Talk:Gang bang

message: The term "gangbanger" has to do with gang membership, not sexual activity.  From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gangbanger:    
1. (slang) a member of a violent gang     
2. (slang) a violent person  
This would match the use of the term in modern media, etc.  But, there isn't a separate Wikipedia entry for gangbanger itself, so I think it should redirect to "gangs", so I'm trying that.  JK 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gangbanger" shouldn't redirect here 

message: I thought a session where one person is having intercourses with multiple partners (perhaps in presence) in a row without having notable gaps betweed could be cuonted as gangbang. I believe the definition is not perfectly correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.75.107.170 (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simultaneous intercouses required? 

message: The fact that this article is ridiculously long and painstakingly detailed, while articles about important political figures and historical events rate a paragraph, illustrates why Wikipedia is such an abysmal failure.
Some of you know way, way, way too much about this topic.
:Like swingers who participate in gang bangs, for example?  The Internet isn't just for computer nerds any more.  (TeamSoBe 15:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than edit, as anyone who wishes for quality in Wikipedia, the complaint "why x sucks", without ever attempting to improve the product, whether it is Wikipedia or anything else. Yet another burger flipper heard from!Wzrd1 (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of lengthy articles on may important things, the fact that some are incomplete (as there always will be in a never ending project) or that articles are widenned out into more trivial matters does not demonstrate failure. Dainamo 11:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Wikipedia Sucks 

message: 'Alley catting'
:I'm a 20-something male in the UK and have never heard that term before.
:: Well, that's the purpose of an encyclopedia, innit? To be educational.There are plenty more things you haven't heard of in the pornography categories, I can assure you...
More seriously, do you mean that you think it's a hoax, or not the correct term? AnonEMouse 12:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search for "alley catting" in the context of sexual intercourse brought up very few hits, and nothing from reliable sources. This term may be used here and there, but nothing indicates it's more than just another slang term for "gang bang". I will be redirecting the article. — TheKMantalk 05:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional Terms 

message: I'm willing to believe that "Gangbang" is an alternate accepted spelling,
but not that it's the only one. Look at the DVD covers; clearly World's Biggest Gang Bang 2
uses "Gang bang"; also the Rotten.com link uses the space as well.
Google gets 15M hits for the first, 13M hits for the second. I'm going to mention
both possibilities. AnonEMouse 12:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: This is to discuss the use of the "Worlds Biggest Gangbang" and "Worlds Biggest Gang Bang II" covers on the page. They were removed by TheKMan June 26, 2006, with the comment on my talk page that "[they] can only be used in an article about the video[s]". (Thanks for the comment, by the way, I appreciate it.)
Anyway, I believe these images are being used correctly, since this article is, to a large part, about these videos. If you note, by far the largest section of this article is about "Gangbang records in the pornographic industry", which is a record that this series of videos started. The specific series is described in a subsection with 5 paragraphs. Each specific video is described in a reasonably long paragraph, giving very specific details about the actors, the actual content, and the critical reception of each. Three more subsections of about 10 more paragraphs describe videos and series that specifically claim to carry the tradition and break the records set in this "Worlds Biggest Gangbang" series of videos. I believe that makes these appropriate and fair use. 
Let's compare to some examples of fair use images in recent Wikipedia: Featured articles, since these have all been carefully reviewed by a large group of experienced Wikipedians, and judged to meet the highest standards of the Wikipedia at the time of their featuring, which wasn't so long ago. 
* Hopkins_School, featured article May 30, 2006. Uses :Image:Hopkins stuco prez.jpg under the rationale that it illustrates the "Student Council" section. Note that section is two paragraphs long, and only mentioned in one other section, the "Student Priveleges" section. It can not be said that the specific picture of the 2004 president handing off the office to the 2005 president pictures a particularly crucial event in the history of the Student Council, since it happens every year for many, possibly three hundred years. Nothing in the article says either the 2004 or the 2005 student councils were particularly notable. This is to contrast with this article, where the covers are the iconic images of the first video in the series that started a notable pornography gang bang trend, and the second video, that made it an actual series. Clearly the use in Gang bang is at least as important to the article as the use of the fair use photo in Hopkins School.
* Tenebrae (film), featured article May 27, 2006. Uses :Image:TenebraeCD.jpg under the rationale that it assists in critical commentary/discussion of the Tenebrae film and music soundtrack. The soundtrack gets its own section in the article, 3 paragraphs, but the article is not "about" the soundtrack, the article is about the film. There is a separate article about the soundtrack, Tenebrae (soundtrack). The soundtrack has been said to be crucial to the film, "fused to the fabric of the picture", but surely no less than the videos in Gang bang are to the "Gangbang records in the pornographic industry" section that occupies most of the Gang bang article; far more than the soundtrack section occupies in the Tenebrae (film) article.
I can probably find similar examples if I look in the past few Featured Articles. I believe they also will back up the belief that the use of these images in this article conforms to the current understanding of Wikipedia:Fair Use. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you make some great points. In most cases, images of copyrighted works cannot be used in articles about the subject because they lack sufficient critical commentary on the images or what the images illustrate. Copyrighted images in this context are often misused since they are used for identification, but lack any analysis of the objects depicted. However in this case, the two images represent iconic videos that are worth noting in the article about the subject, with a sufficient amount of text discussing the videos. After looking at this article closer, I feel the images are fairly used, and I'll admit that I didn't see the text about the videos when I removed the images (whoops!). Thanks for expanding on the fair use rationale on the images, and thanks for your patience! — TheKMantalk 15:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. Thank you for your kind words, and, actually, thank you for prodding me to finish adding the Wikipedia: Fair Use rationale requirements to the images and article. I added the images early in my Wikipedia "career", and didn't know I needed to do that as well. When I learned, I vaguely remembered that I probably should go back and add them somewhere, but didn't, until your notice. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images 

message: I see no information about the enormous gangbang om the banks of the kalka river where Djengis Khan and his men had there wicked way with 6000 pow's.
:That would be appropriate in the rape article, not in the gangbang article.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the famous gang bang  

message: little mention seems to be made of this, i do have a film which shows one guy being fucked by a hundred different women. unfortunately can't remember the name of the top of my head. Mathmo 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it has now been added, a title of "world's luckiest man" does kinda make sense! Mathmo Talk 09:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: gangbangs are not just a girl being fucked by many guys, but can also the other way round

message: Are there any facts, figures or research to back up the statements regarding college dormitories, or is it the author's own contention? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.208.183 (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removing Unreferenced and Original Research tags, as article seems to have been cleaned up. 69.143.208.183 14:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment about college dormitories 

message: A friend and I are discussing: According to me, the gang bang happens sequentially, with the gang bangers taking turns: Based on his porn movies, he says that is at the same time, what is the correct way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.4.132 (talk • contribs) 01:19, June 16, 2007
* I doubt you'll find a definition in any reliable source, but the general usage seems to include either one... Valrith 04:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, see, here's the problem. A Webster's dictionary is considered a more reliable reference than the guys in your office, or than porn movies. Unless new references show up, the dictionary definition is what we've got. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Urban Dictionary is not considered a suitable reference on any of a number of different grounds. I guess the most obvious one would be that we don't consider all persons who can type to be equally authoritative, as they do. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The real issue here is simply whether an unsourced, or unreliably-sourced definition of an English-language term trumps what's in a Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's really just as simple as that, and Wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear on the matter.  If it's any consolation, though, you can look at groups like | Ace Gang Bang Crew, who seem to have over a hundred members and participate in such activities monthly, and see that they use the term in the same way as Webster's. Presumably they would refer to what you're talking about as Group sex. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In turn or at the same time? 

message: I notice about a week ago most of this section, and half the article with it, was removed in this edit, with the comment rm advertising. If we consider that was the start of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, that was the bold, I'm reverting, let's discuss. This section was among my first contributions to the Wikipedia, and I still have a soft spot for it. I've learned a bit since then, so I'm willing to accept that it could be improved, but I'm strongly against removing the section, or most of it, wholesale. It describes a notable series, as can be seen by the number of unrelated sources discussing it, the fact that it spawned imitators, etc. I've improved some of the references a bit and shortened the section title. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, basically I come to this article and I see Wikipedia representing a bunch of pornography as more than it really is.  Pornography is entertainment, it's supposed to get you off.  If some people make a pornographic film in which a woman is supposed to have sex with a very large number of men, that's sort of interesting but it doesn't really have much relevance to gang bangs except for the title, and it shouldn't occupy a large part of this article. Which by the way really needs to be sorted out with some proper references. --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, true. Take a look at the split, see if it's reasonably OK. The section in this article is mostly done (do you want citations for these sentences here, or is the main article link good enough?) but I'll do some more expansion in the new article. On the references topic, that one reference there by a couple of PhDs seems as legit as could be given the subject matter. They've been published quite a bit on similar sexuality topics in more scientific contexts. Here they are alongside Albert Ellis and Betty Dodson for example. Just mentioning because it was deleted earlier, and I recommend keeping it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the wording of the new paragraph.  This looks right in the article. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Next on my list is to make you friends with Geogre... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pornographic records" section 

message: This is by far one of the most uneducated statements in this absurd article.
I think that the author say Caligula one too many times.  
Can the author site sources and or references that state that this was Imperial policy?
Can the author further distinguish where the "Gangbang" came to the height of use, was it the early Republican period, the Mid to late Republic, the Augustan age, the reign of the 12 Caesars, the mid to late Empire, or was it the Byzantine to early middle ages.  The author needs to be more specific, naming one person in the 2,000 plus year history does not qualify for being "known for".  By comparison there is more information about American or Europeans having gangbangs.  Americans have been a political power for a fraction of what the Roman Republic or Empire was, yet there is more media on gangbangs, I think that the author’s statement should more realistically read, the United States of America is known for gangbangs.
All the author knows is what is popular media, or what was found on an quick internet search.
Really sad, get up and do some real research offline like a real student then repost your silly article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavivs (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Roman Empire was known for Gangbangs? 

message: The pic directly contradicts the text in the paragraph.  According to this article itself, there needs to be another guy somewhere... soldierx40k (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic?

message: I think we need new/more pictures, the ones we have just are not doing it for me anymore.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New picture 

message: I removed the text "One option is that man can give a woman oral sex, give to another woman the vaginal sex  and accept oral sex  in the coition of a third woman, all at the same time. With this, may the boy have space he may engage in finger f*****g 2 or more females whilst foot f*****g another female." as it was unsourced and the f******g is not encyclopedic.Wzrd1 (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boybang 

message: I propose that Gang bang pornography be merged into Gang bang. I think that the content in the Gang bang pornography article can easily be explained in the context of Gang bang. It makes no sense to use sexual practices to define pornographic genres. Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Λυδαcιτγ 03:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal