Talk:Pornography in Japan

message: :"Critics including Washington's ambassador to Tokyo say Japan's failure to ban possession has hampered international investigations into child porn rings. In June 2008, a bill to ban possession of child porn was submitted to parliament's lower house. It is set to be debated in a parliament session expected to start in September."
Presumably this meant September 2008? If so, then it should have happened 6 months ago. Are there any updates, did this happen, has it been delayed? Results? Tyciol (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Overdue parliament on possession

message: In February 2006, Hipocrite added a January fact sheet here which Gerbrant later removed here in March after finding out it was inactive. This was pulled in the span of 2 months. Is there any information on what occured? Did the RCMP react to their citation being identified on the talk page a month after they did so? Is there any information on the exact date it was pulled? If possible, if either of you managed to save a copy of it, it would be a valable archive. Tyciol (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mystery of the lost fact sheet

message: I have removed the line "It has become increasingly popular to include depictions of underage girls, known as lolicon." Because it both lacks a citation and is unconstructive, as it casts a negative light by making doujinshi seem akin to child pornography. If you can find a citation for this statement feel free to repost it. Thanks.
:Good move. This whole article is extremely biased and poorly sourced... It needs a complete overhaul eventually. Dekkappai (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that.  This article is in serious need of a cleanup. 219.160.36.239 (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lolicon Doujinshi

message: Why does this section read like anti-pornography propaganda? There are other examples in the article as well, but this is easily the most overt. It's a handpicked list of only disturbing genres, and some of the language is dramatized and misleading (e.g. the description for lolicon leaves out the important distinction that such pornography is drawn). 65.191.64.137 (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-genres of Japanese porn 

message: I have removed a statement wanting citation for 6 months. Whether or not it is true, the implication that the LDP care more about prohibiting child pornography than the DPJ is blatant POV, and a simple Google search immediately found an article to contradict that POV. A Google search in English brought up generally more pro-LDP results (mostly from blogs, though), but at least one hit on the first page indicated that part of the reason was the LDP's controversial inclusion of anime and manga under the heading of "child pornography".The material may be reinstated, but only if a source can be found for the statement that the DPJ dropped the LDP's prior plan to outlaw child pornography, and only if a further statement regarding the DPJ's more recent moves to outlaw child pornography.elvenscout742 (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of POV statement about laws prohibiting child pornography 

message: The article was assessed Start-class for its lack of: a lead section, in-line citations, and supporting materials. Boneyard90 (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Japan Assessment Commentary 

message: I'm thinking of removing that section altogether, it says very little (well, nothing) relevant to the page subject, neither on religious attitudes, if any to pornography, nor on any other interaction between the fields of pron and religion (beside the occasional presence of miko and mythological being in pornographic manga, which is not even mentioned)... I don't even want to add to the section myself, as I can't source anything I would say. --Svartalf (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it could be culled, but not entirely deleted. Everything after the second sentence can be deleted as far as I'm concerned. But I think it will be a legitimate question of many readers, because in the US (for one country), religion plays a huge role in keeping porn and the sex industry moderately marginalized. I think a reader unfamiliar with the deeper points of Japanese society will ask, how does religion in Japan affect the presence of porn in that society? - Boneyard90 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and edited it. I hope it can be sourced by others, or improved. --Svartalf (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

text: biggest problem I can see is the fact that the biggest religion in mostly-secular japan is buddhism, which actually does have some significantly conservative attitudes w/r/t sexual pleasure and did have a strong effect on legalism in the late 1800s/early 1900s, yet this only really mentions shinto. This section could be awesome and interesting if it talked about that. 98.164.65.121 (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion and pornography... 

message: Why does "John Carr, Internet advisor to the British Government" redirect here? This guy could/should probably have his own page here on WP.
80.135.183.93 (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Carr? 

message: I am removing those porn genres for which we have neither articles nor reliable sources, instead of getting angry make the article or find a reliable source and return and thus we can improve the article♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 05:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Genres

message: I recall an incident in the late 90's when I was able to view imported magazines in my local Japanese community that combined pictorials of non-nude under age girls with nude (though not sexually explicit and with the censoring of genitals) pictorials of girls over the age of 18. Are current magazine still sold like that?--Kencaesi (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Japanese pornography still offered like this? 

message: Contentious material concerning living people was removed from this article as not relibly sourced and quoting BLP vnon compliance int he edit summary. BLPm states such material must be removed prior to discussion and is not subject to WP:3RR but that a person who knowingly readds such material may be blocked. So why have you added this materil, wikidemon? This is not even a list article but an article with a BLP violation.What point were you trying to make at the expense of the living people we write about? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You know exactly why I restored the list you blanked. All of these people appear to be well sourced as being Japanese porn actors.  You have not made any claim to the contrary but you are trying to force an opinion you have about where the sourcing should be. This subject and your actions regarding it are under discussion at AN/I and the BLP talk page currently. Please keep the discussion centralized. There is no point forking it here. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I know why you did it. Because you have been disputing my BLP enforcement for a few days now, vehemently. This articvle is not a list, it is an article. I could not find any reliable sourcing for any of these people in the article so I removed the material as non BLP complaint, as per [WP:BLP]] before discussing and quoting BLP in the summary with a link to the policy. In your revert you FAILED to reliably source what had been identified as BLP non complaint material. I am not forcing an opinion, the sourcing needs to be in the article. You cant even quote the relevant BLP passages at me to justify YOUR evasion of YOUR BLP responsibilitiers as an editor at wikipedia. Not MY responsibilities. My actions are actually not under discussion anywhere unless you count the thread started last night at ANI by you without bothering to inform me and to which not a single admin took the slightest interest. And general discussions are NOT a legitimate route to avoid your BLP obligations, at the expense of these living people mentioned in the mainspace, and you cannot quote BLP at me to justify why BLP should not be enforced when editos are having a discussion, as we all know. And we need to discuss your BLP violations here because you made them to this article. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As you mentioned lists though I will add the following from the BLP talk pagfe and a user there. A category is not functionally identical to a list: the differences, and the advantages and disadvantages of each are discussed at length in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, which begins "Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles".  One of the stated advantages of a list is (7) "Can be referenced to justify the inclusion of listed articles".  Hence the differences in policy to reflect the differences in functionality. But actually this is not a list it is a general article. You seem determined to poush the boundaries of BLP but that is a risky strategy, for you and for WMF for whom BLP non compliant material of a contentious nature needs to be policed cos we dont want to be sued. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Libeling my edit history to try to score points is most unwelcome, and kinda ironic for a self-styled BLP enforcer. You should confine your war of words to the process pages where it is already being discussed, as I will not engage with that here. A note for future reference, the list on this page predates the BLP policy, and has survived unscathed (improved, as the red links were removed and each of the linked articles came into BLP compliance) over the 9 years since until Squeak took his campaign here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pornography in Japan. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/60qlHP59o?url=http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20040427zg.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20040427zg.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216205025/http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html to http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.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) 02:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article doesn't say anything about the odd codes all JAV content seems to have. See Yua Mikami#Adult Films or https://javsin.com for example. What are they? Who controls them? Are there some requirements to get a code? Why do websites care to have it? Please clarify.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.253.105.168 (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  JAV codes 

message: "Joshikosei" The two words as written are the same aren't they? Is there not a spelling difference in the two words in English? (I understand that the translated Japanese characters used are different)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquashEngineer (talk • contribs) 14:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: "Women in Japan are reporting being tricked into 'modelling contracts' and being coerced into performing in pornography.[7] There have been calls for greater regulation of the industry.[8]
A new guideline has been proposed that women pornographic actors have the right to prohibit the sale of videos in which they appear after five years from initial release date.[9]"
There is no country on this planet exempting those who ban pornography by definition, which would not have cases where people get tricked or where people claim they have been tricked. Adding source to such claims seems at best comical, at worst racist to me cause anyone can take any incidents in any nations and add some claim to it. Does pphilia happen in the united states or england? Yes. Does that represent any of the mentioned nations? Do you add them to the foot notes?
Even more baffling when you consider that the second sentence negates the first one, making this entire addition nonsensical.
The literal iteration of this text is "Some women reportedly have been tricked into doing pornographic work, but propositions are already exist and are being discussed to discourage and fix the potential exploitation".
I cant help it but to see nothing but ideological bias behind such additions to wikipedia. They serve absolutely no purpose, hold no information of any kind, do not add to any discussion outside of trying to create victim groups and try to imply something about an entire nation and/or its people.
Im not sure whether or not facts are still the motivator behind writing these articles, or whether or not its certain ideologies trying to advertise themselves. 37.191.4.23 (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The logic behind mentioning singular incidents and extrapolating them onto an entire nation. Racism? 

message: While there was a new law passed, the sentence "In June 2022, the Japanese government passed a bill that made pornography legal in the country," is misleading at best, as pornography was not previously illegal in the country.  The source cited (15) is about the new law, but it's otherwise irrelevant to the above sentence.
The subsequent sentence (quotation omitted for brevity) and its cited source (16) do not refer to the June 2022 law.
The third sentence is not supported by its source (17, which is, however, about the June 2022 law). Ventus Hermetis (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory and irrelevant source(s) in 21st Century subsection of History section