Talk:Kink.com

Proposed deletion
I think deletion may not be the best choice for the Kink.com article. Given the amount of article content, and the notability of the company, was there a reason you felt the article should be deleted? If you see a problem with the article, perhaps adding the appropriate tags would be a good alternative. --Elplatt (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I too think the Kink.com page should be restored. They've been featured in the New York Times, they're involved in restoring the San Francisco Armory and are one of the largest porn sites on the internet. I side with Elplatt in wanting to better understand your reasoning for the deletion. 24.196.117.220 (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because this is an online encyclopedia not a haven for well known "porn" companies to get free advertising. Just because someone or entity is "well known" for doing something and was featured in the "New York Times" does not make it credible material for an encyclopedia. Porn, although quasi legal, has carved its niche and 30 billon dollar a year business into the mainstream, but it not something that has its place in an encyclopedia. The kink article is a blatant advertisment, as it lists several of kink.com actors and provides links to their home pages which most if not all are trying to entice people to subscribe and pay money to see their personal porn acts. An underaged person is exactly 2 links away from being redirected from wikipedia to a webpage with explicit sexual images and content. It is written from a non-objective viewpoint strictly promoting a company with the intention to attract more customers. This is not a moral argument over the evils of porn or anything of that nature, rather it is a valid question on what exactly does the kink.com wikipedia have to do with adding to the general body of knowledge and content useful to an encyclopedia free and accessible by people worldwide of any age. ---webman1000 sig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webman1000 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 6 December 2008


 * Actually, Wikipedia was created for exactly this purpose. Calling this advertisement is basically a hidden way to censor relevant information. It is beyond obvious your moral rejection of Kink.com and its history in San Francisco is what is clouding your judgement. Wikipedia has always been a uncensored repository of knowledge. This is why if you as a school district purchase the wikipedia DVD, the more explicit information is censored. Porn articles very much have had and will continue to have a place in THIS encyclopedia explicitly for the reason of it being something that would likely not be included in more mainstream" fair. Wikipedia was created as a encyclopedia that was easily updated, kept updated, and carried more controversial topics that typically are left on the editing room floor for Britannica and others. Stop hiding behind accusations of advertising and be honest, your conservative views cause you to reject topics others find ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.251.89 (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

First, I've removed the "Refimprove" and "Wikify" tags added by User:Orangemike – this article is heavily internal-linked, and more strongly cited and referenced than about 90% of the articles on WP, so just exactly what is the problem in this regard? Structurally, this article has problems, notably with sprawling lists, and I've added a tag for this. I dispute the idea that this article reads like an advertisement, but if you'd like to point to examples, I'd be happy to help clean this up.

As for User:Webman1000/User:201.137.198.88, you are way off base here. Since when is when is the content of Wikipedia centered around your personal criteria of "credibility"? Kink.com is the subject of numerous non-trivial newspaper and magazine articles, independent of the source itself, and is therefore well within the criteria outlined in WP:NOTABILITY. I notice that you had tagged several articles on porn-related subjects similarly, seemingly at random. The reasons you give above for doing this are simply not adequate – Wikipedia is not censored and that, quite simply, is that. Really, I think you need to take the time to learn and understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia before you start marching around demanding that articles be deleted. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not a moral issue so stop playing good politician/bad politician and trying to make this a personal attack agaisnt my "conservative nature" or "moral attitudes". If I like porn, use porn or hate porn that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. My most pressing concern in all of this which no one has even attempted to discuss is the ease in which a minor is redirected to external links that contain explicit pictures and video of hardcore sex acts. The reason this article reads like an advertisement other than the fact it was written by a kink.com employee, is how it lists all of the actors that had performed in kink.com shoots, and provides external links to their websites, with most of those sites soliciting money for people to have online access to their private video collections of their "professional" pornographic work. That makes this an advertisment as it promotes and gives access to external links to pay porn websites. That is the issue. If it is an encyclopedia entry, then it should just discuss kink.com's history and leave it at that. As far as porn having a place in an online encyclopedia, well thats where I believe wiki has just walked off the deep end of reality. Porn is one of those little dark things that is and has been and always will be apart of society but is not anything that should nor can receive attention in this matter as a legitimate or noteworthy item. Its like the concept that what you do in the privacy of your bedroom, or if you enjoy orgies or sex with dogs, is something that is part of your private life, as well as your use or enjoyment of porn etc,, but is not something you would discuss in this forum nor make a public announcement. The claims that kink.com is a respectable porn company is an oxymoron, as the entire point of porn is to place woman in degrading depictions, insulted, beat, ridculed and gang banged, which I really doubt that is something that can be called respectable no matter if the pope produced it. Again this is not activism, nor personal morals in play, is a question of ethics and wiki's defination of 'noteworthy'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webman1000 (talk • contribs)

This is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED. This article links to the subject's website, which is not considered spam (so do, for example, the articles on Microsoft or on politicians). It does not contain external links to any actors' websites. You also tagged actor articles as spam that didn't contain external links to the subject's website, see this edit. Finally, I fail to see the difference between "personal morals in play" and "a question of ethics". If you have problems with Wikipedia's definition of "noteworthy", WT:Notability is the place to discuss them. But I dare say that an attempt to exclude porn (or whatever) from the general notability guideline will fail. Huon (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What Huon said. Look, Webman1000, you need edit according to the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, and not according to your personal views about what you consider "credible" and "ethical", or your edits will be reverted. Kink.com is notable, so this article is appropriate. Links to company websites are entirely appropriate in articles about that company, and that's as true for this article as it is for the article about General Motors. Finally, this article was not written by anyone connected to Kink.com, and I'd appreciate it if you stop making up "facts" off the top of your head to make your case. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Kayden Faye assualt
I have some concerns as to whether this meets Wikipedia verification guidelines. Basically, the only source for this is a blog post (full disclosure: this is a blog of a friend of mine where I frequently comment), which links back to another blog post from Kayden Faye's MySpace page, and to a discussion on AdultDVDTalk. I don't think these are considered acceptable sources according to the rules given for WP:VERIFY, especially when it comes to contentious claims. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I too am a little bothered by the "Alleged assault" section. Are there no better sources? Didn't the news pick it up? My own Google News search was unsuccessful, but maybe I tried the wrong search terms. Huon (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty familiar with this case, having done the same digging that the above-mentioned blogger did. There are no news articles on the subject – the only primary sources are Kayden Faye's own blog and a discussion on Adult DVD Talk. From there, the news was repeated on a couple of blogs. That's about the extent of it, and I really don't think that flies under WP:VERIFY. I'll RfC this to get some more opinions, though. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources given are on the thin side... basically we have this sourcing back to the one side only who's claiming assault. I'd want some neutral statements of it Tabercil (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear it was ever substantiated anywhere, just repeated ad nauseum in blogs. Nothing from AVN or xbiz. Lack of any reliable sources covering it means we shouldn't have it in article. Removing until/unless somebody comes up with something.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Having read through the article, I am going to agree as well. Unless a reliable source has picked up the story, it completely fails WP:V. In addition, there are WP:BLP concerns which bother me even more than a verifiability issue does. I would definitely advise against this section being in the article based entirely on those grounds. Trusilver  20:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lists
Unless anybody has objections, I'm going to get rid of the lists in this article. They are basically sprawling lists that detract from the article. I'll partially incorporate the lists as text, particularly the Kink.com sites list, as text, plus give a few examples of notable performers. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Step in the right direction
Well thats certainly a step in a right direction as that list was the main source of my original problems with this page, since each "actor" in the list had their own wiki page that linked to their personal pay per view porn sites. But this brings up another question. How were they ever in wiki in the first place? I and several others have tried without success to create wiki's about people we believe are notable for their accomplishments in their careers and influence in the world, but usually within 10 seconds an editor deletes a wiki about a person unless it can be proved that they showed up in cnn or fox news. Ok, but then how does a porn actor, using more than likely a fake name, all of a sudden have free reign to create a wiki page (not just 1 but 100's) simply because they spread their legs and got gang banged in a cheap porn flick? How does that meet the wiki notability requirements? At least now the article kink.com reads like an ecyclodpedia entry and not a trap to woo more clients to porn sites. webman1000 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC) webman1000
 * Well with regards to pornstars, we have a genuine independent guide which states which ones are considered notable and which are not notable: WP:PORNBIO. This was created specifically to clear away the problem you describe. Tabercil (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh Really?
Let´s just walk through a simple scenerio shall we? John or Mary doe of 13 years of age are doing a school report on an idea that came from their discovery that by placing "kinks" in their garden hose they can make water shoot out much faster. They go to wikipedia since their parents allow that content as its "ok" an ecylocpedia. They enter the words "kink" and arrive at the kink.com wikipedia. Then as the page was before they are invited to a whole different subject than kinks in hoses and make a click on "ana cruzes" link and arrive at a explicit porn page with the title "Im the bitch that your mother warned you about...", well you know with nice pornographic pictures that show and tell all. His/her father happens to be a badass attorney and is quite offended when john/jane doe shows what they discovered in wikipedia. So under many laws, not withstanding, the "Communications deceny act" or the "contemporary community standards" laws or "corruption of a minor", a case is launched agaisnt wikipedia and its editors. Turns out since the editors have the ability to "speak for wikipedia" by approving or disapproving changes etc to content that they themselves not only represent wikipedia but also are not free from personal liability in this matter end up forking the bill for a 100 million plus lawsuit. It seems there is a strange US law that states that all "indecent" material as porno that is hosted on the web on US servers, has to have a simple warning on the home page that the person who is about to visit this site must be over 18 years of age.. etc.. Strange but I didnt see that in any of the 100 plus porn star wikipedias. So the 6 million dollars that wikipedia is trying to raise may not be enough to withstand the lawsuits that will come from the open and blatant access to porn to minors which the wiki "porno portal" path is embarking. All the cute and bold phrases that "wiki doesnt censors" and "they are notable" probable wont mean a whole lot when this "porno portal" of wikipedia ends up exposing wikipedia and its editors to all kinds of civil (oh and criminal) liability from the jane and john does that unfortunately end up on porn pages by doing simple research projects etc.. Dont forget that wikiporn, like any other porn will run agaisnt really ugly laws in the US and about 50 other countries world wide who really dont jive on minors having access to graphic porn. Good luck. [User:webman1000|webman1000]] (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC) webman1000


 * Your whole argument fails because parents who do not wish their children will install nannying software to prevent them from having access to pornography websites. There isn't any porn on this page and so no one can sue Wikipedia for that, plus this encyclopedia is and always was intended for an adult readership. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The argument fails even before that; it fails on Google. Hesperian 05:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This text seems to have been copied-and-pasted to a number of different editors' talk pages: here, here and here. I'm not sure why I was deemed worthy of receiving it, but just to reassure webman1000 - I have Kink.com watchlisted so I'll see your comments here anyway.  I'm really not too sure why you felt it necessary to post on my talk page, anyway.  Cheers,  This flag once was red propagandadeeds 15:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I'm not involved, leave me out of it, webman.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed, again
Anti-pornography activist Melissa Farley has compared the images produced by Kink.com to images of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, and testified against Kink.com's purchase of The Armory in a March 2007 meeting of the San Francisco Planning Commission. Proponents of Kink.com usually dismiss such comparisons by pointing out that Kink.com employs the use of a safeword which gives the model complete control over the scenes and, secondarily, that the model wants to be in the restrained position, whereas the typical Abu Ghraib inmate had no control whatsoever and most definitely did not want to be in prison.

I've removed this again as Wikipedia is not a WP:Soapbox, Farley's comparing images to torture of war prisoners does a disservice to not only her credibility, but of those who are consenting adults and yes, the actual war crimes themselves. If her comments are that notable send them to the BDSM article. This encyclopedic article is to be centered on this company, not inflated and emotional arguments pro or con about bondage as torture or the benefits of safewords; nor the rather problematic fetishing of war crimes and torture. -- Banj e b oi   01:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert you here. The mere fact that you find the argument to be preposterous and wrong (guess what – I do too) does not merit not including it. This is a criticism, made by a public figure specifically of Kink.com (though obviously in Farley's view, it would extend toward BDSM porn as a whole). This is not soapboxing, but rather reporting. I suggest you have a good look at WP:CONTROVERSY and how that fits in with WP:NPOV to be clear on what Wikipedia's policy toward controversial subjects are.


 * If you feel that the paragraph is written in such a way that it seems to endorse Farley's view, then by all means, let's take steps to recast in more neutral language. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um no, if you wish to include this information then please gain consensus to do so first. This is written in an inflated manner and seems tangential to this company. She herself may be notable but her comments are about BDSM practices in general - a subject she seems to focus on. I would be more swayed if this company was unique in presenting this content or known to proliferate extreme forms and notable for such - they certianly don't seem to be. In fact what they do ispretty tame as far as most online kink porn and BDSM is concerned. One would also infer that the company is somehow foisting their product on teh unsuspecting public in some way - there seems no evidence of that either. Indeed they seem to have gone to lengths to blend in with neighborhood and lessen their perceived impact. Above we have three main points: (i) she testified, who cares so did a lot of folks and yet the company got to operate the business; (ii) she compared the images produced by Kink.com to images of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, um this could be said of almost every BDSM-related company, it's what they do and throwing in Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse? Give me a break. (iii) Kink.com models use safewords and control the scene, and by the way aren't prisoners - again, give me a break, safewords are nearly universal etc etc, this sentence seems to only be there to justify the muck-throwing of inserting Abu Ghraib-prisoner abuse content. I see nil useful information here that isn't already covered by the three paragraphs already devoted to this subject. If we insert this then why not extended excerpts from all the other speakers both for and against the building purchase - which, as we know, already happenned. Why don't we - it's WP:Undue and thus violates NPOV, throwing on Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse only inflates the issue thus making it a WP:Soapbox. Unless there is solid consensus to re-add this it should stay out and the use of "Critisms" section is also discouraged for the same reasons, it lends itself to POV writing and content.  -- Banj e  b oi   19:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This NYTimes article seems to cast doubts on how accurate we are portraying this information. They point out how Kink.com went to great efforts to be a good neightbor and reach out when they could have simply quielty moved in - Kink could have tried to slip into the building innocuously, preserving that arrangement, yet Acworth seems bent on doing the opposite: he wants, very visibly and proactively, to be a good neighbor. (The week after the protest, he wrote an op-ed article for The San Francisco Chronicle, re-extending his open invitation to visitors.) Since the sale, he has been committed to making the armory’s two-foot-thick walls as transparent as possible; how the underlying issues was gentrification of the neighborhood - Their frustration stemmed from deeper issues. Roberto Hernández, a Mission native, told me that the neighborhood “has been a train wreck” since the spate of evictions, largely of Latinos, during the dot-com boom. Its problems are legion — drugs, prostitution, vandalism — especially in the shadow of the derelict armory. “We’ve made numerous attempts as a community to get something positive into the building,” Hernández said. (Neighbors also helped quash various proposals including one for luxury condos.) It seemed as if some in the beleaguered community had come to view the armory as a 200,000-square-foot storehouse of infinite promise. Now, regardless of how unfeasible turning it into affordable housing or a recreation center actually was, there was no chance at all. etc. There's plenty in that article alone to fill in how this company is a pioneer of BDSM and debunks all of Farley's inflated prisoner-abuse concern. -- Banj e  b oi   19:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're dead wrong in your interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY. I take those rules to mean that it is not the job of us as editors to decide which side in a controversy is correct, but to simply report what was said. I actually happen to agree with you that Farley's criticisms are dead wrong and you need not have gone on at length explaining why. But that's your opinion (and mine too), and NPOV quite explicitly states that one doesn't slant articles toward the writer's opinion.


 * I'm going to RFD this and see what other people think. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We can agree to disagree I guess. I'm hardly suggesting we take any side of the "controversy" but merely that we not inject Farley's rather odd statement which is clearly not needed here. If you look at the original source that story is about teh author's quest to stir ... scandal about Kink.com getting government funding with Farley's bit covered in passing. Farley's blodg can say whatever she wants but an encyclopedic article needs to remain NPOV and accurate, her opinion and inflamatory statement realy doesn't belong here. -- Banj e  b oi   03:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Melissa Farley
Melissa Farley views have no place is this article as she is no longer an accredited psychologist of APA following ethics violation into fraudulent & fabricated research. All references to her work should be removed as unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kink.com. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20081218090205/http://avnawards.com/pdf/2009_AVN_NOMINATIONS_11_25_08.pdf to http://avnawards.com/pdf/2009_AVN_NOMINATIONS_11_25_08.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kink.com. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20071117220045/http://www.7x7sf.com/people/profiles/3545792.html to http://www.7x7sf.com/people/profiles/3545792.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820041741/http://news.behindkink.com/blog/default/2008/02/01/Kink-com-Celebrates-its-10-year-Anniversary to http://news.behindkink.com/blog/default/2008/02/01/Kink-com-Celebrates-its-10-year-Anniversary

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A young private endures a brutal Army physical 1.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Kink porn shoot 12.jpg

Kink.SBS?
Why would the link to the "official website" of an article entitled "Kink.COM" (my emphasis) be to the domain kink.SBS? It simply redirects to kink.com, but it does some gymnastics along the way. Makes me wonder if it's a domain owned by a third party that is cashing in on traffic.

--Craig (t|c) 10:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Huh, bizarre. When I tried to correct what appears to be an obvious error, I am denied with this error message:


 * Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist.


 * To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save.


 * Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded.
 * Links containing google.com/url? are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded, or click here to convert the link.


 * If you feel the link is needed, you can:
 * Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you).
 * Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page.


 * Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. The following link has triggered a protection filter: kink.com


 * Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.


 * Solutions:


 * If the URL used is a URL shortener/redirect, please use the full URL in its place, for example, use youtube.com rather than youtu.be,
 * If the URL is a Google URL, please look to use the (full) original source, not the Google shortcut or its alternative.
 * Look to find an alternative URL that is considered authoritative.


 * Since I'm not willing to jump through those hoops, I guess this bizarre "kink.SBS" link (a domain registered to an anonymous registrant) will stay as the "official" link to kink.COM!


 * --Craig (t|c) 02:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)