Talk:Women Against Pornography

message: Rape has been down 80% for the last 20 years due to the higher availability of pornography. I personaly believe that this should be in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.240.224 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 April 2007
:No it shouldn't. This is an article about a specific organization, Women Against Pornography, not an article about the pornography controversy as a whole. Iamcuriousblue 01:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Listen Up

message: I've added several sections to the article which were strongly needed. First, I added additional material on the latter history of the group and its role in the formation of CATW, as well as the role of WAP in the Meese Commission hearings, both aspects that were left out of the earlier version of the article. I've also added a section on opposition and controversies to WAP, both from civil libertarians and other feminists. This was a glaring omission from the earlier version of the article, which in my opinion was overly reliant on Susan Brownmiller's autobiography as its sole source. I believe the changes have fleshed the article out more, as well as making the article more NPOV by noting criticisms and controversies surrounding WAP. Iamcuriousblue 01:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions to the article, August 15, 2007

message: Before another editor reviews the article, the lead needs to be further expanded to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for more information. --Nehrams2020 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noting this. I have added a much more detailed lead. Iamcuriousblue 03:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA comment

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail:  GreenJoe 15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GreenJoe has made a request for a second opinion on this article, and I'll be providing that second opinion. Pursey Talk | Contribs 15:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing is cited in the lead because the lead is simply a summary of the larger article. The references in the article itself are in fact cited. Iamcuriousblue 16:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination

message: I've now assessed this article against the Good Article Criteria and have made the decision to Quick-Fail it. A full review has not been undertaken at this time though I'll make some general suggestions to help improve this article. 
The lead contains claims that are unreferenced and could possibly be considered original research. The claims need to be cited if they are not cited elsewhere in the article. The lead is also very lengthy. I'd suggest checking out WP:LEAD for some suggestions on how to write a good lead.
GreenJoe raised concerns about the referencing format used. More info is available at WP:CITE. 
If you feel this review has been in error, feel free to take it to a good article review. I'm also contactable on my talk page. Thank you for your work so far on this article :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 15:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review - Second Opinion 

message: I asked for citations in the new paragraph "Other critics dissented . . . ." (at the end of the section Opposition and Controversies) and recommend some rewriting because, while I suspect the points raised generally are fairly close to the truth, either they need to be brought to the nailhead or, if they are correct as they are, they need supporting citations. Specifically, (1) whether priestly sexual abuse was or was not fueled by porn is not something I've ever seen discussed and I'd be surprised if priests who sexually abuse are less likely than men in general to turn to porn for inspiration; (2) I don't know which of Susan Brownmiller's statements are being relied on for the sentence; (3) "Catholic and other forms of clergy pedophilia" implies that there are different forms of clergy pedophilia, Catholic and other, whereas I'd argue that the Roman Catholic Church's structure meant the Church was more likely to be held expensively liable but that the pedophilia did not take a different form, it being sex with people legally too young to consent and therefore it being rape and that being man-on-boy rape rather than heterosexual probably due to the expense of investigating and bringing a case and therefore due to lawyers' selecting which cases to pursue, given that we don't hear about clients whose cases were not pursued by the attorneys and that same-sex little-boy cases are likely to produce much higher jury awards than heterosexual cases with 17- or 22-year-old healthy females; and (4) my understanding is that when anti-porn workers worked with the anti-obscenity leaders they did so on common ground, i.e., in working together they did not oppose obscenity that wasn't porn in the civil rights sense, an argument that by working together on anything anti-porn workers were therefore supporting the anti-obscenity position being equivalent to an argument that by working together on anything anti-obscenity workers were therefore opposing porn in the civil rights sense (I'm looking forward to Bible-hollering for feminism but I'm not holding my breath). Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph "Other critics dissented" 

message: I added criticism, but the source doesn't go as far as some criticism did on point. The criticism is about feminists coalescing with nonfeminists. The source only goes to the extent of "female moral outrage" without explaining why that would be a problem. I see two: ideologically, feminist and masculist oppositions to pornography are grounded on opposite premises (women's choice vs. certainty of fatherhood of offspring) so that coalescing risks cross-infection or at least loss of clarity about why pornography is a problem at all; and organizationally, organizations including political parties often seek exclusivity in being identified with an issue in order to gain resources and political power and thus the ability to act on the issue. I think Andrea Dworkin was criticized for sometimes agreeing, meeting, or working with the political right wing (although I don't recall it diluting much her feminist arguments or credibility). If anyone has sourcing on these or other reasons why coalescing would have been a problem for feminism (in the view of some feminists but not all), please add to the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  why coalescing with nonfeminists was critiqued 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Women Against Pornography. 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/20060508034730/http://www.soapboxinc.com/bio_pogrebin.htm to http://www.soapboxinc.com/bio_pogrebin.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220020523/http://action.web.ca/home/catw/readingroom.shtml?x=53793 to http://action.web.ca/home/catw/readingroom.shtml?x=53793
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) 03:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Women Against Pornography. 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/20070930155319/http://www.charlierose.com/guests/norma-ramos to http://www.charlierose.com/guests/norma-ramos
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5zxNbOev8?url=http://cultronix.eserver.org/califia/meese/ to http://cultronix.eserver.org/califia/meese/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070827112834/http://www.dianarussell.com/political_cv.html to http://www.dianarussell.com/political_cv.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926212150/http://www.mnhs.org/library/findaids/00183.html to http://www.mnhs.org/library/findaids/00183.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609234036/http://www.natlib.govt.nz/downloads/Annual_Report_2005.PDF to http://www.natlib.govt.nz/downloads/Annual_Report_2005.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603045405/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/petitions/docs/PE1169.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/petitions/docs/PE1169.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070827112814/http://www.dianarussell.com/media.html to http://www.dianarussell.com/media.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060520054209/http://www.astraea.org/PHP/Grants/LynnCampbell.php4 to http://www.astraea.org/PHP/Grants/LynnCampbell.php4
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823073123/http://www.famolare.com/about/index.html to http://www.famolare.com/about/index.html
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) 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)