Talk:Gor

Online Gorean Gaming Sites

Since it looks like people are going to keep adding in their play places, we might as well have a sub-section for them and one that makes it very clear what they are. This differentiates it from the offline and lifestyle web sites.

--Malkinius 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted or modified the most egregious BDSM and misogynist references and noted that the Barsoom references are not the whole series but mostly in the first book, opening section, and in the early books in the series. I do not remember in which book Tarl stopped sending the manuscripts back or I would have included that.

Malkinius

Red link

I've taken out the link to the non-existant "Gorean Slave Positions" page. If anyone does want to write this up (and God knows there are enough versions of this on the web to make it unnecessary), I think it would better enrich the kajira page. Mind you, expanding that page would be a fine thing. Wyvern 23:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I honestly can't see calling something a "Redneck soap opera" or something being "edited by Rednecks" in an encyclopedia. The article also seems to be leaning towards an opinion that, to use the vernacular, "John Norman is teh suk lolol". In fact, I believe the last paragraph of "General notes" is mainly hogwash and could be deleted easily. "His greatest works are considered his first third..." By who? Certainly not me. Where is this information coming from? Kyou 17:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

i removed that last paragraph because it doesn't contribute anything at all to the article. it is clearly biased, and if i may say so, it is just flamebait. why would you put that paragraph back? it lowers the quality of the article by a huge margin. who gets to decide that the paragraph stays, hmm?

Erotica

The word "erotica" and reference has obvious place as large portions of the books deal with human sexuality.

Agree with the "BDSM" removal. "Erotica" alone is more fitting since the nature of S&M especially is denounced in the novels as a sickness resulting from sexual repression/denial - what the author sees the modern world suffering from. Punishment, and punishment for sexual arousal arent the same thing. Men who are truly able to be masculine and who have a healthy sexuality dont need to beat women to arouse themselves or to "feel" dominant. It is only in a society that attempts to deny the respective masculine and feminine natures of humanity that such a necessity would occur, for nature cannot truly be denied, and any such attempt will lead only to sickness.

(I'm not championing these ideas or promoting them, I am simply stating what the author presents in his novels, regardless of if any of us agree with his conclusions or not. So dont take this as a "sales pitch" of Gorean philosophy.)

• I disagree with the removal of the BDSM tag; while John Norman has written passages against S&M, he's fully behind B&D, and there are plenty of people in the BDSM community who overlap with the "Gorean" set. Having said that, I'm in full agreement with the addition of a "Erotica" tag; the novels are historically notable for their integration of SF and erotica. Wyvern 11:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

2006 discussion

• "B&D"... but not "S&M." The term "BDSM" is inclusive of the latter which gives a false impression of what the novels present and what the author is expressing, thus I think the removal of the full "BDSM" tag is correct. The use of the expression "B&D" alone would be fine and would present a less general and potentially confusing explanation. Use of the full BDSM tag causes confusion since the majority who "overlap" resultingly and inaccuratley define Gorean as being inclusive of S&M, and infact often think its even dependent upon it (or want to think that). Also, use of "BDSM" tends to make people think "Gorean" is a subset of that collective term, when in reality it is a lifestyle unto itself of which sexuality is only a single part. Potential B&D aspects are only a possibility but not a dependence, and often modern Gorean sexuality isnt at all inclusive of what is commonly thought of when someone thinks "B&D" (though use of the term in the general sense is correct). Ambiguity in this regard would only make the presented facts less factual, so clarity in the explanation of this point and avoidance of simple catch-all phrasing would make clear what we have both said since we are pretty much saying the same things - the problem is somewhat an issue of semantics and how a reader new to the topic might interpret things if not made clear.

BDSM is a made-up acronym that was meant to be rather vaguely widely inclusive -- "Bondage & Discipline" and/or "Dominance & Submission" and/or "Sadism & Masochism". So technically, you're only objecting to the "M" and half of the "S"... ;-) Sometimes it's jocularly referred to as "BDSMNOP" in recognition of the "everything including the kitchen sink" approach.

The category's probably going to stay -- for additional discussion, see Talk:Gorean AnonMoos 19:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I know what BDSM is/means lol and that is exactly the point - it is vague and widely inclusive. That's exactly why the term BDSM should not be used because, as Ive already stated, it isnt clear and gives the false impression that Gorean includes "everything" which it does not. In fact, Gorean rejects much of what comes under that catch-all (and most people do not know this), and for that matter isnt dependent on any of it anyway (lol which most people also do not know - none of what falls under BDSM is necessary to the Gorean Lifesyle, its just possibility), which if not clearly stated makes the article less factual and useful. So no, I am not only objecting to the "M", I am objecting to the fact that the use of the term promotes misunderstanding that is already widely believed as a result of this exact thing. -- unsigned comment by IP 68.199.37.202 13:52, 10 April 2006

Please sign your contributions; it's polite, and makes it clearer who said what. On the BDSM subject, I think that you may have the set order inverted. The 'Gorean Lifestyle' as some people practice it is a subset of BDSM, rather than BDSM being a subset of the Gorean Lifestyle - therefore it is irrelevant what might be within BDSM that is not Gorean. As for the coments on the acronym, yes, and I remember that years ago on alt.sex.bondage it was necessary to coin the acronym WIIWD for 'what it is we do'...since no more specific term could be agreed upon. Don't worry about it too much. Wyvern 15:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not have it inverted at all. You are making the all too common mistake of defining the Gorean Lifestyle by what the BDSM crowd terms it to be, which goes back to my original point about why the use of the term "BDSM" is misleading if not properly clarified. What you are describing is a BDSM "Lifestyle" into which some Gorean terms and ideas have been brought - things possibly practiced within the Gorean Lifestyle, but only a possible part and not the most important. This is what the BDSM crowd incorrectly pushes as the definition of Gorean. The Gorean Lifestyle is a reflection of the lifestyle of the fictional people living on Gor, not just their possible sexual practices. Seriously, think about it. How did Goreans on Gor live? The novels present an entire society reflecting not just the institution of slavery but an entire culture and its supporting philosophy. This philosophy is rooted in Nietzsche (who Norman paraphrases throughout the novels, sometimes for pages on end, and who the whole concept of comparing the conflicting morality of our modern age (which both Nietzsche and Norman term - "the morality of the slave" - a morality of weakness and conformity) to that of the morality of ancient times (which both Nietzsche and Norman term - the "morality of the master" - a morality of strength and individuality) comes from), Ayn Rand's Objectivism (Norman has lectured professionally on Rand and participated on professional panels discussing this philosopher), Aristotle and some of the Stoics (for the sake of brevity I will stop there). We are talking about an entire culture when we use the words "Gor" or "Gorean". When we talk of their lifestyle we are speaking of how they lived their lives - not just how some of them may have had sex (as it is female slaves were only a very small fraction of the population; beings that only a very few ever owned compared to the non-slave owning majority). Modern Goreans base their lives in the philosophy behind this culture - the "why" behind what the people do in every life situation and the surrounding society itself. This is why you see so many arguments on this subject, because BDSMers constantly think they can define Gorean by what they think it to be or want it to be, rather than what is really presented in the novels in the fuller sense, and what many of us modern Goreans actually really do live by. A life that isnt at all focused on the "slave stuff" but on life as a whole, to which the Gorean novels do fully speak.

The Gorean Lifestyle is rooted in a philosophical system. Think less of BDSM "lifestyle" (which is primarily defined by the respective individual) and more along the lines of something like Libertarian or Objectivist (I dont mean the same philosophy, but the same depth and range in terms of what it speaks to). One can be an Objectivist and practice aspects of BDSM, but that doesnt mean Objectivism is a subset of BDSM as a result. Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" fantasy series is heavily founded upon Objectivism and also presents many BDSM-ish scenes. That doesnt make BDSM practices necessary to Objectivism or even to Goodkind's take on it. It just means these things can be done (and that sex sells lol). In terms of Gor the same holds true. While the institution of slavery is present on Gor (just like it was in Rome, Greece, etc. - the ancient cultures upon which Gor is based), and the books often detail this for the exact reason of audience attraction, its only one part of that world, and it isnt one necessary for someone to be a "Gorean" (again, female slaves were a small minority of the female population and most people never owned them). Fighting and the life of a Warrior is also heavily present in the stories (such is a lot more interesting and sells more books than the daily scenes in a Tailor's life lol) but the vast majority of Goreans are not of the Warrior Caste. You dont have to be a Warrior to be a Gorean, you dont have to know how to use a sword or fight either. Yet even though the Warrior Caste is the most focused on, a clear picture of the general Gorean mindset and philosophy beyond far more than just the Warrior's is presented (and besides, Caste in and of itself is an aspect of Gorean society - the importance in terms of the philosophy isnt how that institution is enacted on Gor, but the "why" behind it, which is applicable across the board). Besides also, most of the "slave conversations" in the books are not really speaking of BDSM at all, but are examinations of the conflict between the ancient world/Gorean viewpoint on femininity and masculinity vs. the modern world's take on these subjects and others - all those passages where Tarl and the given girl go back and forth between what is Gor and what is taught on Earth. Whats there goes far deeper than any simple promotion of BDSM, we are reading a presentation of what the author feels is the natural way each respective sex should approach life and each other (and that natural way isnt slavery - its the ancient view on what feminity and masculinity is and how these two are complimentary). The same holds true with Tarl's introspection - he doesnt just contemplate the idea of female slavery, he examines how a person should live his life as a whole, in the process contrasting Gor to Earth and ultimately rejecting the latter for the former, with we the readers present for the multi-book spanning process (which is reiterated in part in the Jason Marshall trilogy). BDSM isnt a subset of the Gorean Lifestyle, aspects of it are simply things that could be done and obviously enjoyed (though some things are unacceptable). But they do not need to be done, and one can lead a Gorean Lifestyle without ever crossing into the realm of BDSM. Just like one could a Libertarian, Objectivist, etc., or any life based on a developed philosophy. Which means the Gorean Lifestyle in reality isnt a subset of BDSM, its just that BDSMers claim this and no matter how many times those living a Gorean Lifestyle (not a BDSM "Lifestyle" into which Gorean slave ideas have been brought) try to correct this, the general BDSM crowd says the opposite and demands that to be the simplified definition/classification, even though it isnt even their lifestyle in the first place lol... not to mention many of them have little familiarity with the subject or the books excepting what theyve read of BDSM based websites. Websites which often do not like Gor, or just want to relegate it to something they can "claim" as part of their thing.

Also, saying that "it is irrelevent what might be within BDSM that is not Gorean," is wrong. If we are trying to define Gor it is very important to make these distinctions, else it leads to people confusing the subject. In response to my original post opening the "Erotica" topic you yourself pointed out that Norman has written passages against S&M. Using the general BDSM term without clarifying things leads to the continued error of people thinking that Gorean is inclusive of all that is in BDSM. This isnt like other subjects. BDSM, for the most part, is tolerant of people's kinks. When someone says they are a "BDSMer" they probably dont practice or even like all the possibilities. But here, with Gor, we have not an individual but a defined subject that doesnt just not include all those possibilities, but flat out rejects some, such as S&M, as being born of a sickness. Big difference there. Gor is quite intolerant at times. It isnt necessary to go through a whole list rattling off all the possibilites that werent suggested in the novels - that would both unnecessary and impossible. But those things that are very clearly rejected - S&M - should be noted, especially since not doing so has created this ongoing false assumption that Goreans are into S&M of an unsafe form claiming no need for "safe words" and thus Goreans are dangerous people who promote abuse (a side note on "safe words" - such are not needed because the situations where they would be needed simply should not occur for the Gorean. In the case of a relationship the words "please stop" in any case mean exactly what they mean, not "I love this please continue until I really mean stop by saying the 'safe word'". But this is again irrelevent because the Gorean mindset rejects S&M and its practice, and views the damaging of a woman in any way - physical or emotional - as stupid). Not only isnt the idea that Goreans are into S&M true, but by the definition presented through the novels, such people arent Gorean at all (at least not in terms of what the philosophy projects in ideal - "bad" Goreans are shown in the novels, for the exact reason of showing the "wrong" side of things also, making the "right" all the more clear), and are behaving in a way contrary to what the books support. Made clear, Gor no longer exists as a misunderstood excuse that abusive people attempt to hide behind. It becomes actually the opposite, since Gor is really a condemnation of this particular sort of behavior. And those modern Goreans who rightfully have nothing to do with S&M (or often BDSM as a whole) arent unfairly labeled and condemned. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Such accuracy, especially in the context of a topic being assumed to approve of something it in reality rejects, is obviously both important and necessary.

As for signing, I am unable to log an account from this computer, but all the "unsigned" articles under the "Erotica" topic, up until now, are from me. -- unsigned comment by 68.199.37.202

Just put four tildes at the end of your comment, and this will automatically set forth the time and date and your IP number, at least.

Meanwhile, the definition of BDSM is disjunctive, not conjunctive -- something doesn't have to fall under ALL of Bondage & Discipline and Dominance & Submission and Sadism & Masochism to qualify as BDSM, but rather if it qualifies as being even just ONE of them (in a more or less systematic and conscious way), then it satisfies the definition of BDSM.

I don't really want to get into a long debate about whether Gor is "part" of BDSM or not, but my comments over on Talk:Gorean still apply:

...there are people who come across this article who judge Goreans exclusively by BDSM standards, and come to the conclusion that Goreans are struggling to dimly approach BDSM best practices, but failing -- while other people have the point of view that "Goreans practice a noble philosophy of honor", and insist that being Gorean has nothing to do with mere "game-playing" or "role-playing" (you must imagine the word "playing" to be pronounced with ineffable contempt and disdain). Neither point of view, if taken to extremes, would result in a very good Wikipedia article -- but this article kind of has to be written in such a way that neither side would be completely outraged on reading it. -- AnonMoos 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I already know that the definition of Gor and Gorean as presented on Wikipedia will be a BDSM one. Gorean Lifestylers are heavily outnumbered by the BDSM crowd that thinks they know all about Gor and so that is the definition that will end up being displayed. It would be interesting to see what definition BDSM would get if the non-BDSM majority of the world did the writing, based on their misconceptions and the beliefs they want to have - the "objective reality" the "vanilla" world says they know BDSM to be all about. It would not at all be pretty in a venue like this, but the difference here is - most common people dont have any interest in defining BDSM or Gor, but BDSMers always want to say what Gorean is. (Not calling you a BDSMer AnonMoos, I dont know you -and- dont take anything that may sound harsh in this as being pointed at you, its not.)

In my last post I didnt say that "BDSM" should be removed - I know that wont happen because the misconception is too entrenched and any detailed explanations will be pretty much ignored. Whatever. What I want to see is a clarification in "the use of the term "BDSM" [for it] is misleading if not properly clarified." Clarified. S&M isnt simply not a part of Gor, or something not mentioned. It is clearly mentioned and clearly rejected in harsh terms. How hard would it really be to just make the accurate comment that the practice of S&M as commonly defined is not a part of Gor? Im not saying phrase it in any nasty way, or that it cant even be phrased nicely. If you want to leave the term BDSM, do so, I know that is what is going to happen anyway. But the fact that there is a large part of BDSM that is not only rejected in the Gorean novels, but condemned as a sickness should be made clear for the reason I stated in a previous post. And this doesnt have to be stated in such harsh, critical terms. I know the BDSM community wants to promote tolerance of all kinks but the Gorean philosophy is its own thing and it is often very intolerant. If the definition is that of Gor and Gorean, the truth should be stated, not what someone wants to be the truth or for that matter doesnt want. In my earlier post I gave a very valid reason for this in how many people think Goreans are involved in abusive forms of S&M and that Gor itself supports this. A clarification wouldnt change the misconception overnight, but more importantly, it wouldnt feed it.

An addition to my words in this discussion - Gorean Lifestyle as compared to a BDSM "lifestyle" into which Gorean ideas have been brought -- simple. I dont call the second case a "Gorean Lifestyle" because that is not so much what it is. Its focus is on BDSM with "Gorean" only adding flavor and some terminology - BDSM is the primary point with "Gorean" only clarifying what flavor, and thus being the secondary point. The simple fact that the second case is called a "subset of BDSM" proves my contention - BDSM is the focus and foundation, and thus that is what the lifestyle should be called. The Gorean Lifestyle isnt founded in BDSM, it is founded in a philosophical system influenced by and akin to that of Nietzsche, Rand, Aristotle, some Stoics and others. For this reason it is not a subset of BDSM, because such isnt the defining focus or for that matter even a major part. Its primary point is "Gorean," with BDSM being a secondary possibility at most.

BTW "noble philosophy of honor" is the simplistic newbie definition of Gorean philosophy (and I am not calling you that AnonMoos, you are right in saying many term the philosophy to be that, because they cant define what they claim is their philosophy in any way other than to blurt out the word "honor"). Gorean philosophy isnt a philosophy of slavery, and it isnt a philosophy of honor either. Some of the values presented in Gorean philosophy go into what constitutes a Gorean's common notion of the word "honor," but that word itself isnt the philosophy, and what's behind that word is only a fraction of the whole the philosophy does present. By looking at the Gorean take on honor, or for that matter slavery and anything else in the books down to the very basic actions of the characters, and asking "why" do Goreans believe this and do this, we find the philosophy behind Gor. Its the "why" that matters, with the "how" developing on top of this.

Nuff said on all this though. I know how I live, am happy with it, and will simply proceed to do so. Goodluck :) (will use your tilde suggestion AnonMoos, if I do it right, thanks) 68.199.37.202 23:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Holy freaking doctoral dissertation, Batman. 70.144.168.254 08:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Best thing Ive read written here about this topic. 68.199.36.35 04:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Gorean Chess?

It's been a long time since I read any of the Gor series (well, except Slave of Gor a year ago or so) and I've forgotten whether there are detailed rules for Gorean chess, and if it has a proper name in Gorean. Dropped by here between the Barsoom page (looking for Martian chess) and the Ouroboros page, then the variants of chess page. Does Gorean chess have known rules, or is it only known through vaguenesses in the text?Skookum1 06:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• The Gorean version of chess, Kaissa, is not explicitly spelled out in full in any of the novels. However, fans have gathered together the passages mentioning it and reconstructed a playable version from the fragments; a quick googling will turn up pages describing this. Wyvern 11:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Over on the new quasi-official Gor site (Gorchronicles.com), it's said that Norman devised a full set of rules for Kaissa (or one version of Kaissa), but never did anything with it partly because someone unconnected with him trademarked the word "Kaissa" (though that trademark may have run out by now)... AnonMoos 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Trademarks don't "run out" (expire in any specific length of time). They are, in most jurisdictions, valid for as long as the holder is a "going concern" (basically so long as the mark is in use and so long as trespass against the mark could reasonably cause confusion in the marketplace). Remember that trademarks and service marks are intended as much for consumer protection as for protection of the mark's holder. They exist so that consumers are not misled by similar packaging and labeling into buying products which are from some entity other than the one they'd intended ... and so that producers can build and maintain a reputation which will not be sullied by deceptive imitation.JimD (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In the matter of Kaissa; many years ago I met one person who created a game from the passing references in the Gor novels. He was a vendor at a local Science Fiction convetion (Orycon, Portland, Oregon, circa the early to mid 1980s). He related to me the story of how he created the game and how he had attempted to work with John Norman on marketing it, et al. He explained that he had been initially unable to garner any response from the author and how, after he'd consulted with his own legal counself, he had sought and been granted a trademark on his work. (In particular it was believed that the references to Kaissa in the book were sufficiently vague and "passing" that the game as created and published could not be legal held to be an infringing derivative work). I only offer this anecdote here informally since I cannot verify any of the details (I don't remember the man's name, the specific year of this conversation, etc). So it is only hearsay at this point. (I should also note that the notions of "derivative work" have been in flux in recent decades as MPAA, RIAA and various other media and software industry interests have tried to extend much of the law surrounding "intellectual property" for their own purposes).JimD (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I know the guy you mean; his name is Jeff something, as I recall. He stopped going to Orycon a while ago, although the last time I heard of him he was still in Portland. (And I never did get a Kaissa set.) What ran out was a patent that he got for some game rule gimmick or another (I don't think I was ever clear on how one patents a set of game rules); I remember commenting on a Gor forum that his IP claims were not worth fighting, as his patent was due to run out in less than two years from that time. It's certainly a derivative work, and John Norman probably could have won a legal battle if he'd chosen to fight one, but it's all moot now. Wyvern (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of Print?

I once heard someone claim that the Gor novels have never been out of print. Can anyone confirm or refute this? It would be interesting to add some notes about its commercial success to the article. (I personally think the writing is terrible and the underlying philosophical assertions are mildly offensive. I won't publicly comment on my personal feelings towards BDSM; just that I find it offensive to read a novel that repeatedly claims that male domination and female submission are generally part of some "natural order" and that certain aspects of S&M are the result of our attempts to suppress this "natural order"). Regardless of my personal opinion I think that it is noteworthy that the books show a lasting popularity (and perhaps some degree of ongoing commercial success). (Personally I find those facts to be far more revealling about social trends than the author's own views). JimD (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they were out of print during most of the 1990's and intermittently thereafter (as various publishing ventures came and went). Books 1-25 weren't all simultaneously back in print in non-E-book form until 2007, I don't think. The period of greatest commercial success seems to have been during the 1970's; after that, Norman went off on his Jason tangent in books 14-16, and then his Indian semi-tangent in books 17-18, and by the time he came back to what I would consider his main narrative, the books weren't selling quite as well as before (though still profitable), and they were under attack from various quarters, and far more people (such as those in charge of purchasing books for libraries) had become aware of their controversial status. The final blow seems to have been Donald A. Wollheim's daughter taking more control over the day-to-day running of DAW books.

Are you giving your personal overall opinion on the Gor books in order to improve the article Gor in some way, or are you trying to prove to somebody what a good person you are? In any case, some Gor fans as well as some BDSM advocates would deny that the Gor books are BDSM (see discussions elsewhere on this page). AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AnonMoos is correct. The books are in print now, though; in fact, I saw the whole series, including #26, at Powell's the other day. The most recent versions are in trade-paperback size and (in my opinion) overpriced, but they do exist in dead-tree format. Wyvern (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Literary Influences

At some point we should write up a section on the literary influence of the Gor novels. People have long remarked on their own antecedents, particularly the "planetary adventure" stories such as ERB's Mars novels. The Gor novels were ground-breaking and experimental in their day and have had much influence on later authors, not in the least by demonstrating that one could write about sex in a SF novel, even (or particularly) nonconventional sex, and still get published. Wyvern 02:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Norman may have broken some ground in subject matter, but not necessarily more so than the late 1960's science-fiction "new wave", and I'm not sure that he really has a broad "literary influence" as such (other than unleashing some second-rate imitators during the period when the Gor novels were having their greatest commercial success). What Norman was really successful at was getting books which many think revolve around bondage practices and "kinky sex" (though of course without "dirty words" or detailed descriptions of body parts) adopted into small suburban branch libraries across the U.S. in the late 1970's and early 1980's, where they were filed in with all the other sci-fi and fantasy books (as I saw with my own eyes on several occasions). AnonMoos 13:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed passage

"where even Norman's Free Women -- women who are citizens of their city-states -- are compelled to acknowledge the superiority of all men"

What is this specifically supposed to mean, beyond and above the article's acknowledgement that there's a general overall Gorean power imbalance in favor of men?? The upper-class women of Gor's northern cities in fact have a higher social status than women in many traditional Islamic societies, and at least on Gor there's never any religious justification offered for male supremacy (given Norman's dismissive attitude towards religion, reflected in the involuted nature of the Gorean "Initiates" -- though there are Gorean "foundation myths", not the same thing).

If you wouldn't write "free women of the Abbasid caliphate were compelled to acknowledge the superiority of all men", then don't write "free women of Gor are compelled to acknowledge the superiority of all men". AnonMoos

I disagree with your analogy, and you misquoted me in your text -- I capitalized Free Women because that is a term and category that Norman specifically defines, and uses in many cases as a plot device. I did not intend to say "women who are not enslaved", but rather the Norman usage of "female humans of the Free Woman class". D'n 00:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I did not misquote you! I quoted you perfectly in the italicized sentence in the top of the section. In my second paragraph, I mentioned something you SHOULDN'T write, not something you DID write. Please get that straight.

Furthermore, your distinction between uncapitalized "free women" and capitalized "Free Women" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do the published Gor novels by Norman, since Norman never uses the double capitalization "Free Woman" or "Free Women" (except in a very few cases when quoting his characters who use the words as a vocative phrase of direct address -- in which case the capitalization only marks the vocative). AnonMoos 04:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Norman very precisely and often (sources available, ask me) points out several things with his use of "Free Woman": D'n 00:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You actually mean his use of "free woman" (since Norman never uses capitalization to make any distinction here). AnonMoos 04:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• The woman is a citizen of her city-state, and as such may own property
• Despite their special class and citizenship, the "Free Women" is nevertheless subject to the overall sexual/gendered hierarchy -- which is my point in the article. D'n 00:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes and the women of the Abbasid caliphate were also "subject to the overall sexual/gendered hierarchy", and this is adequately covered in article by stating that there's an overall power imbalance in favor of men. But this most definitely does NOT mean that every woman (no matter how high) always behaves subserviently cringingly towards every man (no matter how low) -- as your preferred language might seem to imply!!!

Furthermore, the upper-class free women of the northern cities of Gor are actually better off in some respects than the women of the Abbasid caliphate were, since at least there's such a thing as a "Ubara" on Gor, whereas there was no such thing as a Queen (in any meaningful sense of the English word) in the Abbasid caliphate, and women are not so strictly excluded from the public realm. AnonMoos 04:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• The woman is not a runaway slave, but unless she has continued and active physical protection at all times she may very well become someone's chattel

If she stays within the city of her own home stone (assuming this city is not conquered by external enemies), and she stays off high aerial bridges not protected by tarn wire, and avoids committing major crimes, then she's generally safe enough in the majority of cases. Gor is actually not much more brutal in this repect than certain periods of real history. AnonMoos 04:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

In brief, because there is a gulf of difference between the generic term "free woman" and Norman's specific "Free Woman", I absolutely would write what I did. D'n 00:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This distinction seems to reside at least partially in your head -- and when it comes to the putative supposed distinction between lowercase "free woman" and uppercase "Free Women", it seems to exist only in your head... AnonMoos 04:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Parody/humor

Ghetto Girls of Gor (the intentionally lost scrolls) is listed under parody/humor. Maybe I just haven't encountered enough Gor stuff, but I can't see the parody/humor in it; to me it reads as a straight piece of fan-fiction involving the basic universe. Perhaps someone could leave a note here explaining why it's parody/humor?? 156.34.221.174 18:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I deleted the link -- it was added before I started keeping an eye on the article, and I never actually visited it (the title sounded sufficiently outlandish). AnonMoos 06:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, Gay, Bejeweled, Nazi Bikers of Gor doesn't work for me. Can anyone access the link, or should it be removed as dead? 156.34.221.174 18:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nor for me. It worked the last time I tried it; if we're lucky the site is only temporarily down. I'm not sure where else the parody might be found, offhand. Wyvern 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone's fixed it without updating the talk page. There's a link to the copy on adultfanfiction.net now. Wyvern 20:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

British vs. New England

Someone's changed 'British professor Tarl Cabot' to 'New England professor Tarl Cabot.' He's British, but taught for one term in a New England college; this seems tricky to explain well. I'm thinking of just calling him British, since his teaching carreer was short and of little consequence. Comments? Wyvern 20:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Myles Cabot

On the matter of Tarl Cabot's surname might it have been chosen by John Norman as a nod to Ralph Milne Farley's 'Myles Cabot' character? Apparently Farley was a friend of Edgar Rice Borroughs and was writing similar interplanetary swordsman type stuff. I must confess I've not (yet) read any of this Ralph Milne Farley's books though. Wageslave61 21:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

the Counter-Earth

I just edited out the bit at the top of the page where someone edited in, "The Counter-Earth(this phrase has never been mentioned in any of the Gor books.)]]" (Good grief.) I am holding in my hand a copy of Captive of Gor, 1972, ISBN 345029941095, and I QUOTE from the cover: "VOLUME VII IN THE CHRONICLES OF COUNTER-EARTH" Between the title, and the author's name. Good enough citation??? Evening Scribe 08:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous IP 208.179.111.64 has added this in twice, even though in my edit summary of three weeks ago I said "rv -- it's the title of chapter 2 of the first book, and some editions of the books have it printed right on the fricken cover!" -- AnonMoos 16:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal flag of Bosk of Port Kar (a.k.a. Tarl Cabot of Bristol), the main narrator of the Gor books

Image to be added

I have a version of the flag flown by the ships of Bosk of Port Kar, and will probably be adding it to the page in a day or two: -- AnonMoos 09:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"It was a broad flag, white, with vertical bars of green. Superimposed upon the bars of green, it bore the head of a bosk, gigantic, black and horned." -- Chapter 22 of Gor book 11 (with slightly rearranged word order).

Another image, maybe to be added

"Moons and collar"

This is one visual interpretation of the "moons and collar" brand of the Priest-kings, as described in Gor book 13 (i.e. the three moons of Gor ascending diagonally above a closed collar). This seems to be the closest thing to a general overall Gor emblem which is included in the Gor books (unless you count the golden circle of the caste of the initiates), and so might be useful for the Gor article in that respect (though according to Norman, the moons and collar is actually only rather rarely encountered on Gor itself...). AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Another image

Gor orbit diagram

Made a diagram of the Gor as the "counter-earth" according to the descriptions in the books, and will be adding to the article when I figure out the best way to do so... AnonMoos (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The images currently being used seemed to be done in Microsoft Paint. Is there any source that attaches them to the novel series or are they just a creation stemming from the vision of a fan? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your understanding of graphics, MS-Paint does not produce vector SVG images!! They're abstractly symbolic, favoring simple geometric outlines over artistic detail, if that's what you were trying to indicate. In any case, images are not commonly footnoted as displayed in articles, so adding "citation needed" tags was the wrong way to go. If you follow through to the description page of each individual image, there's a lot of detailed description given for most of the images. AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hunters of gor.JPG

Image:Hunters of gor.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Took care of it (hopefully...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Error in the map that accompanies this article

The simplified map shows the Sardar Mountains as being north of the Vosk. They are actually south and somewhat inland of the coastal city of Brundisium - approximately above the "Civ" in "Civilised" on the map. There was some ambiguity in the early books as to the exact location of the Sardar but the descriptions of Tarl's travels in Players of Gor make it clear this is where they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.165.2 (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your comments before. I don't think that Book 20 is all that clear, but in book 24 it's said "Raiding parties of the Wagon Peoples have been reported as far north as Venna. Some claim to have seen them even in the vicinity of the Sardar." -- while in book 14 it's said that "Venna is a small, exclusive resort city, some two hundred pasangs north of Ar." -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In book 27, it's said that Ar is southeast from Brundisium, though Brundisium and Ar are shown at almost the same latitude on the Marcus map... AnonMoos (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Something is missing from this article...

Somehow, this article seems to go out of its way to avoid mentioning the main point of these books, and the reason they are (in)famous among fantasy fiction. From an article by Dave Langford:

As the Encyclopedia of Fantasy primly puts it, 'later volumes degenerate into extremely sexist, sadomasochistic pornography involving the ritual humiliation of women, and as a result have caused widespread offence'.

John Norman particularly likes writing about uppity feminist Earthwomen who are abducted to Gor, enslaved, and whipped a lot – whereupon they realize with joy that being a slave is their true and liberating role in life. (Source:[1])

Our article, by contrast, vaguely describes the setting of the novels, their plotlines and their historical influences; but nowhere mentions that they're about a misogynistic society where women are enslaved by men, or that they're basically one long BDSM fantasy. Surely that's the only reason why anyone reads them, not for the 'intricately detailed' flora and fauna? Would it be too much to put the above one-line description from the Encyclopedia of Fantasy into the lead of this article? Robofish (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

First off, it would be somewhat controversial to describe the books as a "BDSM fantasy", since (among other reasons) the modern BDSM movement didn't really begin to take shape until the mid-1980's (and there's no evidence that the acronym "BDSM" itself was coined before about 1990-1991), and BDSM advocates and Goreans often don't get along. Also, Norman says a number of times in the books that only a minority of women are enslaved on Gor. On Wikipedia, this whole area is discussed on the Gorean article than on the Gor article. However, if you want to incorporate material from the alternative Wiki article http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/Gor , feel free... AnonMoos (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wikis aren't reliable sources, but the SFX column is. I've added a brief summary from that and a source I found on Michael Moorcock's page. I'm sure that there are rebuttals to these criticisms from Norman and Goreans, but it would be best if those too were supported by reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The reasons why DAW dropped Norman were more complex than merely "low sales" -- sales were declining on books released in the 1980's, but they were almost certainly still profitable for the publisher; however the books were coming under attack and there was a change of direction at DAW after the incapacitation of Wollheim (see past discussions at Talk:John Norman etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Any reliable sources discussing other reasons for DAW dropping the books would be useful. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you read between the lines a little and gather information from various sources, it's fairly easy to see that there were probably a number of factors which influenced why the Gor paperback series stopped being published when it did. For one thing, Norman went off on his "Jason" plot tangent in books #14 through #16, and then went off on an "Injun" semi-tangent in books #17 and #18, so that the series was somewhat diverted for a full three years — and when Norman finally returned the series back to its core plotlines, things were no longer really the same as before (due to inside and outside factors). By that time, Norman had managed to shake off all editorial supervision, so that he was able to fairly fully indulge his idiosyncracies of style ("muchly", "modality", "unoften" etc.) and pack the books with more dense ideological or "philosophical" expository passages. The books also started to grow longer (book #18 was longer than all but one of the preceding books in the series, while books #22 and #25 were longer still, almost three times as long as book #1), and they were published more closely together (two per year in the 1980's, as opposed to one per year in the 1970's), somewhat saturating the market. The books still had fervent fans, but interest among general science-fiction readers started to drop off. Also, in the 1970's the Gor books had been widely distributed as ordinary science fiction books to many suburban or small-town bookstores and libraries across the U.S. — but by the 1980's the secret was out, and many buyers for libraries etc. now became aware of the Gor books' "controversial" status (at a time when many librarians still considered science fiction to be basically reading material for teenage boys), and the books increasingly came under attack from feminists and others. When DAW Books came under new leadership as a result of Donald Wollheim's stroke, the new management weighed decreasing profits against increasing aggravation, together with their personal distaste for the subject matter of the Gor books and their plans to move DAW in a somewhat new direction, and fairly abruptly pulled the plug (even though Norman had already almost finished writing Gor book #26 when the decision was made to stop publishing). Of course, this might be considered to be an "Original Synthesis" by Wikipedia standards... AnonMoos (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"If you read between the lines a little and gather information from various sources .... this might be considered to be an "Original Synthesis" by Wikipedia standards." Yep. I'm not necessarily disputing any of the material you're presenting here, but none of it should go into the article without reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's still a problem that the current explanation on the article page is so oversimplified as to be somewhat misleading... AnonMoos (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what we've got, from the Langford article. Admittedly, the tone of that article is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but in terms of the information conveyed it's pretty clear. Langford says that Norman is "upset by the wicked feminist usurpers at his US publishers DAW Books, who in the late 1980s cancelled the Gor series on the paltry excuse of falling sales." In encyclopedic tone, that's what's in the article now: the publishers cite low sales, and Norman blames the cancellation on feminism. We can — and probably should — include the other factors you mention (possibly in a "Publication History" section?), but we shouldn't introduce any of it unless we have a reliable source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a somewhat frustrating aspect of the Gor/Gorean subject-matter that for a number of things which many people are interested in, and which would certainly be considered inherently "notable" by every other criterion, reliable sources (in the conventional Wikipedia sense) simply don't exist. P.S. Another aspect of why the Gor series got the axe is that the books became more extreme in their advocacy of sexual slavery for women as the series progressed -- in the early books, Tarl Cabot still had some hesitancies and residual earth attitudes, but he converted to a thoroughgoing native Gorean viewpoint by book #10, and from then on seemed to develop an increasing proselytizing fervor. The Gor books were probably overall more suited to the seventies (with its "sexual liberation" ethos) than the eighties (when there was a rising fear of AIDS, and feminism was no longer just an isolated radical protest movement, but now had some significant influence on mainstream American lives). AnonMoos (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Belated additional comment: During the last two years or so, the original Gor paperbacks have begun to trickle back into used bookstores near where I live (after a roughly ten-year period when they were very rarely available), and it seems that the ones which now least frequently show up are books 15, 16, and 17, relevant to my comments above... AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to Guardians of the Flame?

As I read through Joel Rosenberg's the Guardians of the Flame, I come to notice more and more parallels to Norman's Gor-series; much so that I would call it an antithesis to Gor. This begins with the slaves being "collared" and continues on the prename of the protagonist, Karl Cullinane. Is anything published to that respect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.99.241 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about those books, but if you find a reliable source mentioning a connection, it could be added to the article... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Describing external links

I'm concerned about the current descriptions attached to two sites in the External Links section.

• The site John Norman's Chronicles of Gor includes the disclaimer: "Please be advised that John Norman is not responsible and specifically disclaims any responsibility for any of the content of this website." Given this fact, I think it's misleading for Wikipedia to describe the site as "semi-official." This is a fan site, plain & simple.
• The site John Norman's World of Gor is seemingly devoid of any updates after 2001. Given this fact, I think it's misleading for Wikipedia to describe the site spanning "2001-2007". This is an old site, untouched since 2001.

This is my rationale for updating these descriptions. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 07:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The first bullet point is semi-disingenuous after the information I left on your user talk page. As the Norman-anointed site for the distribution of Norman-issued communiqués, it is simply not a supposed "fan site, plain & simple"[sic], even though Norman is not responsible for content on the site other than his communiqués. As for "World of Gor" it was the location of a highly active user forum, including occasional communiqués from Norman, until 2007. I don't know why you seem to think it's a productive strategy to simply blatantly ignore whatever you find inconvenient... AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Gravity

This statement -

The planet Gor has lower gravity than Earth's (which allows for the existence of large flying creatures

My understanding of physics is maybe not as good as some people here, but I think lower gravity means lower air density and makes it harder to fly, so the creatures would need to have wide wing spans, but smaller bodies.

Can someone who understands this better speak to this subject? Jokem (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure lower gravity automatically means lower air pressure; it's probably more complicated than that (Venus has a very dense atmosphere). Lower gravity + higher air pressure would make flying easier... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Venus has nearly the same gravity as Earth, but it's atmosphere is mostly CO2, which is a heavier gas than Nitrogen so that might explain the greater density. I would say in order to have a fair comparison both planets would have to have the same type of atmosphere, or at least a breathable one. Jokem (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Force due to gravity has nothing to do with air density. It is dependent on the mass of the planet, and the distance between the two objects. The simplified equation is F=GM/(r.r). In this case M is the mass of the planet, r is the distance between the centres of the two objects and G is the gravitational constant. Basically the more mass the planet has the stronger the gravity, so either Gor is the same size as Earth but less dense, or Gor has same mass but is less dense and therefore larger in size. If force due to gravity (i.e. weight) is less then you can keep a larger body in the air without expending more energy, so larger flying creatures are more feasible. 88.109.86.197 (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If Gravity has nothing to do with Air Density, why does Jupiter have a much denser atmosphere than Earth? Even though Jupiter has much grater amounts of Hydrogen, Methane and Ammonia, all with lighter compositions than Oxygen and Nitrogen? Heavy Gravity planets have denser atmospheres because the greater gravity attracts the gas molecules more strongly, compressing them more. Jokem (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The mass of Jupiter is many times greater than Earth therefore it has much higher gravity. A thicker atmosphere will produce a higher air density - the thicker it is the more it presses down on the air below and the higher the density becomes. 88.109.88.210 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

2015

I have come back to this after a few years. It looks like the people here are contradicting each other. I claim that higher gravity means greater air density. I think that is consistent with the laws of physics. The only exception I can think of is the case where the atmosphere itself is made up of lighter or heavier components. Jokem (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have the same amount of gases surrounding each of two planets of the same diameter, then heavier planet = higher gravity = higher air pressure at ground level (though the lighter planet has the taller atmosphere). However, this is really not the main determining factor in the real world, because the other circumstances can in fact be greatly unequal. So Venus is slightly smaller than earth with slightly lower gravity, yet has vastly greater air pressure at ground level than earth does... AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As stated, what you have said is true, but the reality is it does not happen this way. The heavier planet will tend to retain more of the gas, so you will not have the same amount of gases surrounding the planet. In the case of Venus, it has vast amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere, as well as other heavy gasses which makes the atmosphere more dense. I presume this is due to the intense heat which ignites the Carbon/Sulfur, etc making for denser gasses, but that is just speculation on my part.

In the case of Gor, it has a breathable atmosphere, not at all like the atmosphere of Venus. Jokem (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RPG campaign

Should there be any mention of this? An IndieGogo campaign with a $5000 goal raised #5,505. I'm a bit unclear on its dates. It says it closed 1 October 2014 but when I check the earliest archive, from 15 October 2014 it says it closed 30 September 2014. I know it's just 1 day's difference but it seems odd. The archive says it started August 21 but the current version doesn't state when it started.

It is supposed to be done by James 'Grim' Desborough from Andover of Postmortem Studios with art by Michael Manning. It is apparently being developed in association with ORIM.

There is supposed to be 2 books:

• Chronicles of Gor: Gorean Roleplaying
• World of Gor: The Gorean Scrolls

According to a May 2015 update it was supposed to be done by August 2015, the last word I can find is January 2016 where they are still previewing art so it wasn't done by then.

I can't figure out if this is an officially licensed product or not. Does anyone know if John Norman approved it or not? Ranze (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It claims to be licensed. If it actually gets published then it would be notable and need to be mentioned, but until it actually sees the light of day it is just pie in the sky. 78.150.78.107 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Something called the "World of Gor: Gorean Encyclopaedia" was definitely published... AnonMoos (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gor. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.worldofgor.com/reference.aspx?rpID=9
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227220134/http://www.worldofgor.com/reference.aspx?rpID=12 to http://www.worldofgor.com/reference.aspx?rpID=12
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121031111019/http://ereads.com/2007/10/are-john-normans-gors-boy-books-2.html to http://ereads.com/2007/10/are-john-normans-gors-boy-books-2.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Book list format messed up

The book list is said to have books with another protagonist than Tarl Cabot in italic, however, all books are listed in italic.

I don't know off the top of my head which books are with another protagonist, so I can't fix it, but it'd be great if someone with that knowledge did.

The names of the narrators appear after the publisher, so I reworded the sentence. Deagol2 (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

list of words

Why does the thing in the upper right corner have a list of words? Tarnsman, etc. Isn't there supposed to be some sort of header, like "Concepts" or "Known For"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.87.192 (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are the book titles, with the repetitive of Gor left off. The infobox doesn't display a label for that section. Schazjmd (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The January proposal to merge Kajira to here seems very reasonable; not a concept with notability outside of the world of Gor, and many of the critisms of the series focus on Kajira (so, best discussed here). Klbrain (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"Sa'fora" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sa'fora and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 15#Sa'fora until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 08:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)