Talk:Webcam model

message: It appeared that the deleted article was about the camgirl website, not the term "camgirl".  Since multiple pages have redlinked "camgirl", I thought it was best to have the article discuss the term and not the website. -- kainaw™ 05:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can a redirect go directly to Wiktionary? -- kainaw™ 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: Resources to improve the article on google books >  Willy turner (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Resources

message: I am proposing to merge camgirl and camwhore as camwhore is a derogatory term and it is difficult if not impossible to write a NPOV.
article.My full reasons are:
It does not meet wikipedia's guidelines of a NPOV and it is hard to see how it could as it is a derogatory term.
The term is not widely used Google gives 192000 returns compared to 1.8 million for camgirl - about 1%
It would be much better having a sexual and non-sexual content section under camgirl.
Pornhistorian (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: > He eventually started his own paysite, was molested for money, 
He prostituted himself, knowingly, and went running to the police to secure immunity the second his cunning ruse was up. Molested implies that he was unwilling or unknowing, this kid was a pimp who sold other children and ran--what could be without exageration called--an empire of child pornography. I certainly couldn't see someone with as much forethought to manage such a corporate venture in a vile trade such as child prostitution as being an innocent victim of circumstance. 
I understand that critics of my point of view would argue that this draws into question whether someone under legal age can consent, et cetera, but it's been long fought over in the courts and is now quite commonly accepted that those below legal age who 'lack the mental faculty to understand the implications of their actions' sexually most certainly seem to have the mental faculty to conduct illicit, illegal, and nefariously criminal acts. Whilst it appears for consent it errs on the side of caution, for criminality it errs on the side of guilty until proven innocent.
But I do ask that for the sake of neutrality in this instance we call a spade a spade, this kid was a child prostitute and a pimp, he wasn't a victim, if anything it could be argued the kids he operated his pedo ring with were HIS victims, so 'molested' has too weak an implication along with it.
Could we please get some discussion going on this so we can reflect the reality and gravity of his crimes--regardless of his immunity from prosecution--that he has cashed in on through the media at large? I know it's a morally and ethical mine field, and I understand that there will be a lot of hot headed folks screaming to the heavens that a child cannot prostitute themselves, or consent, et cetera, but as I said, the courts have thoroughly gone over such matters in every civilized nation, and the cold hard facts are that this kid wasn't molested, but whored himself and other children out for a buck, and we really must push on regardless of moral or ad hominem criticism saying so draws and stick with the facts.
tl;dr: creepy child pimp runs porn empire, gets absolved of criminality by nanny staters saying he was a molestation victim and not a prostitute, you decide BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justin Berry; possible NPOV issue? 

message: The resulution used at webcam sites is no more than 640x480, sometimes even just 320x240.camgirlwiki.com/wiki/Best_webcams
2A02:A03F:1285:C600:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Adult webcam sites: resolution

message: Can the following revert be undone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Camgirl&oldid=648483351
I don't see the issue why the text added was deleted. Having a list of websites allows people to compare the sites (similar to as "comparison of" website) and pick the best one (least controversial, ...). It isn't/can't be seen as spam as we don't promote a particular site, but mention a lot of sites instead, hence promoting objective comparison and keep competition between sites up (which is a democratic approach).
2A02:A03F:1285:C600:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments - afaik, the edit seems to be WP:SPAM (and/or WP:ADMASQ & related) imo - and, as such, not appropriate for Wikipedia - the views of other editors are welcome of course - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  even after reading the WP: pages I still don't see why it's spam; I'm not affiliated with any of these sites nor do I want to "promote" them. My main motivation was to list the sites as webcam sex is a good alternative for actual prostitutes (more secure payment/less risk of violence, no transmission of sexually transmittable diseases, ...) and also benefit the population as a whole (no transmission of sexually transmittable diseases). So, listing them and informing prostitutes of them this way is only the right thing to do.2A02:A03F:1285:C600:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

text: It's definitely spam. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not soapbox for someone wanting to "benefit the population as a whole" by promoting certain websites. In addition, our IP hopping-spammer thinks several other Wikipedia rules don't apply to him; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Forged signature, editing other people's comments for details. (Note to IP user: you are invited to go to WP:ANI and explain your behavior before you get blocked). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very odd, and extremely conspicuous, behavior. Regardless, the sources for the list of websites are not reliable. It looks like at least afew of the listed sites have articles of their own (MyFreeCams.com, LiveJasmin, and probably others). How many of these articles would survive WP:AFD? Probably not all of them, but having an article seems like a legitimate starting point for listing sites. The value to this article is debatable, though, and it's a major hassle to maintaining such a spam-attracting section. Ideally that wouldn't be a factor, but this article already gets enough spam as it is. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: Some editors have added the name of the Oregon State student who filmed herself in the library. I had removed this in the past per WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:BLPNAME, but it looks like there has been additional coverage making this moot. I've expanded with some of the higher-quality sources to contextualize why her name is mentioned. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kendra Sunderland 

message: This image is more neutral and perhaps ok here or as an illustration to some related article? But the other one is also possible I guess.
--Mats33 (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very artistic, but it's not a good illustration of the topic of "webcam model". For encyclopedia articles, clarity is more important than decoration. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Or this more neutral... 

message: The competencies section of the infobox seems unverifiable and subjective. As a reference, other pages of sex workers that contain occupation infobox (e.g. stripper, prostitution, porn actor) either doesn't include competencies or list specific skills (e.g. pole dancing). Especially since webcam models are not limited to sex worker, I recommend the current competencies section to be removed.
Akira YL (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support – the list is unsourced and arbitrary. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

text: *Support – Not sure it's particularly accurate either. --John B123 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox occupation - competencies