This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.
From the transcript: "No one is even concerned any more whether there actually was a victim". This (along with other complimenting aspects of the dialogue, obviously) seems to ring rather true in the modern context in the legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors seeing as how Judges interpret the law to mean that a victim need not exist to convict a person (it has been outright stated) in several countries, and the minimal problem people seem to have with this. I suppose there are other examples of victimless crimes such as jaywalking but the punishment for things like this don't seem to be comparable, nor are the risks of looking at pictures causing accidental harm as conclusively proven as that of crossing during a red light causing traffic accidents. Tyciol (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Esperant. While I can understand and respect your reasons for making this edit to Sexual Morality and the Law, I think re-directing the page is premature. Since the article does have some sources, I am not sure that it is entirely original research. I would recommend that you consult with relevant WikiProjects (such as WikiProject Philosophy or WikiProject Sexuality), before taking further action. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There was nothing premature about my edit. It was carefully considered. The references in the article are all to the sole primary source that the article is about, though this primary source is here referenced in three different formats, giving the impression of more than one source. It's clear OR, albeit very erudite etc. There is no possibility this article will ever meet notability guidelines – it is about to an obscure radio broadcast, albeit with notable participants, about which not serious treatment has been written or is ever likely to be written. That is, there are no secondary sources here that could constitute the basis of a proper encyclopedia article. I do not have the time to become involved in wikiprojects, nor enter into a prolonged dispute about this. Since you seem to have reverted my edit on the basis that there are 'some sources', and I believe this belief to be erroneous, I will revert to me previous edit, though I do this in good faith, and will not engage in an edit war. esperant 21:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be right that there is actually only one source, and thanks for pointing that out. I still do not agree that the article is necessarily original research, however, nor I do think that the page should be redirected without discussion and consensus. That you may have no time to become involved in discussion does not mean that discussion can be avoided or is dispensable; that's just not how Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. You could be right that the article doesn't meet notability guidelines, but that remains to be established. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I also oppose a redirect. This exists as a standalone article in six languages, and there are a number of secondary sources on Google Books and Google Scholar which can be added to this article. It's a decent summary of the broadcast transcript, and if there are specific concerns about original research, we can look into those. Jokestress (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)