Talk:Bondage hood

Non-free images

I removed two non-Free images from this article because:

• they were very small thumbnail images, and did not re-size well, and more imporatantly
• because they were non-Free images with only a very tenuous free-use justification

If you want to add images to this article, please consider shooting your own images and licensing them under the GFDL (or putting them into the public domain) so that the copyright situation is clear, and the images re-usable in every Wikipedia project? -- The Anome 09:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is pure and utter crap! Both images are fair use and illustrate relevant text in the article! The images were originally meant to advertise a product and can be freely shown here under the fair-use policy guidelines. Please do NOT vandalize this page anymore! User:Jaiwills 15:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, The Anome is on the money with this one. As much as I like the images, we need free use images, not promotional images that have the web site stripped off. Atom 22:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jaiwills, please take more care when accusing people of vandalism. The Anome is correct. Wikipedia policy on fair use reads that, "Any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria: 1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." In this case, a free equivalent could be readily created. — Matt Crypto 23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, Matt Crypto, Check the licensing tags for these images! There are no free images available for this article and therefore these images are fair use! Your arbitrary (mis)interpretation of the Fair Use Policy as an excuse to remove fair-use images which serve as a necessary illustration of the text in the article is petty and frivolous.

No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information <----This burden has been met! The images are thus compliant with Wikipedia Fair Use policy. End of discussion.

Please read the policy. (And WP:CIVIL, while you're at it). Free equivalents could be readily created which would give the same information. — Matt Crypto 09:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read the policy!!! If "free equivalents could be readily created" as you say, then you prove it and you make them yourself! I cannot and I don't know of anyone who can! Until such time, the justified fair-use images stay, as they are in compliance with Fair Use Policy (No free equivalent is available) and are a necessary illustration of the text in the article. I don't need to be continuously insulted and harassed and have my valid and justified contributions butchered by you.

Last warning. Do not reinsert these images against policy. Bondage hoods are a widely purchasable commodity. "Free equivalents can be readily created" by anyone willing to go buy and photograph one. That doesn't mean you or I have to be able to do so in order for that to be true. There is no justification for using fair use images in this instance. We are writing a free encyclopedia. — Matt Crypto 08:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense, Matt. I have already explained why the images are compliant with the Fair Use Policy here, and I am not threatened by a petty tyrant like you who unilaterally desecrates other people's contributions for utterly bogus reasons.

This really is your last warning. I don't care if you don't understand the policy. If you add these images again, or continue with personal attacks and incivility, then you will be blocked. — Matt Crypto 13:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Pure balderdash and flapdoodle! You don't seem to understand the policy or how it applies here, Matt! Don't insult my intelligence, please! I challenge you or anyone to make free images of their own for this article, if you think it is so easy to do. It's never gonna happen! There are not, and never will be, any free images available to illustrate the text of this particular article, so the fair-use images are perfectly legitimate to use here!

"The source URL for the images has been credited on the upload page. The images are meant to promote a product and have been given appropriate licensing tags and a valid fair-use rationale. If anything, the copyright holder would probably regard the use of the images in this article as free advertising for his/her site. If promotional images are not allowed, then why are there licensing tags for it??? Other sites like youtube.com feature copyrighted material that has been uploaded by users, so I don't know what your problem is here! This is totally unreasonable!

Oh, and harassing and threatening users who make positive contributions simply to throw your weight around and impose your will doesn't seem very civil to me! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Sanctimonious hypocrite!

Adding copyvios is not makeing posertive contributions. BTW "licensed fair-use images" is an oxymoron.Geni 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Image again

I know that you feel that the image is fair use. Just because it was a bonus image on a DVD doesn't mean it can be used anywhere. It is on the DVD so that people will buy the DVD. We haven't bought the DVD. You quote: "This image is a bonus software feature included on the DVD Xtreme Desires - it is a screenshot from the movie of the same name. Photographer: Tanya Hyde Copyright © 1999 by Fraserside Holdings Ltd."

It is copyrighted, and not the kind of image that we use on Wikipedia. If you want to use this image, or any copyrighted image, including your own copyrighted image, you have to get express permission from the copyright owner, and they have to offer it into the public domain. This copyrighted image is not in the public domain, and you haven;t given us any indication, or proof that you have gotten permission from the copyright owner.

Atom 13:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirect of unsourced article

Discussion from User talk:Cunard#Bondage hood:

Cunard, I appreciate your attention to the matter. Rklawton pointed out at ANI that it's not such a big deal, but I do have a problem with reams and reams of text without verification (and responded there--feel free to weigh in). Before you know it we have an essay or a fansite. But while you and I were out, an IP with a familiar voice came along. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC) I found two AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bondage hood and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bondage hood (2nd nomination), and am unconvinced by either one. In neither are any reliable sources brought up--the first one mentions examples in fiction, and the second proposes "lots of mentions" in Google News and "Current source is sufficient" (note the publisher). I am beginning to think that a third AfD may be in the works--none of the arguments in either of the AfDs are convincing. Or a redirect to Hood (headgear)? Or Hood (fetish clothing)? (Maybe the term "hood" is more notable than "bondage hood", though a quick Google search doesn't help me make that argument yet.) I'd love to know what you think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC) I have reported him for violating the 3RR and will assess the notability later. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC) I haven't been able to find sources for bondage hood. I agree that a third AfD per Wikipedia:Verifiability is warranted if sources cannot be found. However, a redirect to Hood (headgear) or Bondage (sexual) may be better since this is a valid search term. I have implemented the redirect to Bondage (sexual). If the redirect is undone, we can discuss with those who disagree on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bondage hood:

Kinky topic, maybe, but there's little excitement here beyond an uncommunicative editor (their talk page is full of warnings and notifications--nothing major, but no responses are given, ever) who has three times now reverted my removal of unverified OR-ish material. I'm not sure if administrative action is required at this point, but perhaps someone who is uninvolved can do a better job of explaining some of our policies--such as WP:V, at the "duh" level. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC) The editor has promised sources, so lets just wait. Besides, most of the edits don't look particularly controversial. Search Google images for bondage hoods and you'll see a lot of illustrations for the variations the editor describes - with the point being that these edits shouldn't really be considered any more controversial than "the sky is blue on a clear day." Rklawton (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC) You're referring to an edit summary of theirs, "You clearly know nothing about this subject, you are merely being disruptive. External references are forthcoming. A lot of this stuff is fairly self-evident anyway. I'd upload more pictures to illustrate, but the admins won't let me." I wish I had as much faith as you have! But what is wrong with them waiting to add the material until they collected the sources? In the meantime we had an article of some 10,000 bytes with one source, a "Challenging, erotic, pseudo-autobiograpy detailing the changing perspectives of a disabled, middle-aged female psychotherapist" published on Lulu, and a lot of detail that without verification is little more than trivia. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have redirected Bondage hood to Bondage (sexual) per Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article is unsourced and is therefore either Wikipedia:Plagiarism ("the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit") or original research. Both violate policy or guideline. I note that prior to redirect, the article contained one reference:

• Kingston, Amelia May (2006). The Triumph of Hope. Lulu. p. 363. ISBN 1411676955. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

This reference is not suitable in establishing notability or providing verifiability because the publisher Lulu is a self-publishing company. Lulu was deemed by a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24#Lulu.com published books to be insufficient to verify content. An editor noted there that Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources states: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable to cite in Wikipedia."

I ask anyone who disagrees with the redirect to discuss here before restoring an unsourced article. If reliable sources can be found to source the article and are added to the article, I have no prejudice to undoing the redirect. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Restoration discussion

The problem with this and gimp mask redirecting to Bondage (BDSM) is that these devices are not actually discussed on the article. If we cannot find a place to direct to which does discuss them I think we should make a new article. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Something better than nothing, surely. Ranze (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It does indeed seem absurd that we can't find sources to support this article for such a common and popular BDSM device, particularly when a Google search for the term yields page after page of links to shopping sites selling the things. I've made a request for help on this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. -- The Anome (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Potential references

• a section on hoods in a mainstream-published BDSM sex guide: Taormino, Tristan (2012), 50 Shades of Kink: An Introduction to BDSM, ISBN 9781573449403
• ditto here: Wiseman, Jay (1996), SM 101: A Realistic Introduction, ISBN 9780963976383, pages 154 and 155 are devoted to hoods
• Various mainstream news stories with the words "gimp mask" in the title:
  • https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/dec/18/santa-in-a-gimp-mask-tony-ourslers-creepy-christmas-greeting
  • http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/man-in-gimp-mask-and-wetsuit-let-off-after-trespassing-in-explosives-factory/news-story/fcc1423f5fcce9d06f3075e66b530c9c
  • http://www.laweekly.com/arts/brad-pitt-wears-a-gimp-mask-and-kisses-a-dolphin-in-his-lost-film-debut-video-4473951
  • http://www.npr.org/2014/05/24/315251305/bring-out-the-gimp-the-man-behind-the-mask-in-pulp-fiction
  • and this: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz/438928/Jodie-Marsh-dominatrix-Zoo-magazine , with title "'I have a gimp mask' Jodie Marsh unleashes inner dominatrix in sex toy revelation"
  • and also, tragically, stories like this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gimp-mask-man-dies-after-7311708
• this news story, where the image of a bondage mask is used as vandalism: http://www.themercury.com.au/news/politics/braddon-mhr-brett-whiteleys-election-signs-vandalised-on-tasmanias-west-coast/news-story/112e8bea8e1a8962b15fb91f55fa0614
• another tragic mention here, on page 130 of Sauvageau, Anny; Geberth, Vernon J. (2013), Autoerotic Deaths: Practical Forensic and Investigative Perspectives, ISBN 9781439837139

That, I hope, should be at least enough to establish notability. -- The Anome (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Article re-created

I've now created a stub article, based on some of the references above. The references not yet used can hopefully be used to expand the article later. -- The Anome (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That's much better. --Slashme (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)