Talk:Incest pornography

message: This section is missing any mention of the legal status of actual Incest pornography in any country. Laws regarding incest has quite a bit of information on the legality of incest in general, can we assume the laws would be no different in the context of pornography? Should that page be referenced in this section? 2601:1C2:4D01:54FE:388A:411:DDA:B396 (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and <u>legality</u> 

message: This article currently suffers from a tendency to amalgamate child pornography and pornographic depictions of sexual activity among siblings. E.g., after having established subdivisions, the article goes on to say that “Many argue that it encourages the sexual abuse of children and rape”. I presume this is supposed to refer to child pornography, but in the current version it refers to all depictions of sexual activity between siblings. We need to apply clearer distinctions. Also, the article is full of ‘weasel words’ and unsourced statements. E.g. “Many argue that”, it “is often regarded as mainstream”, “it is widely available”. While such statements lean towards a particular POV, they are hardly aiding the reader in understanding the subject matter. In any case, they should be sourced. And obviously this sentence is problematic: “Many argue that it encourages the sexual abuse of children and rape, and religious conservatives see its presence on the internet as sinful.”. This is a POV in any case. Frankly I find it hard to see that a pornographic film, which claims that two of the actors are relatives, should spur sexual abuse of children. Accordingly, I have tagged the article. Alfons Åberg 19:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I’ve made an attempt to fix some of the problems. I have removed two un-sourced statements (“Porn depicting sex between identical twins or real-life siblings is often regarded as mainstream, although it also exploits the same theme.” and “Despite this, it is widely available on the Internet.”). Alfons Åberg 20:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've removed one clearly POV sentence ("Many argue that it encourages the sexual abuse of children and rape, and religious conservatives see its presence on the internet as sinful."). Alfons Åberg 21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV situation should be improved by now, so I've removed the POV tag. Alfons Åberg 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issue 

message: There appear to be objections against my recent expansion of the article to include examples of gay incest pornography. Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz undid my revisions, claiming that they represent original research, are subjective and undocumented. As far as the documentation is concerned, I inserted two footnotes, which provide clear evidence of my claims. I do not see much in my text that is subjective; perhaps the phrase, "appears to be a recent phenomenon"? If that is the problem, I suggest deleting or replacing the phrase, rather than deleting the entire edit.GBataille (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia cannot be used as a source (WP:CIRCULAR), so I have reverted your revert. You must provide reliable sources. See also WP:Verifiability. AnemoneProjectors 11:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way I think it would be a good idea, if we're going to include examples of incest in gay pornography, that we include Jirka and Karel Bartok from Double Czech (2000) and Adam and Konrad Richter from Double Czech 2009 (2009) and Double Czech: Twins in Lust (2010). AnemoneProjectors 11:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition of a section on homosexual incest pornography 

message: In issue is whether to add to the current "External links" section the following link:
:online video of mother-son sexual intercourse
The Wikipedia:External links guidelines state:
:Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links).... Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic.... Some external links are welcome.... There is no blanket ban on linking to ... user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page.... Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis....
The link was added in this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:216.64.190.250 , but then several users engaged in illegitimate blanking (vandalism) to delete the link. They have given no valid reasons (with specific reference to the relevant guidelines) for their blanking. In the absence of clear justification here, the blanking appears to be arbitrary.
150.135.72.62 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is your reason, from WP:ELNO#EL11 and because the link is to a blog: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid: ... 11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

text: The guideline you cite (Section 4 in Wikipedia:External links) states in pertinent part: "one should generally avoid ... Links to blogs [and] personal web pages...."; but Section 4.6.1 creates an exception to the general rule: "There is no blanket ban on linking to ... user-submitted video sites...." If the prohibition on links to blogs were absolute, it would prohibit all links to YouTube videos, but such a ban would clearly run contrary to Section 4.6.1.150.135.72.61 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are misreading the guideline. All 4.6.1 tells you is that being a video does not in-and-of-itself invalidate a link, provided it meets the other guideline requirements.  The two primary inclusion criteria sections are WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE - the site added meets neither of those, while it does fail under WP:ELNO criteria. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of External Link 

message: "Faux incest" porn is simply a subtopic of incest porn. No sense in having a separate article. Slashme (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Fauxcest]]