Talk:Show Me!

message: The article, especially the reviews section, needs more balance. Right now the article seems to exist to mount a defense of the book. The 1975 reception was definitely more heated than one slightly negative review and even if there are sexologists today who have a, shall we say, enlightened view of the material, that needs to be shown in context so we know if this is a majority or minority view. 
I know that a number of libraries had individual local controversies about adding the book to their holdings, and this would be helpful material as well. --Dhartung | Talk 11:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Is the last link on the page a real review, or simply a pornographic website? 99.237.53.218 (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, no, that really is the text of the book. I can see why you'd be confused though.—Chowbok ☠ 03:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Link 

message: I have removed two of the external links . The entire text of the book? Copyright violation. All photos from the book? Copyright violation. Linking readers to a page that starts with peadophilic apologetics, without any sort of warning even? Not okay for so many reasons. (For those who don't know, boy lover is an in-group term for a paedophile that is sexually attracted to young boys). 86.178.167.166 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links removed 

message: I have restored the two external links. The first link does NOT include the entire text of the book. It lists merely the English-language Prologue and captions to the photographs. The Russian-language version of Show Me!, the second link, is an abridged version, much shorter than the English-language one. (There were apparently many different editions worldwide.) 
There are no copyright violations, at least in the USA. Show Me! has been abandoned by its USA publisher, St. Martin's Press, since 1982. I challenge anyone to get an official statement from St. Martin's Press that they are still claiming and enforcing copyright. 
The anonymous individual who deleted these links asserts in a summary and conclusory fashion that the first link is a "paedophilic apologetic," yet s(he) cites no specific evidence from the text for this conclusion, merely stating that anything a so-called "boy lover" posts must be untrue and an "apologetic." However, this link accurately lists the English-language Prologue and captions to the photographs, so it is useful for the reader of this Wikipedia article.
Mark1958 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links restored 

message: I would like to second the concern about the penultimate external link. The site is dedicated to posting images of nude young boys. It does list the English translations, but the nature of the site is exploitative and immoral.
From the page author's own introduction to his translation of the text of the book: "I'm not "just" a boylover, I happen to love kids. "
The definition of "boylover" from www.en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boylover: "boylover (plural boylovers)
1.	A male-oriented pedophile. "
The relevance of the translation on the page is overshadowed by the damaging nature of the site itself. The link is inappropriate and as such I have removed it.
GwenFM (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the deleted link. That site is not "dedicated to posting images of nude young boys." And even if it were, so what? Isn't the nude body the work of Our Lord and beautiful in His sight? I guarantee you that there is and never was any "child pornography" on that long-established website, and if there were the authorities would take it down ASAP. GwenFM makes a summary and conclusory judgment that that website is "exploitative and immoral" merely because one sentence of the author's introduction states that he is a so-called "boylover." So what? The author is NOT advocating or promoting any illegal behavior or enticing anyone to commit any sort of a crime. In fact, I would have no objection to my own children reading that review.
If GwenFM would not like *her own* children to read that review, then I suggest she exercise control over their Internet-access. However, GwenFM, don't force your own views of "morality" on the rest of us by censoring what we may read here.
Mark1958 (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: This is a very well-written and researched article, but it seems to be entirely original research. 128.148.194.11 (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research?