Talk:Fruit machine (homosexuality test)

UK meaning
I think this page is rather in need of disambiguation. The UK usage of fruit machine should be the primary, in my opinion. Comments? --AW

Yeah. Article needs to cross reference slot machine though. In the US they don't have nudges and all the other stuff. it's just pull the handle and hope for the best. Mintguy 22:40 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)


 * Yes, disamb it. Skinnyweed 22:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for being dense, but what does this article have to do with polygraph, from which it is linked? Koyaanis Qatsi 09:31 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * Maybe in connection with the first definition on the page? -- Zoe

Funny, but I'd have thought that the two gambling devices should be merged into a single article. Sure, nudges and such are slightly different in different places, but that's not a fundamental difference, is it? Martin 20:54 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

this needs to be reverted
edit it back to how it used to be

Link from b3ta.com
This article has been linked to by this week's b3ta newsletter Woo! CLW 17:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, came here from the newsletter myself, somewhat surprised to find this definition listed as primary! Still, I have learned something today at least. If visiting Canada, I'll hesitate before mentioning that my wife used to work for the Government inspecting fruit machines. --Miz 18:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "fruit machine" + homosexual : 758 hits on Google
 * "fruit machine" + slot : 701,000 hits on Google

If this page isnt a MAJOR wind-up, i'll be so surprised I'll eat myself. "Fruit machine" means gay detector? You cretins.


 * No, that's sadly real. The Canadian government at the time was very homophobic. The original "fruit machine" is now in a musuem. DS 02:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

really? what museem? could we mention that in the article?

Actual name of the device?
Does anyone know the actual name or number of the device? If so, that should be used as the article title, with a link from fruit machine. Jimaginator 17:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

uselessness
anyone know about the scientific uselessness/fraud of such a machine, who could document this in the article? Hmains 21:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No cititations, no speculative proof
This is inherently a suspect article. I wonder if someone just made it up. 70.78.82.195 19:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article already has several references and external links, and it is certainly not made up. If there are specific statements you think are suspect, please note them here and we'll address them. Jokestress 20:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's two legitimate sources in the references sections. Yeah, page numbers could be dug out and the article expanded generally to improve it, but the ridiculousness of the article stems from the crackpots in the RCMP, not Wikipedia.Bobanny 21:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Artist's rendition" image
I just re-removed the "artist's rendition" image. This image detracts from the article. The rendition is cartoonish and admittedly from a flyer for a gay night of the same name at a club. Certainly subjects did not stand before the machine with buttocks bared.

An actual photo of the machine probably would not add to the article. Its functioning is unimportant and I'm sure it was nothing to behold in the first place. If an artist's rendition were required, a much less fanciful rendition could be had. If I'm reverted again, I think it should be with justification spelled out here. —Christian Campbell 15:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. The club was named for the subject of this article and an artist's take on what one would look like, comical/cartoonish or not can certainly aide the reader to understand how such a machine is viewed in hindsight, much like the machines created to aid relief hucksterized throughout the last several hundred years. The argument of no image is better than one I don't approve seems unhelpful. Your opinion that the image detracts from the article is just that. I obviously added it twice as i think it adds to the article. And we are arguably unqualified to judge how someone was dressed or not when using the machine but if bare buttocks are of such concern that can easily be addressed with a qualifying statement in the caption. Benji boi 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)