Talk:Page 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:27, 1 November 2007

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pornography Start‑class High‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lucy Pinder

Removed her from list of Page 3 girls - If a "Page 3 girl" is defined as someone who appears in the Sun Newspaper - Lucy Pinder is not, according to her website, she had a contract with the Daily Star - Therefore, I doubt she has ever appeared in the Sun on Page 3. --Rrose Selavy 14:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia

Would someone be so kind as to institute a policy of posting a daily "Wikipedia Page 3 Girl" and "Wikipedia Page 3 Boy" for our viewing entertainment? -º¡º

OK, which is Page 3 of Wikipedia? - Lee M 16:20, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Erm, wouldn't 3 be a good guess? :p --Kiand 00:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting.... ;p Mathmo 19:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start a new page. It is a great idea.

FWIW, Wikipedia's newspaper is Wikipedia:Signpost. --Gronky 15:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I've removed the NPOV tag from this article for the time being as (a) no-one's put a justification for it here (b) the article is well balanced as far as I can see. Smallbone10 23:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of image

I removed the image Image:Keeley.jpg because in my opinion it doesn't add anything useful to the article. Apparently some others disagree. I'd like to discuss this matter here, so if you agree or otherwise please say so. chowells 15:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with chowells. If an image that does add something useful can be found, I'm all for it. ~⌈Mar ka ci⌋ 2005-10-23 T 16:03:07 Z

A photograph of the paper opened on the page would be good. I'll let someone else buy the Sun and take the photo :p chowells 00:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably wouldn't have removed it myself based on what I saw, however....... although there is no way I'd add it back in after somebody has removed it. I would do that if only there was more evidence of it being a page3 girl. Such as the actual newspaper around it??? Although the current one I guess is good from a historical point of view? Mathmo 19:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a warning that the page contains nudity. Personally, I don't object, but pulling up this page in North American offices could get you fired. --Navstar 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the time someone would see the warning, they would already be on the page. And what are they doing looking up this kind of stuff on company time, anyway? Wahkeenah 23:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot of Americans would know what a Page Three girl is. You never know where a Wikilink will take you! :) --Navstar 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The current image (Image:Rahn240.jpg)) doesn't look anything like a modern "Page 3", in style or in content, and as such is more than a little misleading. Assuming it doesn't represent a copyright problem, wouldn't a photo of the paper be better? PeteVerdon 17:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you no sense of history?! Pcb21 Pete 19:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple request

I'd like to request we get a few more pictures on this page. I don't think they'll improve the article, I just want to see some naked birds. More Pictures.--Crestville 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An extra picture or two could be helpful, because certainly the current picture is nothing like modern page 3 girls. Perhaps there is a famous example whcih could be here as well? Mathmo 02:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa

How the hell can there be nudity in a newspaper... that's crazy.

I'm not being racist, just curious - is the above comment by an American? I seem to come across many people on Wikipedia who find topless pictures (not even full-on nudity) deeply shocking and offensive, and 9/10 times they are american. Is nudity seen as much more taboo in America or something? Saccerzd 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange as the US produces nearly all of the worlds online porn, or so I've been told.

--I know--- tell me about it, I despise the Sun and all tabloids like it. Nothing but cheap and trashy and a totally biased paper.

Crap paper, but I'd buy it for page 3. God bless this country.--Crestville 19:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun's page 3 is totally insulting and degrading to women. The whole thing is plain tacky. But don't American newspapers have nudity? Nukleoptra 19:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--To answer the above question about Americans: yes, some are deeply offended by toplessness. Most, however, are simply surprised by it because it is so rare in "casual" newpapers or magazines. In the USA, magazines with topless photos usually have to be covered in a paper bag. I think it's great how so many other countries are beyond this Puritanical crap, yet I myself am a bit shocked by toplessness (definately not offended by it) because you see so little of it in the USA, outside of the "proper" mediums (pornography, late-night premium TV, etc.).

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 :Crap paper, but I'd buy it for page 3. God bless this country.--[[User:Crestville|Crestville]] 19:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 ::The Sun's page 3 is totally insulting and degrading to women. The whole thing is plain tacky. But don't American newspapers have nudity? [[User:Nukleoptra|Nukleoptra]] 19:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
+--To answer the above question about Americans: yes, some are deeply offended by toplessness.  Most, however, are simply surprised by it because it is so rare in "casual" newpapers or magazines.  In the USA, magazines with topless photos usually have to be covered in a paper bag.  I think it's great how so many other countries are beyond this Puritanical crap, yet I myself am a bit shocked by toplessness (definately not offended by it) because you see so little of it in the USA, outside of the "proper" mediums (pornography, late-night premium TV, etc.).