Talk:Amateur pornography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pornography (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Just going to add this here: "In October 2008 The Weinstein Company distributed the film Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Although the professional industry based out of the San Fernando Valley in California was suffering, Kevin Smith's movie had brought a financial answer to the general public. Mimicking the fiction movie more amateurs sought out to make extra income via internet adult pay sites. An example includes a small time website like My Girl Fantasy, a website that utilizes volunteer actors, actresses, and models all from the local area of which it was established."

Preceeding section is minimally referenced, while the part above is wholly unsubstantiated and refers to a malware/spyware infested site. Why is it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.55.62 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


What is the purpose of Wikipedia when a small group is able to decide what is note worthy or not. Especially when I see no credentials and a willfulness to protect the status quo as they see it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.81.4 (talkcontribs)

Yeah, right (sarcasm here). Wikipedia is not run by a group of people, it's just that some have the power to execute. We need to be selective with them, otherwise Wikipedia would be roaming with vandals. If you disagree at something, report it where appropriate.--Orthologist 19:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a great deal of spyware on the linked sites? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elcella (talkcontribs) .

Shouldn't be. Just exersize common sense and you won't ever get spyware. J.reed Flag of the United States.svg 03:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself an expert in the field of "Amateur Pornography" but am unsure how I can contribute properly without spamming or my comments being considered as merely opinion. I am one of the leaders in the industry, but I'm not certain if that matters or if that means I should contribute to this topic? Tshcomm 18:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll find some information relevant to this at Conflict of Interest and Verifiability - basically, WRT 'opinions', anything you add should be verifiable with reliable sources. Personal experience isn't appropriate, as that is original research, which isn't appropriate for wikipedia. Wibbble 19:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

In order to avoid their repeated recreation, I have created several redirects to this article from articles referred to on this page Citybest (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"Many are independently run by the women themselves, such as femnudist and the now-defunct jennicam."

Jennicam was a webcam site, not a porn site. If she was nude or having sex, it was everyday life, not a special performance for the camera (except for the stripteases early on). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.170.165 (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does red tube redirect here? There isn't a good readon why a specific site reidrects to a vague and barley related topic. Why not redirect all pages here then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

RedTube Hacked[edit]

Redtube was just hacked between 14:00 and 15:58 EST. By the Netdevilz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protected, IP range blocked[edit]

I have now temporarily semi-protected this article, and also blocked an IP range from which links were repeatedly being inserted into this article. -- The Anome (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


Red Tube[edit]

Red Tube has 20.276 videos (16 categories) - 1.267 videos peur category (average) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.245.56 (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

-removed-

And...? Also, this is an instantly obsolete metric, so if you're going to insert it into the article somewhere, make certain you use some type of time-dependence tag. JohannVII (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Advertising/original research[edit]

There seem to be several websites that are plugged and listed with minimal justification. Anton.hung (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; however, we should also note that examples of a subject are often helpful in understanding it. Are there Wikipedia guidelines that would be helpful in determining appropriate example sites? Do these guidelines countermand the examples given? If not, I'm inclined to let them stand. Given the global trend toward commercial capitalism, it would be hard to find examples of just about anything in contemporary culture that are not commercial products, and, given the wide variety of brands of a particular product, the inclusion of some and not others could amount to advertising. Since we don't really have space to include all examples of a product (especially when we're talking about something with as many different and transient examples as websites), this is going to be an ongoing concern that is not particular to this article. JohannVII (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is very true Watchersweb is hardly unique and the citations come from very few independent sources. I have added a section about the VCR age and reports from the US press in 1992/1993 including the interesting case of a Florida Sheriff's Deputy and his wife. There is a big danger with wikipedia in distinguishing facts backed by citations that are put together in an article and which in some sense is original "research" and original ideas and viewpoints which seems to me what the no "original research" means. So when any article has multiple authors contributing facts it becomes original research. (Just a point of view). So I would like anyone who had the same experiences of local video stores to be able to add that experience if they have some evidence. Pornhistorian (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Pornhub is biggest porn 2.0 site in the web[edit]

Reffering to Alexa: [1]

That should be mention in the article! --Don-golione (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then... put it in! You seem to have both the knowledge of how to edit pages (given the existence of your comment here) and a source for the claim. JohannVII (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Effects of the Recession on the Pornography Business and the Rise of the "Mom & Pop" Pornography Sites[edit]

Does this section meet the notability standards? The "Zack and Miri" paragraph seems to be of particularly dubious utility, since it is not cited at all, and a claim that a particular movie has influenced an industry to a noteworthy extent definitely requires reliable citation. JohannVII (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Divided into photographs, movies and stories[edit]

I divided the article up as the history of amateur pornography is quite different for photos, video and writing. Now photos and video are coming together but stories lead a very different life and these should be mentioned as they are as much a part of pornography as the images. Pornhistorian (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Out-of-date figures versus original research[edit]

The 'User Generated Online Content' section now has the following two statements:

By January 2008 a search for "porn" and "tube" returned 8.3 million results on Yahoo and 8.5 million on MSN.[11] (By October 2012 searches for "porn" and "tube" returned 1420 million results on Google, and 293 million results on Google images.)

The first statement was already there, and references an allegedly reliable source, which gives figures which now appear over 100 times too small. (Incidentally there seems logically almost no reliable way of knowing whether a source is reliable or not - indeed arguably the more reliable it is believed to be, the more likely it is to be a source of much unreliable propaganda to suit the purposes of one or more powerful vested interests, in this case presumably sites which can be found by the afore-mentioned search, and perhaps also Yahoo and MNS; it's strange that the first statement makes no mention of Google, given that most people seem to use Google as their primary search engine, and already did so in 2008, and long before). The second statement, inserted by me, gives up-to-date figures, is currently 100% reliable, and its reliability or otherwise over longer periods of time can easily be checked by anybody doing the same Google searches. But, at least as I (perhaps mistakenly) understand Wiki rules, which are supposedly designed to ensure that Wikipedia is a source of reliable knowledge, my statement is illegal 'original research' which should presumably be deleted and replaced by inevitably out-of-date and possibly unreliable figures from some allegedly reliable source.

Can any expert editor please enlighten me on what I should really have done? Tlhslobus (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)