Talk:Pornography

Before complaining about article content, please read: Wikipedia is not censored.

Archives

1. 2001 - July 2005 2. August 2005 - June 2006 3. July 2006 - October 2006 4. October 2006 - April 2007

cultural focus

This article is expressed as being general but in fact is about western culture since the nineteenth century. Representations of human beings, and particularly of women with little clothing, have been taboo in various Moslem and Jewish cultural contexts, among various early Christian sects and the iconoclasts of Byzantium, and following the Reformation England, Scotland and no doubt elsewhere. There needs to be some recognition of this in this article. Deipnosophista 08:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting removal of external link

The first external link, "The Impact of Pornography on Men" by Antonella Gambotto-Burke, goes to a web-site that has pictures of a copyrighted magazine. 68.222.34.38 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Site seems to be Antonella Gambotto-Burke's personal homepage so there propably isn't any copyright problem. --Zache 04:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A link to the author's own website should be okay. The article itself however seems to be mostly opinion, and lacking quality information. / edgarde 04:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image in the "legality" section

I added a free image to the legality section. It's a soft-core pornographic image, and it's next to the sentences: "Most countries allow at least some form of pornography. In some countries, softcore pornography is considered tame enough to be sold in general stores or to be shown on TV." The image caption says "Softcore pornography is legal in the United states and most other countries." I think this fits very well in the section, which is not otherwise illustrated. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 05:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but just becasue we have a picture of a half naked woman does not mean you have to suddenly place it in every article. That particular picture does not illustrate the legal status of pornography in any way. It doesn't fit, it's just and excuse to add the picture. pschemp | talk 14:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This was the only article this image was in. I believe it shows an example of what is typically allowed, accompanying the text. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Um right. Anyone can go look at your contribs and see how many article you put this group of pictures in. It doesn't show anything, of what is allowed,as it isn't pornography. pschemp | talk 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is typical Soft Porn. I can see a lot of fraudulant reasons why someone would want to add this image everywhere, but we shouldn't overlook the difficulty to find free images in certain subjects. Porn is one of them, and I think an example of what soft porn is is in order. If anyone can find a better, more informative free image, please raise your hands.--SidiLemine 11:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that picture is any type of "porn" is a considerable stretch. I'm sure there's an article better suited to Quadell's image; I just can't think of one right now.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that finding an appropriate article to put the image in is really the way to go (or it should be done in the image's talk page). We should concentrate on finding an image to fit the soft porn section of this article. I think this one is fine, and I would like to see other propositions if no one agrees.--SidiLemine 13:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll - several people seem to think this poll detracts from the discussion rather than aids it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Most people here seem to be overlooking that fact that the image was placed in the Legal issues section, not the soft porn section. It is already in the soft porn article, I see no need to duplicate that here since this is the main topic article. Also, it (or one much like it) is in Michelle Merkin article, where it truly belongs. So far the resons for including it here are less than compelling. This is a big article and needs to be selective about pictures. pschemp | talk 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no "soft porn" section. Instead, the distinction between softcore and hardcore porn is discussed in the legality section. That's why I used the caption "Softcore pornography is legal in the United states and most other countries." That's an important aspect of legality.

Yes, this is a big article, and yes, it needs to be selective, but it is currently a big article on visual pictures that has only three images, none of them contemporary. I think the article is improved by having a contemporary image, and it seems others here agree.

Finally, Pschemp, I understand that the reasons for including the image are less than compelling to you, but I hope that you will respect consensus if it turns out that consensus is against you in this. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the soft porn article, which is a detail article of this main article. There then no need to duplicate that here. pschemp | talk 18:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to point out that I concur the initial feeling of "wow, who is the vandal who uploaded that?" that Pschemp seems to express. But I see three points in his argument and I cannot say I agree with one. First, This is a big article and needs to be selective about pictures. To me, this looks like a big article that definitely lacks pictures. Get it to PR and see what they say. When we have enough pictures it will be nice to look for the most appropriate, educationnal, etc; we're not here yet. Second, That particular picture does not illustrate the legal status of pornography in any way. Well, it looks to me like it could, if the caption focused on defining soft porn, ie what's legal in the US. This to me is the real point we should be debating. Then, It's already in the soft porn article. This is absolutely baseless, as countless images are used in very repeated ways throughout wikipedia. It doesn't take more space, or anything: it's just a link. And if you say it is appropriate to describe soft porn, then all the more reasons to include it in this section. Sincerely, --SidiLemine 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this photograph of a genuine pornographic actress would be more suitable? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It has the merit of being unaesthetic, thus appearing more educative to most.--SidiLemine 10:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

film

I question the authenticity and origin of the "silent stag film" provided near the end of the article. I'm no expert, but to me it looks like a relatively modern soft-core strip tease clip that has been edited and filtered to appear like an old silent film. The source page on archive.org doesn't appear to give any information as to where this film comes from. As such, there's no evidence that this is public domain, and while it may be some amateur piece where some guy with a new camcorder convinced his girlfriend to help him out, it may also be copyvio. I suggest that until some verifiable information regarding its origin can be established, it be removed. And, to be honest, does it really belong here anyway? I mean, I know that Wikipedia is not censored, and I find nothing offensive about the clip, I have to wonder if it really contributes significantly to the article. Not every media-related article requires examples. - Ugliness Man 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I think this is a modern piece of video mocked up to look old. As Ugliness says there is no information regarding its origin - it is totally unsourced and should be removed. 3tmx 06:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

I am kind of shocked by a lot of the stuff in this article, but let's start with the big kahuna. A case study? Since when does Wikipedia have 'case studies,' and how can we possibly do so without violating WP:NPOV and WP:OR? Ethan Mitchell 23:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't "have" case studies, but it can use verifiable case studies as citations, which is exactly what happened here. Please point out what statements you feel violate NPOV, and explain how summarizing the results of a case study constitute original research. - Ugliness Man 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the content in the section, but I think the way that it is being framed is problematic. There is no reason whatsoever why a section about the Meese Commission should have a subsection devoted to a case study of pornography in Japan. The study wasn't comissioned by the Feds, and the paragraphs quoted don't refer to the Meese comission. In fact, they are redundant with the information higher up in the article, under the much more sensible heading "Effects on Sex Crimes."

The impression that I get looking at this layout is that someone wrote a piece about the U.S. government comissions, and someone else inserted the "case study" as a kind of rebuttal of the comissions' conclusions. But we shouldn't be laying out our articles like a ping-pong match, and we certainly shouldn't be dropping case studies in the middle of encyclopedia articles unless there's some explanation of why. Ethan Mitchell 16:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about pornography in America, it's about pornography, so perhaps the Japanese study was an attempt by someone to diversify the perspective. I'm not saying the article is perfect, but I don't think it's terribly problematic at present either. Perhaps rearranging or renaming the section, and adding a few more countries might help. - Ugliness Man 08:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

faulty citation

A "citation needed" tag was added to the assertion "movie rental stores such as Blockbuster and other large video-rental firms avoid porn", and someone used Blockbuster's FAQ as a citation. However, I just reverted that, because I checked out the FAQ and I don't feel the statements on that site sufficiently support the idea. The question which was pointed to as the citation was "What movie ratings does BLOCKBUSTER® carry?", and the only statement I can find in that answer that seems to support the assertion is "we generally do not carry films with ratings of NC-17 or X." Aside from the fact that the term "generally" is used, and therefore the possibility of finding porn at a Blockbuster is not entirely eliminated, another question I found while trying to verify the citation is "Why does BLOCKBUSTER Online® carry Playboy titles?" The answer reads, in part, "Playboy movies are just one of many movie niches fulfilled on BLOCKBUSTER Online®." Unless you want to get into an endless, pointless, circular debate (of a nature that doesn't really belong on a Wikipedia talk page) saying that Playboy is not porn, then I don't think you can claim that Blockbuster doesn't carry porn when their own website acknowledges that they carry Playboy titles. - Ugliness Man 05:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Blockbuster carries hard core porn in Denmark. Dont know about other countries. Would like to edit my page, but my english is not goo enough. - Smertetrip, Denmark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.218.171.223 (talk) 09:22, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

No pictures?

Why are there no pictures? If pornography is "a place to record prostitutes," demonstrating a common form of that record – pictures – would be more accurate and appropriate than simply describing it. Is it censored?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.38.244.123 (talk • contribs) 20:57, August 11, 2007 (UTC)

• As it states in the picture guidelines for Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography why we're avoiding all unnecessary explicit images: "The reason for this is to avoid any legal entanglements due to the 18 U.S.C. 2257. We are here to create an encyclopedia, not a porn farm." Tabercil

And, why is this video here? It seems fine to have it, but to call it non-pornographic is to contradict the information in the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.211.47 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit needed?

Would "This article is about the genre. For the album by The Cure, see Pornography (album). “Porn” redirects here. For For the eye disease"

be better than the current:

"This article is about the medium. For the album by The Cure, see Pornography (album). “Porn” redirects here. For For the eye disease" (with duplicate For For, etc)89.240.76.210 16:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't need a copyedit, it needs an {{otheruses}} template. Consider it done. WLU 17:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased article

Almost HALF of this article is devoted to the ANTI viewpoints against pornography, but fails to address those who support and encourage the use of porn (or just plain nudity). It is clearly biased to leave the reader with the impression "porn==bad". I tried to address the "pro" view with this paragraph, and thus bring the article closer to a more neutral viewpoint, but the parapraph was summarily censored by the anti-porn contingent seeking to suppress useful information.

I deleted the section because it was completely unsourced. Please see the policies on avoiding weasel words, reliable sources, no original research and neutral point of view. The page should indeed include a 'pro-porn' viewpoint if one can be found, but it must conform to the five pillars. Don't decry a conspiracy, source it. The text below in the 'working section' can be used to tweak the wording and attempt to arrive at a section that is suitable for inclusion. Also, I'm not sure that simple nudity would be considered pornography - as the lead section says, Pornography or porn is, in its broadest state, the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief. The section below seems to discuss more nudism than pornography, as pornography is about sexual relief while the section below is more artistic appreciation. Also, reference to specific sites really does look like spam-pushing. Avoid websites unless they are major / organizational / scientific / university based. Don't even bother if there's any sort of money exchanged. Also a problem that there is a lack of a citation from a reliable source that naked people in non-sexual situations or poses is not pornography. WLU 13:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I know lots of people who immediately view any kind of nudity as "porn". Example: Playboy magazine, which is filled with nothing but nudes (no sex or implied sex), is often labeled as porn (and it isn't). - Theaveng 13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Since playboy is, in part, designed or viewed as something that explicitly represents the human body for sexual arousal/relief, it'd probably pornography. Better than us attempting to define if it is or not, is to include a section citing a discussion of the debate by other people. We report verifiability, not truth. In other words, we can never say (for epistemological and policy reasons) that it is pornography or not, but we can say 'these people say it is. These people say it's not'. WLU

---

Working section

Nudity vs. Pornography Some groups within the industry and general populace seek to separate nudity from sexual pornography. Entire websites have been devoted to providing photos of "simple nudes". These sites do not allow portrayal of sexual positions, but instead promote the beauty of the human body for its own sake, and compare admiration of the body to the admiration of lions or gazelles. i.e. Appreciation of the beauty of nature. Even at the legal level, it has been acknowledged by some jurisdictions that nudity and pornography are separate entities. In the United States, the federal Supreme Court since the 1980s has consistently upheld that photography or art portraying nude people,((would this even be pornography?) (Yes many sects such as Christians view nudity as pornography.)) even of children, is allowed under the law & protected by the Right to Free Speech/Expression. However pornography portraying sexual situations is limited to those 18 or older, and thus falls under different legal standards from nudity.

References

---

Use the following citation template for references added: <ref>{{Citation | last = | first = | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = | place= | publisher = | year = | location = | volume = | edition = | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = }}</ref> Also, if unfamiliar with citations, see WP:CITE. WLU

I'm not sure what's wrong with the phrase "some jurisdictions"? Some juridictions allow pornography (like the US and EU) and some juridictions do not (like Iraq or Saudi Arabia). Thus it's an accurate statement to say "some". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talk • contribs)

'Some' is non-specific, it's a generalization that is unattributable to any single entity. Better is to say "US,^[1] EU,^[2] Canada^[3] and Barbados^[4] allow pornography, while most Muslim countries do not^[5] because it is banned by the Koran.^[6]" Of course, that's a gross generalization, those numbers need to be blue and have sources. This needs to be done for just about all the groups discussed on a page as controversial as porn. If some Christian groups find nude depictions pornographic, cite the specific group with a reference. WLU

I like sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.121.183 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Stag Film is NOT pornography (it's not in the least bit sexually arousing)

It's a woman taking off her top; not a good example to be included in this article. This is just nudity and not something to feel "shameful" about unless you're a Puritan. (If a man were making the same moves, with the same chest exposure, no one would call it porn.) I find it highly objectionable that somebody thinks a topfree woman is somehow pornographic or fits the definition of obscene. - Theaveng 11:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I got a chubby -iopq 12:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Eat less food, then you won't be so fat. - Theaveng 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with that, but if it isn't pornography, then is it even relevant to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.147.198 (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

New lead image

My submission for the new lead image --David Shankbone 01:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that we need a different lead image. I think Image:LampArtifactDoggystyle.jpg makes an excellent lead image for the History of erotic depictions article, but it's not quite so appropriate here because it is not "pornographic" according to the definitions prescribed in the article itself. Generally, this article claims, pornography did not even exist until the Victorian era (although erotic images have been around forever); I also think pronography connotes a certain lack of artistic merit or historical interest, both of which the lamp seems to offer. What we need in the lead image is some actual porn.

The problem is how do we find such an image that's not unnecssarily graphic or shocking? We could do something along the lines of Image:AN Rita Faltoyano-Nikki Benz 1.jpg. It's a free image of two contemporary pornographic actreses in typical porn star attire, but there's no actual sex or nudity. User:Videmus_Omnia has many similar pictures in his free image gallery. Another idea is a harmless still from a pornographic movie, or a high quality of image of the outside of a sex shop that garishly advertises pornographic material for sale. David Shankbone has a pretty cool image here, but I feel its focus is more the light and shadows on a darkened street and not so much the pornographic merchandise and signage. Does anyone else have some suggestions?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What if we swapped the first two images? I looked over the images you suggested and most of them are of pornographic actors/actresses, not pornogrphy per se. The french cartoon actually uses the word 'pornography' and alludes towards the social tensions raised by pornography - makes it a good choice in my mind. And the lamp alludes towards the roots of pornography before it existed in its modern, sensationalistic, mass produced and socially controlled version, which makes it a good fit for the history section. WLU 14:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion, but I (perhaps my thinking is overly concrete) was hoping the lead image should actually be of pornography or pornographic material.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hey guys - why don't I go to a porn shop and take a photo of some of the paraphernalia or of a wall of porn videos? No shortage of those here in New York. --David Shankbone 14:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be great!! But please be very careful about copyright paranoia.... for many months, the lead image to this article consisted of a similar photograph to the one you're proposing. It was a very humdrum snapshot of a rack of porno videos for sale at a Tel Aviv flea market; although it was not artistically impressive, I felt it was a great illustration of the article's subject. People complained[1][2][3][4] about it constantly and kept trying to remove it. One editor employed legal threats, arguing that the boxcovers were all copyrighted, and we can't reproduce them here (even though many of the box titles were completely illegible!). Eventually, the picture was deleted from Commons for reasons I do not understand[5][6]. Hopefully, your picture won't suffer the same fate. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There should not be any copyright issues when there is an amalgamation of covers; but what I may do is a more sweeping "Store View" to incorporate videos and paraphernalia; that should alleviate any questions. I will try and do it today. --David Shankbone 15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Killer photograph! It's perfect, and I'll add it to the lead image right away; feel free to revise whatever lame caption I come up with.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"historical merit"?

What does it mean to say that erotica "hold[s] or aspire[s] to... historical merit"? I can't decipher this at all. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions on the legality of Pornography

I have some questions regarding pornography, and found on the UPS, USPS, and Canada Post websites, that it is illegal to move pornography between jurisdictions or to mail it...

1. Why is this so?
2. Why is it illegal to move pornography between states?
3. Why is it illegal to move/import/export/purchase pornography from canada and the USA to each other?
4. Is it illegal if you're bringing it with you for your own personal reasons, such as moving from one state/province to another, or visiting and bringing it for personal reasons? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions like this should go to Wikipedia:Reference desk (tho they do not dispense specific legal advice). Article talk pages are for discussions about editing the article. / edg ☺ ★ 05:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not looking for legal advice, as i dont' live in the united states...i'm just trying to figure out why the laws say what they say regarding these issues. I just think it's a bit odd to render moving pornography from one state to another illegal. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 14:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For the USA, I would imagine it's because pornography laws potentially are different in each state.-Wafulz 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

anti-pornography article?

It looks more like anti-pornography article. Actual pornography needs expansion. Lara_bran 16:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that a huge amount of anti-porn section should be removed. With all the stuff from it created on a seperate page with just a link to it from the porn page. The amount on here is not necessary for this encyclopedic article. It basically amounts to covering half of the article about christianity with atheism. i will give time for a few responses before i create an anti-porn page to place the stuff on, and link it to this page.Aladdin Zane 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would move the "The Impact of Pornography on Men" article (from this article's External links) to an anti-porn article (perhaps Anti-pornography movement). It's neither very informative nor scholarly, but it can be said to represent anti-porn opinion.

That said, I don't see much that needs to be removed from this article, and doing so risks creating a POV fork. For that reason I don't favor creating a separate "anti-porn" article. Better to develop other parts of this article than to simply remove anti-porn info for "balance". / edg ☺ ★ 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in this case. The anti-porn movement has a page. So as much as is on this page does not belong. The most that belongs here is the section title / a brief a paragraph overview / and the link to the article is already there. I know some may not see it as being to much, which is why it needs to be viewed in comparison. like a overbig section of atheism, on Jesus' page, or a huge section about the U.S.A. on the United Kingdom's page, and so on. I will be paring down the section, and duplicates from the anti-porn page will be removed, with a majorit of anything left, transferred. Leaving as a I stated a one paragraph overview of the movement itself, everything else sould on the APM page. Also it does not risk creating a POV fork, as most of the stuff is about the movement, which does not belong on this page.Aladdin Zane 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is a small consideration within atheism, whereas pornography is the entire subject of porn opposition, so WP:OTHERSTUFF is particularly not a sound argument here. There is no reason to "pare down the section" to a one-paragraph overview. What is needed is more information on pornography. / edg ☺ ★ 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a big reason to pare it down. It already has it's own page. Also the anti-pornography movement, is not pornography of any genre or sub-genre. Also the article is excessivly long with it in. The information will still be on wiki, just in the proper location. Aladdin Zane 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not List of pornographic genres, so the fact that anti-pornography information is not part of such a list does not mean it should be excluded here. And at 42kb, this article is hardly "excessively" long — there isn't reason to invoke WP:SUMMARY here. And, consigning "anti" information to another article is creating a WP:POVFORK. The request made at thread top is to add more information, not remove existing information. / edg ☺ ★ 21:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved sections around, but did not change content. True, article is not as long, but it needs expansion on subject than anti-subject. Article has enough materials for a WP:GA, all it needs is some copyedit. Lara_bran 04:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Porn actors and actresses

A section on this is necessary, help from somebody with knowledge would be appreciated. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Religeous Protestors

"(Pornography) immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world"

Says a leading religeous figure.

LOL

Just thought I'd mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kung Foo (talk • contribs) 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Rational for my edits

I edited some of the economic section as the 10 billion number has not be confirmed and is highly disputed. The existing version stated it as fact and then later rebutted itself. The influence on the current format war will also be negligible since both formats will carry pornography. It will not have the same influence it did on the VHS vs Betamax format war and may not inf act have been influential back then either since both VHS and Beta carried pornography. It may in fact just be an amusing anecdote. Manic-pedant 23:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the 10 billion figure is probably inflated and should be handled differently; as the Forbes stats were bandied about plenty, some mention should be made, but in the context of the more recent estimates. The DVD format interest however is pretty well sourced and should be kept — whether or not it is true (and I suspect porn is a big influence on home video formats), it currently seems to be considered an influence. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I just redid that section to de-emphasize $10 billion estimate. Can someone confirm that Eric Schlosser's book Reefer Madness was the evangelist for the 10G figure? / edg ☺ ☭ 03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that both formats (HD DVD and Blu Ray) have always carried porn? The original statement anout blu-ray will not have porn were voiced by CEO of Digital Playground after he felt he didn't receive enough support from Sony. Vivid refuted that claim, releasing their first HD offering in blu ray. It may be well sourced by it's perpetuating a myth.Manic-pedant 18:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the myth? I think the basic information here is:

Sony (or whoever owns Blu-Ray) made certain the format would be available for porn producers so they wouldn't lose the format war. Part of the drama was that porn content appeared on HD DVD first, and Blu-Ray had to play catch-up. Furthermore, fear of losing the format war on just that content meant Sony (or whoever, I don't follow this stuff closely) had to quell rumors that Blu-Ray wouldn't be as available for porn as HD DVD.

Should we rephrase that section more along the lines I just loosely paraphrased? Or is there more I'm not getting? / edg ☺ ☭ 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blu-ray is outselling HD-DVD 2:1 for the last 11 months, total sales are about 3:2 Blueray to HD DVD. So if it has a role it's not known to what extent as it doesn't have an obvious effect. Many people have made statements concerning it but it's not a verifiable fact that Porn has any influence on the current format war and it's unlikely since both formats have porn on them. The statements about sony not supporting porn all came form one source, the CEO of Digital Playground, who complained he wasn't getting enough support at a conference. This was just echoed in mainstream media without any substantial qualitative reference. Perhaps add in a qualifier like "Some claim".

I'd propose re-phrasing it currently: "and a major factor in the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD format war.[7][8][9]" revised: "and a possible factor in the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD format war."

As well all three citations are speculative opinion pieces. Manic-pedant 18:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)