Talk:Pornography/Archive 3

message: Something I've been curious about for two years would be the amount of people who have participated in pornography and published or had it seen by an audience. Does anyone have statistics of such a thing? Does anyone know how many people are hired by porn industries? I'm quite curious as to the statistics. Also, I think statistics may be wrong. Adultfriendfinder.com has people that display pornographic pictures of themselves. One could say an average of 30 persons per town have displayed themselves in a pornographic nature. I assume that means the numbers are wrong, or there is more to this than meets the eye. I assume that at least 1 out of 10,000 people have displayed themselves in an erotic manner to the general public. However, the amount of people who have taken pornographic pictures of themselves without an audience would be higher, perhaps 1 out of 5,000. The number could be higher for younger generations. --75.21.104.3 15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics?

message: That is ignorantly stupid.
Wikipedia has a portal for pornography that dishes out all the latest news on porn and such. How untasteful. Why is it that they have this on porn and not on fashion, or celebrities for the latest news?
Any opinions?
                     Who cares avout celebrities, most guys (and some girls)want tits. 
                                                       76.0.241.149 05:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PORTAL!??

message: Almost? Where is it legal?-Neural 22:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Russia did not, as of 2002, have specific laws prohibiting child porn though this may have since changed. Some countries do not prohibit the possession of child porn, only it's production or sale, so the above sentence is misleading should be made clearer.  --Cab88 14:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Child pornography is illegal in almost all countries"

message: Porn depicting urination or defecation is illegal in NZ, if anyone knows the correct technical term for it and cares to add it to the article.
Fecal fetish is the term I think.
The terms are Coprophilia (poo-poo) and Urolagnia (pee-pee). Brentt 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banned categories of porn in NZ 

message: Why remove it from the first picture subtitle? Some of those pr0ns even contain something written in that weird writing of the Jews. 201.23.64.2 04:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on, you have to admit, its kind of a backwards way to write. ;)Brentt 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In Israel" removal 

message: This article seems to be vandalized quite often. Why don't we protect or semiprotect it? Just a thought. --Wscc05 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SemiProtection 

message: See the note I left on Atom's talk page for details. I'd like to know what others think about this article's length and the humble (and completely reverted) attempts to improve it.  Specifically, I thought Pschemp's decision to create a separate article called History of erotic depictions was brilliant, given that so many of the images discussed pre-date the concept of "pornography".  
Compare yesterday's version with today's and judge for yourself--which of these versions reaches toward a more streamlined, structured, readable Wikipedia article?  If I am wrong about this, so be it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atomaton, please respect (or at least discuss) others' atttempts to improve an overly long, repititious and poorly organized article

message: Your editing has POV that expects that you can portray all feminists with the right wing. Stop removing my edits on the "Criticism of Pornography" section or I'll request admins assistance for vandilism of this page. I would rather not do that. I'll replace them again. If you remove them I'm going to have to ask for assistance about what to do. Thanks--Nikkicraft 17:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atomaton, you are editing our additions with a bias and POV

message: "We came up with the idea for the Feminist Porn Awards because people don't know they have a choice when it comes to porn," said Chanelle Gallant, manager of Good for Her and the event's organizer. "Yes, there's a lot of bad porn out there. But there is also some great porn being made by and for women. We wanted to recognize and celebrate the good porn makers as well as direct people to their work." 
 
:i removed that again. you are welcome to put it somewhere in else in the article, but it DOES NOT belong in the section about violence against women. Stop doing these kinds of sabotage Atom it's not right. Celebrating what you call good pornographers is not to be included in the section about violence against women. --Nikkicraft 00:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't put that quote in, someone else did (IronDuke).  I checked the source and expanded the quote to give it the correct context.  Remove or move elsewhere, fine by me. Atom 01:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I just removed all that junk from the violence against women section. If you want to start a section for "whores in action hohoho" i coud care less, but don't insert sabotage in the violence against women section. it's not appropriate and it does show that you are compulsively intent upon sabotaging this page rather than making really valuable contributions. That is untrustworthy behavior. --Nikkicraft 00:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, again, I didn't put the quote there.  Second, our goal is *not* to create an anti-pornography article, it is to accurately document the history and development of pornography.  I think you are right, the quote goes in a different section.  Whomever put it there first should have seen the context of the quote, and put it in a different section.  When I fixed the mis-quote, I should have recognized that it belonged someplace else. Atom 01:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please review WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. Many thanks. IronDuke 00:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: thanks for the reminder. i wasn't aware of mediation and I'll certainly consider that if this sabotage continues. --Nikkicraft 00:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Inappropriate "Awards" material from section on violence against women

message: Ok folks, this article is in desperate need of sources. However, most of the ones inserted lately have been websites in the incorrect format. Please learn how to use  so we don't have to go back reformat references, which is a giant waste of time. This will automatically list thme in the references section. Also, keep sources that are used out of the further reading and external links, if it is used a reference, it needs to go in the reference section according to the manual of style. Thanks. pschemp | talk 15:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Someone nominated the article for Featured Article Status.  Various people reviewed, and it did not meet the grade.  Here is an edited summary of things that were suggested that can improve this article:
* Suggest peer review prior to FAC consideration, and it hasn't gone through peer review.  It should get cleaned up per recommendations before asking for a peer review.
* "...this article needs more images."
* "Legal status of pornography" section needs to be converted to prose, with the listy stuff split off into another article.
* "...Needs a total reorganisation. Anti-pornography movemement material is several times the size of the history section. Entirely too focused on the twentieth century. Image in lead is a very weird choice."
* "It needs a lot more work to become FA. Stubby sections, bad categorization, and the prose stinks.
* "the section on Porn by Women doesn't even mention Annie Sprinkle!"
* "The article has some great info but most of it is woefully disorganized, meandering, spammy and sometimes incoherent.
* Several problems:
**Subsections are far too short. If a topic is important enough to merit its own subsection, you should have more to say than just one or two paragraphs.
**Whole sections lack citations - the "Pornographic stereotypes" section stands out in this regard.
**Speaking of which, per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include the name of the article; please rename the section headers without using any form of the word "pornography." ("Anti-pornography movement" might be okay, but I think there are ways you can rename this as well and still fully comply with the Manual of Style.)
**I'd like to see some discussion of aesthetics: what consistutes good porn as opposed to mediocre or bad? (I'm a bit surprised not to see a reference to the famous dictum "I know it when I see it. Maybe I just overlooked it.)
**The lede should summarize the important points of the article, but there are several important sections of the article that get no mention in the lede. 
After these are fixed, we can submit for a peer review.  Atom 19:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quote "...made a List of pornography laws by region..."  --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reworked Section headers to make them conform to WP:MOS. Atom 20:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC failure - Goals 

message: See Hard_core pornography article please.  Hard Core Pornography article is not distinct from this article, but it poorly written, sparse, and short.
*FOR merge:  user:atomaton  Maybe HCP article has european view that could be added as a section here.  Otherwise HCP has little to offer on its own.
*Against Merge: 70.77.41.100 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Hard Core Pornography article here 

message: === See Also ===
Reviewed the "See Also" section, and they seem to all be appropriate.
=== References ===
Reviewed the "References" section, and all are tied back to quotes or citations in the article, and all seem appropriate (to me).  
*Referenceces 3a and 3b (Pornography: The Secret History of Civilization [DVD].) are valid, but if we had a more scholarly reference that supported these, it could improve the article.
*Reference 15 needs more detail.
*Reference 23 reminds me that the whole "By and for Women" section needs great improvement (only relies on a quote at this point).
The references each need to be checked for accuracy.  I'll add that to my to-do list.
I note that there are two "citation needed":
*Erotic film producers are expected to play a major role in deciding the next DVD standard. Large outfits tend to support the high-capacity Blu-ray Disc, while small outfits generally favor the less-expensive HD-DVD.
*On average, the United States spends more money on pornography than on aid to third-world countries or "legitimate" movies, but less than on theme park admissions per annum.
http://www.idreamofporn.com/ForumXXXv3/index.php?
=== Further Reading ===
*FFE is non-profit site, not necessary, but balances the "Concerned Women for America" link.  Both of them, more or less, on topic as they address censorship and so are on topic.
*NCAC, non-profit, also addresses censorship issues, and so is on topic.
*Nadine Strossen, Susie Bright, Kate Ellis, Susan Griffin, Juno & Vale, all directly related to Pornography and Censorship.
*"Pornography helps women, society" article by UCLA Daily Bruin, interesting, and on topic.
*Kimmel look son topic.
*Radway, "Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature"  NOt sure if this is on topic.  It may be feminist, but not related to Pornography, will need to review the source material.
*Tucker, Vance, Newitz, McElroy, all directly related to Pornography and censorship.
*"Pro-Sex Feminism: Redefining Pornography" is on topic.
=== External Links ===
====Feminist & left-wing websites====
*First three Dworkin references seem on topic
*Andrea Dworkin website, non-commercial, not directly applicable, but her primary feminist work is censorship of pornography.
*"Anti-Porn Resource Center", non-commercial, is clearly POV and anti-porn.  Lots of opinions visible, and not much research.  Questionable.
*"Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW)", non-commercial, seems to be anti-prostitution.  Does not seem to be on-topic. to me.
*Feminist Analysis of Playboy on Talking Trash", non-commercial, is clearly POV, Opinions, no research presented, on-topic.
*"Hustling the Left", non-commercial, POV, oriented arpund protest of "Hustler" Magazine based on hate speech, not on-topic for Pornography. (Hustler may be a "Pornography" magazine, but the web site attacks the magazine based on hate-speech.
*"Media Watch", non-commercial, non-profit, on-topic.
*"Porn Myths", goes to oneangrygirl site (same as "Anti-Porn Resource center"), non-commercial, on topic POV, opinions but no research.
*"Pornography and Sexual Violence"  Non-commercial, Acadademic article, seems on topic, has research.
*"Pornography issues: The Nature of Danger", non-commercial, on topic POV, no research presented.
*"Pornography As a Cause of Rape", Academic, with references.
*""Prostitution and Trafficking in 9 Countries: Update on Violence and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder" Off-topic.
*"Bibliography on Pornography and Men's Violence Against Women", On topic, Academic.
====External links====
This page should include links to some porn websites, since the article is about porn.--Googleplex5 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of See also, References, Further Reading and External links 

message: ====Feminist & left-wing websites====
*First three Dworkin references seem on topic
*Andrea Dworkin website, non-commercial, not directly applicable, but her primary feminist work is censorship of pornography.
*"Anti-Porn Resource Center", non-commercial, is clearly POV and anti-porn.  Lots of opinions visible, and not much research.  Questionable.
*"Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW)", non-commercial, seems to be anti-prostitution.  Does not seem to be on-topic. to me.
*Feminist Analysis of Playboy on Talking Trash", non-commercial, is clearly POV, Opinions, no research presented, on-topic.
*"Hustling the Left", non-commercial, POV, oriented arpund protest of "Hustler" Magazine based on hate speech, not on-topic for Pornography. (Hustler may be a "Pornography" magazine, but the web site attacks the magazine based on hate-speech.
*"Media Watch", non-commercial, non-profit, on-topic.
*"Porn Myths", goes to oneangrygirl site (same as "Anti-Porn Resource center"), non-commercial, on topic POV, opinions but no research.
*"Pornography and Sexual Violence"  Non-commercial, Acadademic article, seems on topic, has research.
*"Pornography issues: The Nature of Danger", non-commercial, on topic POV, no research presented.
*"Pornography As a Cause of Rape", Academic, with references.
*""Prostitution and Trafficking in 9 Countries: Update on Violence and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder" Off-topic.
*"Bibliography on Pornography and Men's Violence Against Women", On topic, Academic.
====External links====
This page should include links to some porn websites, since the article is about porn.--Googleplex5 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: This page should include links to some porn websites, since the article is about porn.--Googleplex5 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: *Resolve "citations needed"
*Check references for accuracy
*Remove FFE, NCAC, CWA, MIM, Media Watch links (more appropriate for censorship article, or anti-pornography article)
*Remove Dworkin web-site references, but leave three Dworkin pornography censorship references.
*Remove Radway, "Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature" reference.
*Remove "Anti-Porn Resource Center
*Remove "Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW)"
*Remove "Feminist Analysis of Playboy on Talking Trash"
*Remove "Hustling the Left" 
*Remove "Porn Myths"
*Remove "ObscenityCrimes.org"
*Remove "Asacp.org"
*Remove "About Porn"
*Incorporate parts of Forbes ""How big is porn?" into the article and reference.
*Remove "Online Consumer Porn, Free vs. Pay"
*Remove "Internet Adult Film Database"
*Remove "Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Final Report." already in references.
*Remove "Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section page on child pornography" as it should be referenced in the child pornography article, and not here.
*Incorporate parts of "The first law that legalized pornography", and reference.
*Remove dead link ""The Link Between Pornography And Violent Sex Crimes."
*Remove "Ted Bundy's Final Interview ", or move to Commentary.
Atom 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations 

message: Question moved to Science Reference Desk pschemp | talk 18:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decrease in Sexual Interest?