Talk:Interracial pornography

message: For discussion, please see Talk:Interracial fetish#Please merge. NicM 08:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against a merge. The article Pornography is already very large, and interracial poronography is a completely different matter from social/psychological/intellectual etc. viewpoints. 惑乱 分からん 15:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No merge. This is a subgenre. --Behemoth 10:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Should this page be semi-protected for new and anonymous users? It seems as a magnet for disputes, personal opinions and edit wars. 惑乱 分からん 14:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protect

message: This article makes numerous uncited statements (I find that the statement about white males in the 4th paragraph to be slander and not fact, as I cannot find a source for this so in essence it is hate speech), has far to many stereotypes without actual base, and makes huge leaps with its claims. If it was cited I't be ok, but I am going to tag this page RFD if a cleanup is not had. Oh, and this is Scryer_360 btw, Im just to lazy to sign in (and have no idea where to begin in a cleanup of this). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.152.170.185 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article focuses on BM/WF porn and nothing else. Can someone help me improve this article?(At least to B status)You very nice place 23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanuo 

message: I wanted to explain my edits, and why I restored them, to the anonymous editor who has undone them twice.
* I think the word white is more widely understood ("a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin", "a human group having light-colored skin, especially of European ancestry") than the word Caucasian ("With the turn away from racial theory in the late 20th century the term 'Caucasian' as a racial classification fell into disuse in Europe. Thus, in the United Kingdom, 'Caucasian' is more likely than in the United States to refer to people from the Caucasus, although it may still be used as a racial classification. In the United States, 'Caucasian' has primarily been used as a distinction based on skin color, for a group commonly referred to as White Americans, as defined by the government and Census Bureau.").
* Since the article makes allegations about living people (they "have refused, at one time or another, to work with African-Americans"), it has to adhere to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I think that making such allegations under a heading of "Racism amongst porn stars" suggests that each person is (or was) a racist, and I don't we can do that unless we can provide reliable sources that say they are/were racists. On the other hand, the section can be titled "Refusal to participate in interracial pornography" because that is a simple description of what the allegation is — that these performers refused to participate in interracial pornography.
If you think that I'm misunderstanding something, please let me know. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edits 

message: I've removed the vast majority of the utter trash in this wiki, though somestill remains. If every bit is removed the article magically becomes a sinlge sentence or paragraph.68.187.117.71 01:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: what's now left should be merged with pornography

message: Dwanyewest 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the section it is under deals with the influence that interracial porn as had on other media. Read the paragraph about the movie again. It mentions the main character watches an American interracial porn to divert his attention from the bullet being pulled from his leg. Just because one editor deletes it from the page without explaining, doesn't mean it does not belong. --Ghostexorcist 20:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I've not seen the movie in question, the point seems to be that the character is watching porn. That porn being "interracial" seems like an unimportant detail in that story, like the brand name of the TV he watches it on. Unless the character states he has to see X ethnicity get it on with Y ethnicity, I'd say leave this out. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you haven't seen the movie, I don't think you are qualified to weigh in on the matter. Before the bullet is retrieved, the main character specifically pulls the porn out of his brief case and calls it his "anesthetic". Whenever it happens to show the tv screen, a white woman is shown moaning. The moans are apart of the ambient noise in the backward during further dialogue. He then refers to the male actor as "the darky". --Ghostexorcist 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for explaining that. It still seems quite trivial in this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. The section is about the genre's influence on other media. It has even influenced Chinese movies. I'm sure others can add more information about other movies. --Ghostexorcist 23:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per your Edit summary here, would you object to my deleting this section? Most Wikipedia articles do not benefit from a list do not benefit from lists of times the article topic was spotted in some movie, and the only entry currently under Influence on other media is such an observance. It's really not an example of "influence", nor is it notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I would. Your "essay" is not a guideline. And it is not a list. The only way I would not have a problem is if the articles mentioned above were merged. As it is right now, the current article needs all of the material it can get. --Ghostexorcist 22:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The item your are defending is non-notable trivia that should be removed. It does not demonstrate influence; it's just a sighting. Incidentally, what you call my essay was written by someone else. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever, it's an essay and not a guideline. --Ghostexorcist 23:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are ignoring my point. This is a non-notable sighting. It is not encyclopedic. It should be removed. I would propose we get a third opinion here. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not ignoring anything. Since you believe it to be trivia, WP:TRIVIA states "Don't simply remove trivia sections, but seek to integrate each fact into the article in a more organized fashion." It is not a bullet-pointed list of various facts. It is a paragraph that has been integrated into the article. --Ghostexorcist 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification