Talk:Pornography/Archive 2

message: The list of regulations in different countries is incomplete and chaotic. For some countries, specific details are given, for others, those details are not being mentioned although also valid. Wouldn't it be better to make a table out of this, with certain aspects to be "Legal/Illegal"? Especially for emigrants, this would help to better choose the new country to live in ;) -- Paniq 16:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea; also, can anyone verify the existence of the term 'gigity', as it is allegedly based on Family Guy's quote by cartoon character Glen Quagmire... Patrick 10:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: (Text moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_encyclopedic_merit)
:Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic objectivity vs industrial propaganda, and offensive material rating system 

message: Any help which could be provided would be greatly appreciated. -Godfearing Parent.
*Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. From what I have seen thus far, the WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency is simply a campaign for censorship, which I oppose vehemently. Please avoid "godfearing" arguments. I am a Christian myself, but this is an encylopedia, and "offensive" images are used to further the cause of the article and the encyclopedia. You would expect this from a medical journal; expect it here. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something which may interest editors of this page 

message: I think the AVN links are relevant to this subject; it's a well established trade magazine, which talks primarily to those involved in the production of pornography; it isn't a porn magazine except in the sense that it's written to a large extent by, for and about pornographers.
I've also taken the liberty of reorganizing the external links and relabelling them for clarity.  They're now under subheadings which should give readers an idea of the kind of material covered. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the AVN links might be informative they do not enlighten the reader more to what pornography is. The two links are also biased to the US. The point is to give the reader more information to the nature of what pornography is. I would only list CNN under news because of the fact that they are world reknown. I opt to revert again. --Kim Nevelsteen 18:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're right to state that the two links are biased to the US.  However the same can be said about nearly all of the other links.  I think you're wrong to state that the AVN links don't help the reader to understand what pornography is.  I found Ron Jeremy to appear in PETA ad most illuminating on the merging of pornography and mainstream in the United States. I'll not put it back, but I think it probably does belong in this article. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not to heavily set against it, but maybe a third opinion could be helpful.--Kim Nevelsteen 19:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: AVN

message: Somebody needs to expand the history section to include stuff like:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/classic_erotica_collection_forbidden_movies_from_the_brothels_of_paris/
I have started to add to the history. I will mainly write from a British and European perspective, and will add more about the Victorians when I have the time.--Train guard 20:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: history

message: What out for, as best I can tell, a feminist homophobe, IP 84.12.80.231, who vandalized the site on Nov. 1. -- User:Tenebrae 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Advocacy: "The act of pleading or arguing in favour of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active support." This seems contrary to the actual links listed under this heading which all seem to be of a feminist or anti-pornographic prejudice. I suggest either the links removed and replaced with ones that actually advocate pornography in a sociological sense, or that the heading be changed to "Criticism". -ApeX
"Advocacy" in this context refers to advocating a position - any position - about a subject.  There's no way Wikipedia is going to require links to be favorable about pornography; that would be a blatant violation of neutrality.  So would a section for "Criticism" without one for "Promotion".  If you feel that there are pro-porn external links that should be added for balance, please add them. Tverbeek 00:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links: Advocacy 

message: ..but this page is blocked. I'll just post it here, and somebody with the proper access can post it for me, ok?
Pornography does not always refer to sexual situations. Pornagraphy is any media that envokes strong emotions. An good example of this is Vegan Porn http://www.veganporn.com/
:i think that's just a sarcastic usage of the term. -Joeyramoney 03:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like to make a contribution 

message: what exactly even is that and how does it add to this article? an image does not have merit if one cannot even determine what it is. i suggest that it is replaced. Joeyramoney 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bizarre classical statue towards the top 

message: Could someone have a look at Loop and incorporate the paragraph there into this article somehow? It reads,
*A loop is industry vernacular for short pornographic films, many times without sound. Most are cheaply made and of poor quality. Before the advent of home video, such films were typically viewed by a single person in a booth, and the film was "looped" so that it could be played repeatedly when activated by a coin payment slot or similar device.
Maybe it should even have its own article; I don't know. Thanks, Melchoir 02:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loop 

message: I have added TGP-Shark Porn-search to adult-databases as it's one of the biggest adult search-engines with millions of links in it's database. I think it deserves a link, but if you are against it - remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.192.0.116 (talk) 
: I didn't remove it but since I don't see it there, it was removed by someone.  Probably because the site is obviously commercial Coolmojito 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have added a search engine 

message: Just to be 100% sure (my apologies if I misunderstand the phrase) but in the Legal Status section of the main article, the Ukraine bullet point simply says "Pornography is Compulsary". I'm quite sure this needs a re-write, citation source, context or complete deletion as it don't really make much sense! Thanks, Jhamez84 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was added by an anon very recently, and is very likely vandalism. I removed it. Hbackman 05:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine 

message: Hmmm.  This article's new introduction/definition is well-written and thoughtful, but it strikes me as a section of an essay expressing a particular opinion (particularly closely relating the definition of pornography to that of social control) rather than an encyclopedia introduction.  Ideally, we should summarise other people's definitions of pornography, if we can find them.  --Robert Merkel 06:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-neutral essay 

message: In explaining its decision to reject claims that obscenity should be treated as speech protected by the First Amendment, in MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)the US Supreme Court found that
:The dissenting Justices sound the alarm of repression. But, in our view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom. It is a "misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press . . . ." Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S., at 645 .
and in PARIS ADULT THEATRE I v. SLATON, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) that
:In particular, we hold that there are legitimate state interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity, even assuming it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards against exposure to juveniles and to passersby. 7   [413 U.S. 49, 58]   Rights and interests "other than those of the advocates are involved." Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 642 (1951). These include the interest of the public in the quality of life and the total community environment, the tone of commerce in the great city centers, and, possibly, the public safety itself... As Mr. Chief Justice Warren stated, there is a "right of the Nation and of the States to maintain a decent society . . .," [413 U.S. 49, 60] Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 199 (1964) (dissenting opinion).
John254 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Addition to "Anti-pornography movement" Section 

message: I have removed the following from the anti-pornography movement section, which I quote with all spelling and grammatical errors intact:
:However many experts do recommend against the outlaw of pornography due to the fact that the obession has become so far out of hand that any attempt to outlaw the industry would become utterly useless as pornography would then become a possible bussiness venture for criminals and terrorist offering something a lot of people would want that is easy to make and distribute; much similar to the passing of the 18th amendment, outlawing the sale, production and importing of alcohol, which is historicly looked as one of the greatest disasters in history.
The appeal to the authority of unnamed "experts" to justify this claim appears to be a violation of the citing sources policy. John254 23:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of unreferenced material added by [[User:12.150.68.150|12.150.68.150]] 

message: As I am one of the main contributors, I'm not best pleased. The section has a number of pictures, and I'm not sure how to deal with those. Can some kind person with the necessary skills please restore this section?
Thanks,
--Train guard 16:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal Of History Section 

message: This section really hasn't got a point in the article and on top of that - doesn't have any citation either - its only a hypothesis! Anyone else feel the same? --Pongles 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornography and sex crimes section