text:
Talk:Plymouth Locomotive Works

This article needs a citation on the figure that there may be 1700 plymouth locomotives still operating. Also Plymouth built locomotives up to 120 tons. The assertion that most Plymouth locomotives were built under 25 tons needs to be examined closely as it appears incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.86.69 (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Silver King tractors
The article on the town of Plymouth mentions Silver King tractors--shouldn't there be mention here? (I don't know enough of the details to do it myself) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevesteen (talk • contribs) 02:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Plymouth Locomotive Works


text:
Talk:Plymouth Locomotive Works/to do

 * Add a photo or two of Plymouth locomotives
 * Add link to Plymouth disambiguation page
 * Expand the company history
 * Add notes on preserved Plymouth locomotives

title: Talk:Plymouth Locomotive Works/to do


text:
Charleston Lake Provincial Park

Charleston Lake Provincial Park is located on Charleston Lake near Athens, Ontario, Canada, in the township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands.

The park occupies 23.53 km2 in the Frontenac Axis region, a southern extension of the Canadian Shield. The park's forests and animal life, therefore, include species normally found further north, yet the southern climate allows species more typical for the southern latitude to co-exist with the northern species. The park includes hiking trails, swimming areas and campgrounds.

There are four yurts located in the Shady Ridge Campground; these yurts are not heated and do not have electricity. There is also a rustic cabin which is accessible by water and has lights and a small fridge which are solar-powered.

The lake includes a number of islands and has an irregular shoreline which makes it an interesting location for canoeing and kayaking. Blue Mountain, elevation 194 m, is also within the park. The summit was the highest point of the former Leeds County, Ontario. The trail to Blue Mountain has two access points, by water from Huckleberry Hollow, and by land from the intersection of Warburton and Blue Mountain Roads. Blue Mountain can be reached via Blue Mountain Road from Highway #2. Hikers have permission to cross private land and a well-marked trail leads to the summit with a panoramic 360° view. The trek requires approximately 2 to 2.5 hours on foot or 1.5 hours on bike, although cyclists must carry their bikes in many places where hard granite jets out of the earth below which forms the mountain. A compass may be useful for inexperienced hikers.

This area was the site of a re-introduction program for the peregrine falcon. The park also provides habitat for the rare and harmless black rat snake, which is the largest snake found in Canada.

title: Charleston Lake Provincial Park