Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gkleinman (talk | contribs) at 03:52, 24 October 2008 (→‎For Consideration XCritic Page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

"Roughies" revisited, and "Nudie-cuties"

If anyone is interested in writing on the historical American porn genres of "Nudie-cuties" and "Roughies" (I'm pretty sure Russ Meyer worked in both genres early in his career), I've just come across this, perhaps, useful quote in my Japanese studies. "Coincidentally, rise of the eroductions occurred almost parallel with that of the American "nudie-cuties" (i.e., harmless naturist and peekaboo flicks), the more innocent forerunners of the "roughies". Roughies lived up to their nickname by sexploiting not only teasy nudity but - almost without exception - sadism and rape, usually of women. Main difference between Japanese and American genres was the latter's filmmakers could eventually reveal unlimited amounts of pubic hair/genitalia..." {{cite journal |last=Fentone|first=Steve|year=1998|title=A Rip of the Flesh: The Japanese 'Pink Film' Cycle|journal=She|volume=2|issue=11|pages=p.5}}

Abbywinters.com

Until a few minutes ago, the article on the porn website Abbywinters.com was in Category:Photographers. I've since fixed that; however, while the article was purporting to be about a photographer, it underwent a set of suspicious-looking edits that drew my attention: see its recent editing history. In brief, after my restoration of much deleted material (or my unthinking reintroduction of rightly deleted junk), much of the article is now a description of the website, "sourced" to the website itself (i.e. from direct observation, or "OR" if you will), and much of the rest is about some criticism of it in somebody's blog. The whole affair looks eminently AfD-worthy to me, but I know nothing about the relative noteworthiness of porn websites. Neither that article nor this project page is not on my watchlist; it's all yours. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award in major magazine

Is winning Penthouse pet of the month (or similar e.g. Playboy Playmate of the month) generally considered an award in a major magazine? My gut feeling is it isn't (pet of the year, yeah sure) but would appreciate feedback from those more familiar with pornography related issues. The reason I ask is because it came up in the Ginger Jolie where some people assert she's notable for being pet of the month, but so far I'm not seeing evidence of notability from coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back, a couple years at least, when User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. and others were hashing out the criteria for WP:PORNBIO, before it got folded into WP:PEOPLE, the inclusion criteria specifically stated that Playmate and Pet of the Month were both awards from major magazines. If I'm not mistaken, Hustler Honey was included in the earlier versions of the criteria. There was even some discussion about why only American magazines were being used as examples. I can't find that version of the criteria now because I think, if I'm looking at this correctly, that page was deleted before the redirect to WP:PEOPLE was put in. (See my second response below) And I seem to recall that when PORNBIO got folded into PEOPLE, the specific awards/magazines got edited out when the criteria was copied over to PEOPLE. As for why, I have no idea. I wasn't able to find any discussion about leaving them out during the transition.
As for my own opinion, Playmate and Pet are rather different awards. Playmate is always (going from memory, I've had a subscription and have collected back issues for years) bestowed on an unknown model that the magazine finds themselves (either when photographers find them or when women send in their photos) or on models who may have just done some local modeling. Playmates sometimes go on to do some acting, bikini modeling and such, or for the most part go to school to become nurses, photographers, real estate agents, etc. and hardly ever go on to do hardcore pornography. I can think of only two that have done this. Teri Weigel being one and the second name escapes me right now. So for the most part, being a Playmate isn't just a modeling gig. Pet on the other hand is aimed more at women who want to be or already are in the pornography business. The number of women who go into hardcore porn after being Pet is far greater. For them it seems to be more of a jumping off point to get into the porn business. And seems to be more like just another modeling gig. For instance, Silvia Saint had already won an AVN Award (1997) before she was Pet of the Month (1998).
And finally, being a Playmate has a scientific impact. At least three studies [1], [2], [3] have been done using the measurements of Playmates for their data sets.
If you'd like to go over some of the past Playmate AFDs, I've started putting together a collection here. Dismas|(talk) 07:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is where the "of the Month" criteria was removed from the guideline without discussion. Dismas|(talk) 05:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me as though AnonEMouse was just copyeditting the text, rather than changing the criteria. I think he assumed people would know that a "feature of the month" would count as a magazine award. The criteria should probably be made more clearer. Epbr123 (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting his intentions. But it introduced a grey area as to whether "of the Month" is enough. Dismas|(talk) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

I think we need to establish which sources are reliable for porn star articles. I've listed some of the most commonly used sources below, so if we can gain consensus on whether each one is reliable, maybe we can write a guideline at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography page.

  1. Interviews at lukeisback.com
  2. Cited material at lukeisback.com, eg. [4] (currently used in the Jenna Jameson FA)
  3. AVN.com
  4. AInews.com
  5. XBiz.com
  6. Interviews at Rogreviews.com, eg. [5]
  7. Biographical info at iafd.com, eg. [6]
  8. Adultdvdempire.com
  9. Adultfyi.com, eg. [7]
  10. XFanz.com, eg. [8]
  11. Excaliburfilms.com, eg. [9]
  12. Eros-ny.com
  13. Pornvalleynews.com
  14. Gamelink.com, eg. [10]

Epbr123 (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could you give me some time to think about this and respond? I was away in Berlin for the Venus show when you posted this question and I'm surprised no one else from the project has chimed in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, sorry. Your opinion would be very valuable. Epbr123 (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I missed seeing this on my watchlist (at least not until Morbid chimed in), but I'll do some thinking on it as well... some of them are clearly (IMO) reliable (e.g., AVN which I believe at least one mainstream source has called the trade magazine) and others are less so. Tabercil (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. There's a lot there to chew over so I'll take this in chunks, so expect multiple posts on the topic.

  • AVN is reliable period since it's the leading industry trade magazine. The New York Times called it "the Variety of the US porn industry" ([11])
  • XBiz and AInews look like they aim to be similar to AVN in that they focus on the news, so I'd say they can be considered reliable.
  • IAFD should be treated exactly the same as IMDB.
  • Eros-NY is an e-zine (as stated here). As such they'd be the same as reliable as any other ezine such as Salon. (And speaking of Eros, has anyone checked to see if the links to it still work?)
  • Gamelink & Excalibur are highly suspect in my eyes, if only because I don't readily see where they'd get their info from...
  • Xfanz is owned by the same people as XBiz, so I'm tempted to say it'd be reliable. What do we use this for? Just the news stories??

More as I have a chance to mull over the other sites. Tabercil (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Consideration XCritic Page

Wanted to submit to the WP Pornography Team that we believe XCritic has finally broken through the threshold of WPNotable. Our current top 10 list of women porn directors has been picked up and covered by AVN and XBiz. This on top of our 9K reviews, porn star blogs and steady stream of news. Because of conflict of interest, of course we can not create the page, nor would we. So we submit to the Project our inclusion for your consideration. Thanks. Gkleinman (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • I'm still not sure about the standalone notability yet. However, information about the XCritic spinoff should be mentioned in the DVDTalk article. I'm surprised no one has done that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're more thank welcome to add it to the DVD Talk article... Although the site is officially run by "Chris Thorne" so putting it on another bio page wouldn't be ideal. I do think that we've hit standalone notability. Aside from the preponderance of reviews, Penny Flame & Stoya Blogs, we are seen as a 'trusted source' for reviews and news. Gkleinman (talk)

removal of image

Please visit Ramba (comics) and weigh in. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography&oldid=247316191"