217:
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.
102:
81:
112:
50:
21:
528:
avoid ... Links to blogs 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
227:
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.”).
216:
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
403:
Knowledge articles may include links to web pages outside
Knowledge (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
288:
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
260:
Should the statement 'If one or more partners are minors it constitutes child pornography' be in this article? If one of the partners in ANY TYPE of porn is a minor, then it constitutes child pornography. I think it should be removed, or added to every other article of porn on the site.
446:
jeff g. Appears to be on a mission to rid wikipedia of all external links, unless I'm missing some reason for his blanking in this article. What's the deal? The external-link guidelines he cites say that links to video sites can be appropriate. Why not here?
543:
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
197:
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?
198:
237:
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.").
621:
31:
496:. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet
616:
168:
158:
332:
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
626:
611:
134:
424:
reference to the relevant guidelines) for their blanking. In the absence of clear justification here, the blanking appears to be arbitrary.
404:
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....
454:
367:
530:
433:
425:
268:
202:
125:
86:
289:
recent phenomenon"? If that is the problem, I suggest deleting or replacing the phrase, rather than deleting the entire edit.
117:
497:
284:
There appear to be objections against my recent expansion of the article to include examples of gay incest pornography.
61:
566:
353:
322:
133:-related topics on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
27:
521:
458:
396:
371:
49:
534:
493:
437:
429:
313:
272:
348:
317:
194:
67:
285:
450:
264:
247:
238:
229:
218:
193:
This section is missing any mention of the legal status of actual Incest pornography in any country.
20:
413:
294:
305:
588:"Faux incest" porn is simply a subtopic of incest porn. No sense in having a separate article.
593:
549:
506:
485:
562:
545:
553:
470:
385:
In issue is whether to add to the current "External links" section the following link:
290:
366:
I have added new material on this topic, it is an obvious omission from the article.
605:
589:
503:
309:
130:
111:
101:
80:
557:
409:
107:
389:
597:
572:
538:
513:
462:
441:
375:
358:
327:
298:
250:
241:
232:
221:
206:
246:
The NPOV situation should be improved by now, so I've removed the POV tag.
582:
489:
552:- the site added meets neither of those, while it does fail under
481:
341:
43:
15:
280:
Recent addition of a section on homosexual incest pornography
308:), so I have reverted your revert. You must provide
129:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
477:
a link to an official page of the article's subject
410:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:216.64.190.250
622:Start-Class Mid-importance Pornography articles
480:, one should generally avoid: ... 11. Links to
416:to delete the link. They have given no valid
390:online video of mother-son sexual intercourse
8:
529:would clearly run contrary to Section 4.6.1.
47:
498:Knowledge's notability criteria for people
75:
524:) states in pertinent part: "one should
336:(2000) and Adam and Konrad Richter from
77:
304:Knowledge cannot be used as a source (
520:The guideline you cite (Section 4 in
408:The link was added in this revision:
7:
473:and because the link is to a blog: "
412:, but then several users engaged in
199:2601:1C2:4D01:54FE:388A:411:DDA:B396
123:This article is within the scope of
617:Mid-importance Pornography articles
476:
66:It is of interest to the following
14:
414:illegitimate blanking (vandalism)
143:Knowledge:WikiProject Pornography
627:WikiProject Pornography articles
612:Start-Class Pornography articles
146:Template:WikiProject Pornography
110:
100:
79:
48:
19:
163:This article has been rated as
26:This article was nominated for
432:) 16:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
275:) 21:13, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
118:Erotica and pornography portal
30:on 18 May 2008. The result of
1:
376:12:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
137:and see a list of open tasks.
492:, except those written by a
573:21:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
539:21:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
514:18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
463:01:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
442:16:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
345:Double Czech: Twins in Lust
251:21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
242:21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
233:20:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
222:19:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
207:06:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
643:
469:Here is your reason, from
169:project's importance scale
598:12:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
381:Addition of External Link
162:
95:
74:
522:Knowledge:External links
397:Knowledge:External links
359:11:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
328:11:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
299:00:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
126:WikiProject Pornography
56:This article is rated
286:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz
195:Laws regarding incest
581:Proposed merge with
494:recognized authority
149:Pornography articles
486:personal web pages
399:guidelines state:
62:content assessment
570:
509:
453:comment added by
338:Double Czech 2009
276:
267:comment added by
183:
182:
179:
178:
175:
174:
42:
41:
634:
560:
511:
507:
465:
356:
351:
325:
320:
314:WP:Verifiability
310:reliable sources
262:
151:
150:
147:
144:
141:
120:
115:
114:
104:
97:
96:
91:
83:
76:
59:
53:
52:
44:
23:
16:
642:
641:
637:
636:
635:
633:
632:
631:
602:
601:
586:
502:
448:
383:
354:
349:
323:
318:
282:
214:
191:
148:
145:
142:
139:
138:
116:
109:
89:
60:on Knowledge's
57:
12:
11:
5:
640:
638:
630:
629:
624:
619:
614:
604:
603:
585:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
556:criteria. ---
517:
516:
455:216.64.190.250
406:
405:
393:
392:
382:
379:
368:121.217.36.168
364:
363:
362:
361:
281:
278:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
213:
210:
190:
184:
181:
180:
177:
176:
173:
172:
165:Mid-importance
161:
155:
154:
152:
135:the discussion
122:
121:
105:
93:
92:
90:Mid‑importance
84:
72:
71:
65:
54:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
639:
628:
625:
623:
620:
618:
615:
613:
610:
609:
607:
600:
599:
595:
591:
584:
580:
574:
568:
564:
559:
555:
551:
547:
542:
541:
540:
536:
532:
531:150.135.72.61
527:
523:
519:
518:
515:
512:
510:
505:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
478:
472:
468:
467:
466:
464:
460:
456:
452:
444:
443:
439:
435:
434:150.135.72.62
431:
427:
426:150.135.72.62
423:
419:
415:
411:
402:
401:
400:
398:
391:
388:
387:
386:
380:
378:
377:
373:
369:
360:
357:
352:
346:
342:
339:
335:
331:
330:
329:
326:
321:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
287:
279:
277:
274:
270:
266:
252:
249:
245:
244:
243:
240:
236:
235:
234:
231:
226:
225:
224:
223:
220:
211:
209:
208:
204:
200:
196:
189:
185:
170:
166:
160:
157:
156:
153:
136:
132:
128:
127:
119:
113:
108:
106:
103:
99:
98:
94:
88:
85:
82:
78:
73:
69:
63:
55:
51:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
587:
525:
501:
474:
471:WP:ELNO#EL11
449:— Preceding
445:
421:
417:
407:
394:
384:
365:
344:
337:
334:Double Czech
333:
283:
259:
248:Alfons Åberg
239:Alfons Åberg
230:Alfons Åberg
219:Alfons Åberg
215:
192:
187:
186:History and
164:
124:
68:WikiProjects
36:no consensus
35:
475:Except for
312:. See also
306:WP:CIRCULAR
269:69.157.5.67
263:—Preceding
140:Pornography
131:pornography
87:Pornography
58:Start-class
606:Categories
550:WP:ELMAYBE
355:Projectors
324:Projectors
526:generally
504:Jeff G. ツ
488:and most
291:GBataille
212:POV issue
583:Fauxcest
567:contribs
546:WP:ELYES
500:.)" —
490:fansites
451:unsigned
422:specific
347:(2010).
265:unsigned
188:legality
28:deletion
590:Slashme
554:WP:ELNO
418:reasons
350:Anemone
319:Anemone
167:on the
508:(talk)
420:(with
340:(2009)
64:scale.
558:Barek
482:blogs
594:talk
563:talk
548:and
535:talk
459:talk
438:talk
430:talk
395:The
372:talk
343:and
295:talk
273:talk
203:talk
34:was
159:Mid
608::
596:)
571:-
565:•
537:)
484:,
461:)
440:)
374:)
316:.
297:)
205:)
592:(
569:)
561:(
533:(
457:(
436:(
428:(
370:(
293:(
271:(
201:(
171:.
70::
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
