Talk:Hardcore pornography

NPOV?
NPOV tag added with no explanation given, so removed unless a reason is given. Jezzerk 06:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Completely unverified facts and baseless, moralistic accusations used in the "Against" column. Verification and References are the pinnacle of any Encyclopedia and thus should be so for Wikipedia as well. 70.77.41.16 17:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia attempts to present topics from a neutral point of view. Unfortunately your verification tags have had to be removed because you are clearly POV in favour of porn.  However, the section has been amended to clarify where the arguments come from and that research results are disputed.  Moral arguments have to be included in this section to ensure NPOV regardless of whether any individual agrees with them or not. Jezzerk 08:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a *significant* difference from disagreeing with points, and wanting them to validated. You still have no real validation and the points have little basis in fact. I believe you're the one infringing upon the NPOV, especially relevant by your habit of removing past NPOVs. While moralistic reasons are a valid concern, *baseless* moralism has no place in an encyclopedia. Cite your references about pornography increasing rape among other things.


 * Several studies have proven quite the opposite, thus making such a claim not just against the NPOV, but completely and utterly factually wrong. See here for more details: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013  70.77.41.100 17:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge recommended
There is a proposal to merge this article with Pornography as there seems little information here that is not already included in the Pornography article. Discussion is at Talk:Pornography/Archive_3.

Cleanup
I've cleaned up the article somewhat and made it generally more presentable. I am not keen on the For and Against sections as they are just a list of vague objections/defenses with no real discussion. I suggest improving this section or deleting all of it except to mention the controversy among crackpot Christians and others. After all, this is dealt with in the main pornography article. -Neural 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
Suggest removal of the US rating system from the introduction. Unless, of course, the intention is to have yet another US-centric article. Or a listing of all the rating systems from everywhere else in the world
 * nevermind - removed it myself, as being irrelevant to the introduction, and culture/national specific

New Devil In Miss Jones
In reference to the image on the right. Is "New Devil In Miss Jones" really a classic? It came out in 2004, wouldn't it take a little longer for a movie to get "classic" status? - OPaul 06:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Needed Example
I think an example of Hardcore porn should be placed in the article. I think the cover art is not a good enough example. There should be a film screen shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Nirvana Rules (talk • contribs)
 * Hear, hear. I am all for it. What does the the people say? A little consensus before going hardcore would be very nice. Aditya Kabir 16:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think so too. We ought to have a more 'elaborate' example. Kendirangu 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why has there been a gay porn picture added to describe the article? I don't care if they're gay or not, but a) doesn't providing a gay picture lead to people believing hardcore means gay, and also b) it seems that they've only used a gay picture because they can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.183 (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you say the same thing if it was a straight porn picture? And I don't think we can make assumptions about the motivations of the uploader. Mdwh (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Newdevilinmissjones dvd.jpg
Image:Newdevilinmissjones dvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gang, if you do any real research on the supreme court and this issue, you will see time and again that they come out AGAINST hard core pornography. There are many examples of this. THis should definitely be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.135.239 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Legalization?
It would be interesting to know what was illegal in the various countries - e.g., production, publication, distribution and/or possession? Mdwh (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Image
Since there seems to be an edit war, what are people's views on having this (or another) image? What reasons are there for and against having this image? I am not sure what is mean by being "explicit" or "graphic"? Mdwh (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, seen as I was the first one to raise objections, I will give you my opinion. I really just fail to see what it contributes to the article at all. What does it answer? What information does it provide the reader that could not have been obtained from merely the written description? While I realise that wikipedia is not like 'other' encyclopaedias, I can hardly imagine anything like this appearing in something like Britannica, not necessarily because it may offend people or appear explicit, but merely because I fail to see how it adds or complements the article at all.


 * I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but what is the point/relevance of this picture? It's more likely to offend than offer any actual insight. (Washboardplayer (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC))


 * I don't see the use of that picture either. On top of that, it seems to be one of those pictures in the, imo, rising trend of posting pornography on pages where it's not needed. I'm not shocked by pornography, far from, but there's no need to post it on pages to which it gives no extra value/relevance....And does it really have to be gay pornography? It's not really the mainstream hardcore pornography as far as I know.Firipu (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if it is an image of gay porn, just to prove a point. I would imagine that there are other images more representative of Hardcore pornography. But there should be an image, however something that has more of the industry rather than just a basic porn shot would be interesting Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My first reaction of course is to prohibit people who want to remove an image only because it is, in their opinion, pornography. Getting past that, and establishing that the image, in fact is allowed on Wikipedia and is not, in fact pornographic in any way, leaves the discussion of what image is the best image for the lead, and what other images are effective at illustrating other points made in the article.  My opinion is that this image as a lead image is better than no image.  It is a picture of people making a pornographic film.  The topic is hardcore pornography.  This seems to be to be on topic.
 * I can't imagine why anyone would be offended by this image. My guess at that would be 1) Some people are offended that pornography is made.  2) Some people are offended that men have sex with men and the image reminds them of that.  3) Some people consider nude buttocks to be offensive for some reason.  In my opinion, none of these reasons are sufficient for removing the image.
 * Reasons that would be good for removing the image might be: 1) The image is not on topic.  2) A better image is available for illustrating the topic. 3) Having no image is better than this image in illustratiung the topic.  In my opinion, at this point, none of these are true. Atom (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This image should not be there. Putting up this image does not elucidate the topic in any way.  Given that essentially every human engages in one form or another of sexual intercourse, it requires no leap in logic to understand the concept of two people engaging in intercourse, and having that event recorded.  This image is utterly unnecessary in understanding the concept.
 * Secondly, how is this NOT pornographic in nature?? This is a picture of a man performing anilingus on another man, which is a sex act. As this is from a hardcore pornography movie, there is no reason to imagine that the act is merely simulated.  Thus, the image is porn and should not be on wikipedia.03:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Each person has their opinion. I've suggested that the image does relate to the topic.  The topic is hardcore pornography, the image is a picture of a hardcore pornographic film being made.  To me, in my opinion, those things relate.  It is possible that another, better image will come along, but for the moment it is, in my opinion, the best available.


 * As for it being pornographic. Again I don't see anything pornographic.  You assume that the image is of a sex act, and you assume that the sex act is anilingus, and yet there is nothing in the image, or the caption to suggest either is the case.  I see a film being made.  My imagination suggests that something explicitly pornographic has been, or will soon transpire on the film, but this image does not show that.  I don't imagine that the image is simulated, but there is no reason to make assumptions as the miller test applies to reality, not to imagination or assumptions.  Clearly the image does not satisfy any one of the three barbs of the miller test, and it would have to satisfy all three.


 * Atom (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Thus, the image is porn and should not be on wikipedia" This is incorrect - please see What_Wikipedia_is_not. Mdwh (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Atom, get off of your cross. The picture contributes nothing to the article. Pretty much ANY picture would contribute nothing to the article. The article is a blurb that basically says nothing more than "hardcore porn = porn with explicit sex acts". Sex is pretty much a cornerstone of the human experience, so I'm pretty sure that a photo of someone eating ass isn't clarifying the subject for anyone. The picture has no purpose for being here, but if you want to cry and whine and hide behind technicalities, there's probably nothing that can be done about it, though, because unfortunately that's pretty much the standard for getting things done around here. Congratulations on being the sort of person that gives wikipedia a bad name.71.202.112.38 (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your opinion on the matter. Atom (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Atomaton. --A Knavish Bonded (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the non-named guy above in the "needed example" part says the truth Why has there been a gay porn picture added to describe the article? I don't care if they're gay or not, but a) doesn't providing a gay picture lead to people believing hardcore means gay, and also b) it seems that they've only used a gay picture because they can. Can't add anything to that. I'm neutral towards gay people, and I don't have any problems with pornography. But I really don't see the use of this particular picture... Firipu (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's pretty fallacious. In one breath you say, "I don't care if they are gay or not..." and then "I care that they are gay..."  Why would the reasoning not be inverse if they were straight (that hardcore is straight)?  The fact is, until people start putting up some free use pornography photos, preferably from a major studio, the entire debate is moot. Even then, we would use both photos - but removing one just because they are gay is the exact thing many people here are claiming it is not: homophobic.  Find other photos to add; we don't subtract free media.  --A Knavish Bonded (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:A Knavish Bonded on every point. If you want to add another free image that represents the topic, so that people can see that the topic is varied, I don't see a problem with that.


 * In the Penis article, should we delete the lead image because we don't want everyone to think that only white men have a penis? Maybe we should delete the current photo because we don't want to mislead anyone into thinking that when men have sex with other men that one of them always stands on his hands?  Or maybe someone will think that all gay men have tattoos?


 * Sarcasm aside, the image is directly on topic without being offensive to any reasonable person -- how more perfect could it be? When people submit more images, we can add more images to give more variety?  Atom (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree also. If people are so concerned that it might "lead to people believing hardcore means gay", then please feel free to supply a free image feature opposite sex participants. But even then, that is no reason to remove the existing image (after all, we wouldn't want anyone thinking that hardcore means straight...) Point (b) is speculation. As for the image being pornographic, I'm not sure this is a problem since this article is "hardcore pornography". But given the subject matter, it does not seem to be particularly gratuitous - you can't even see genitals. Whilst I accept that images shouldn't always be added just for the sake of it, I do not see any evidence that this is the case here, nor am I convinced by any arguments put forward for its removal. If someone thinks there should be a better image, then please supply one - arguing about that seems pointless until another image comes along. Mdwh (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I vote to remove image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.37.127 (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. Please explain your reasons and respond to the points that people have made. Mdwh (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article explaining the meaning of hardcore pornography does not need a picture of a man tonguing another man's asshole.
 * Delete the image offers no sexually explicit material and doesn't represent what hardcore pornography is. Better not to have an image than just having a random one. CenterofGravity (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus here. I also note that your viewpoint seems to be the complete opposite of everyone else who wants it deleted - they think it's too sexually explicit, but you think it's unsuitable because it isn't sexually explicit? Mdwh (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand his statement, I think. The topic is hardcode pornography and yet the image is not hardcore pornography. The part he is missing is that the image is of the filming of a hard core pornography movie. Which is on topic. Perhaps some other image could better illustrate the topic of the article, but at this writing, the current image described is the best we have. Not long ago someone threw in an image of a porn star giving oral sex to someone. The problem was the image was taken from Flickr, and ended up being a copyrighted image, not a free image. Also, it was extremely grainy, and as a close up, showed nothing discernible other than a small portion of what looked like oral sex being given by a woman. Not exactly a good substitute for the current image, even if it had been on topic, which was debatable in itself. Atom (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This article does not necessarily need a picture, and in my opinion, is better without the current picture being used. This picture is not only offensive to many people, but it is inappropriate to the subject matter; it is clearly unnecessary, and I do not know who keeps putting it up. 64.212.80.6 (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The questions that I see are (a) is a picture needed or is this picture relevant, and (b) whether it complies with the local laws where Wikipedia is hosted. Being offensive is not an issue - Wikipedia may host material that may be offensive to some people somewhere. In what way is it inappropriate to an article on hardcore pornography? Being unnecessary comes under point (a), but I'm not sure that this is clear? And you can see who puts it back up by clicking on the History tab at the top. Mdwh (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The image is irrelevant and misleading because it is not explicit, therefore, it isn't hardcore pornography. It's a softcore depiction of a sexual act. Due to the non-explicit display of sex and absence of information one cannot decipher whether it is indeed a making of a hardcore film. CenterofGravity (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not true. These photos are well known, and Michael Lucas himself blogged about our working together.  The film is Flatiron Fuckers - you're welcome to review it for the piss scenes and descriptions - they are all over the internet.  This photo is a tasteful depiction of an obvious hardcore scene (standing a person on his head whilst eat his ass out, chowing down on it like a pig at a trough).  There's no need to be more explicit.  The mind fills in the gaps, and that's perfect for an encyclopedia.  I have far more explicit photos; 400 in all.  They can get fare more explicit, but I think this is appropriate, don't you?  -- David  Shankbone  04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether appropriate or not the image isn't explicit. The sexual act is never fully revealing nor is there any indication of sexual arousal through the appearance of genitalia. Since you shed light on the title and description of the film one can gather that it is the filming of a scene from a hardcore pornographic film. One can also try and assume that Michael Lucas just produces hardcore pornographic films. Technically speaking when regarding definition and going by the image alone it fares similar to anything that softcore pornography portrays. But, if you feel the need to add an explicit image do realize that you are helping to pave the way for when wikipedia will inevitably have to add a warning that will require visitors to aver that they are 18 years of age or older either before entering the main page or when accessing filtered articles. CenterofGravity (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the image necesary? It may be disturbing for some people...--201.143.67.158 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this? I feel the picture should represent the general and not the specific.

An analogy: There are many different types of rectangles. When showing a picture of a rectangle, we more often use the horizontally-oriented golden ratio sized rectangle. While a square is a rectangle, it is a much smaller sub-set of the general set rectangle. So the question is how often do you use a picture of square to represent the concept of rectangle? Using this analogy, hardcore gay porn is a specific sub-set of hardcore porn, but I'm pretty sure it is not representative of the general concept. The picture should reflect the general and not a specific type of hardcore porn. Any statistics for what percentage of all porn is gay porn?

Who knows, perhaps this is an argument against including a picture at all.--Feddx (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx
 * Interesting theory that holds no water ("Straight hardcore porn is the standard and is the only thing that should be illustrated, if anything"). It also isn't a source theory on the article, which makes it WP:OR; which is fine for a talk page.  -- David  Shankbone  23:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Who exactly are you quoting with "Straight hardcore porn is the standard and is the only thing that should be illustrated, if anything," above? I certainly didn't offer that or any other answer as to what "Standard" hardcore porn is. And for the record, this is a talk page.. isn't it? The rectangle analogy is valid, and is certainly not original research. I am simply stating that a picture of a man performing analingus on another man is a very small part of what could be classified as hardcore porn (actually this is really a fetish picture if I were to objectively classify it). There MUST be statistics somewhere that would say back me up on this, I just don't have or know how to access this information. (NOTE: To give you more fuel for your WP:OR contention (even though again, this is a talk page) I've watched a lot of hardcore porn that doesn't contain any male-on-male analingus (the actual number of times I've encountered this in hardcore porn that I've seen is zero). I feel confident in saying this is not just happenstance.  But if your contention is that male-on-male analingus is a standard practice in hardcore pornography without any reliable source to back you up, then you'd be in violation of WP:CITE))


 * If anyone can provide statistical data as to the breakdown of which acts are the most prevalent in hardcore pornography over say the last 30 years, or provide what percentage of porn made is straight, bi, gay, transgendered, zoophilia, etc. and cite it for the community, (which would satisfy the non-original research guidelines of Wikipedia) then a more representative picture can be chosen, or several perhaps. Until then, the picture should probably be removed.--Feddx (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx


 * I disagree about the picture being removed. My thumbnail analysis, not statistical, but opinon and logic is that 7% to 10% of the population in the western world is gay/lesbian.  This would suggest that roughly that the market for Gay porn, and therfore the sustainability of people who make and market gay porn is in the same proportion.  (although I think other factors may enter into it, as heterosexuals may be more inclined to buy porn that homosexuals, but I have no data supporting that.  That translates in this case that an NPOV article, representing the spectrum of views would support 7%-10% of the photographs and content being on the gay pornography topic.  As there is currently only one image in the article, of course it should stay as it is informational and on topic.  The lack of balance of photographs representing the NPOV is not because a gay pornography photograph is in the article, but rather that no one has found suitable images for alternative viewpoints.  For instance, the penis article has several images, including circumsized and non-circusized (natural) penises (penii).  It does not, however, have an image of a hispanic, a black, or an indian penis.  I am fairly certain that those racial groups have penises.  Should we remove the pictures of penises representing white people until we get an image of one, or all of the others?  I think that article would welcome images including diversity.  This article welcomes other information and factual image son the topic, including ones that represent heterosexual pornography.  Atom (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really the same thing. A penis is either in the picture or is not. The colour is a matter of the model in the picture (and unfortunately a matter for those who have a lot of free time to say something about it).  The picture in that article doesn't "represent" what may be a penis, it IS of a penis, and no one can really argue that fact. The difference here is that there are many different categorizations of hardcore pornography, and is not easily represented by one picture.


 * I'm sure that many a porn producer would be quite willing to allow a picture to be posted here, and give license to Wikipedia for its use (as I'm sure Mr. Lucas has for this image). I just feel that one picture that is by your admission (and I'm sure others) not representative of what constitutes a majority of hardcore porn, should not be used. --Feddx (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx


 * In this case, the photographer has rights to the image, and ask for permission to take the photos at that location. The photographer, as the artist, ownse the rights at the time of creation (under US copyright law, which applied in thos case).


 * I feel that the image IS representative of a subset of hardcore pornography. For one, if it were there to represent gay pornography, that would be a legitimate reason, as that is a sub-category of hardcore pornography.  As it is, it is a photograph of someone (Lucas) filming hardcore pornography.  It is not a photo of hardcore pornpgraphy, or an example of a specific genre of harcore pornography.  It is, inherently, non-hardcore and non-pornographic.  It shows a camera operator and two actors on a set, in the process of filming a scene.  This is entirely appropriate for the topic of this article.


 * As I said, if it WERE given as an example of gay hardcore pornography, and were explicit enough to qualify as hardcore pornography, and yet not obscene by the miller test, and so acceptable for the article, then it would be welcome in the article. The fact that we do not have other images representative of other genres within hardcore pornography would not limit it usefulness in illustrating its genre. Our remedy would be to get further photos of other genres in order to give more balance to the article.  Atom (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Point-by-point: Point 1) Agreed, the photographer has the right to the image. The wiki community should then see if some photographers would submit their work as part of the GPL to allow Wikipedia to use it as explanatory content of hardcore pornography. That really doesn't validate this picture being included as the only representation of HC pornography.


 * The photographer that provided that picture was David Shankbone. He went out of his way to get it for this article,  Perhaps if you ask him he will look for an opportunity for an appropriate image that fits your liking as additional for the article?  Atom (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Point 2) I've not seen anyone write that this photo didn't represent a subset of hardcore pornography (they may have in previous posts here, but I may have missed it). But you are clearly stating that it is representative of the "subset". Therefore it should be viewed not as a general example, but a specific one. Much in the way you could say that a human is a mammal, but a picture of a human clearly is not the only example you would use to represent all mammals.  If you did, you would mislead the reader (a quick look at the article on mammals shows an array of pictures, not just one).  I'm not saying the picture is not a valid representation, just not valid as the sole representation.  As there are no other pictures on here to represent the concept of hardcore pornography, it is misleading.  If there were a layout of pictures, and the article discussed different types of HC pornography, then I'll assume this picture would be a good representation of gay pornography (I'll defer to others on that point) but as the only picture, it's not really representing the whole concept.


 * It is a picture of "The filming of a hardcore movie", and not an example of hardcore pornography itself. Atom (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But your argument that this photo isn't pornographic or it is not simply a representation of the subset of gay pornography is confusing (especially after you wrote "I feel that the image IS representative of a subset of hardcore pornography. For one, if it were there to represent gay pornography, that would be a legitimate reason, as that is a sub-category of hardcore pornography.") I can't agree with your description of the picture, "As it is, it is a photograph of someone (Lucas) filming hardcore pornography.  It is not a photo of hardcore pornpgraphy(sic), or an example of a specific genre of harcore(sic) pornography." as not pornographic, or not representing gay hardcore pornography, just because of the fact that there is someone filming the scene in the photo.  A photo of someone with a camera filming a porn scene (of any genre) in which you do not see graphic content would fit that definition, but when the picture shows not only the act of making the hardcore pornography, but the act being filmed itself, that's pornographic. If I were to crop out the cameraman, it would be a picture of 2 men performing a sexual act.  That there is a cameraman filming it in this picture doesn't make that not so. No major news outlet would print or carry the photo and claim it wasn't.  And this is off-point, and not really central to the discussion.  If you were writing that this is a good photo for use with a section on pornographic film making, I'd whole-heatedly agree, but it's still pornographic. (which is fine, especially when we are discussing it as a picture to represent hardcore pornography).
 * Different perspectives I guess. Well, cropping out the filmaker would be a different perspective for sure.  In that case, you are left with sa photo that without caption or information leaves little facts and lots to the imagination.  The two people seem to be men.  But with Female to Male transgendered not uncommon (where I am) you really could not be sure.  Are they engaged in a sex act?  Well, that would all be imagination.  There is nothing obscene or graphic, or even hardcore about what they are doing.  (Is standing on your hands hardcore?). I am interested in understanding why you think it is pornographic.  Because there are two men?  Because they seem to be naked?  Because one person seems to have their face touching the other person?  Because one person is doing a handstand?  Because it is on a bed?  I suspect that a major news organization could successfully print -- but that they would decline because of the perception by their readers similar to your expressed view and outrage over what they thought they were seeing.  But, for that matter, when is the last time you saw a major news organization show an image on print of two men kissing each other?  Would that be pornographic, or just not newsworthy?  Atom (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Point 3) As for the Miller Test reference, is that valid here? That's a specific US Test for obscenity made prior to the emergence of the Internets.  I'm not certain our friends in Denmark or Japan would even care about that. The whole point of that test is that there are some places where this particular photo would be viewed as obscene and others where it would not (the test takes into account local sensibilities as well as national conscience).  But it really has nothing to do with what I'm saying.   This is not a discussion about this picture's specific value to the article weighted against it's obscene nature.


 * The reference to the Miller test is because Wikipedia servers are based in the State of Florida within the United States. The jurisdiction regarding free speech and obscenity is based on Florida, and U.S. Law.  The Florida law on obscenity can be less restrictive than the federal law, but not more restrictive, as the first amendment to the constitution (on which case law such as the Miller Test is based on) may not be restricted by an individual state.  Goung out to the INternet is more difficult.  Generally speaking most legal jurisdictions pursue the law as it applies at the location where the traffic is generated.  Of course they need not be limited to that.  In some places content from Wikipedia may be against the law within that jurisdiction.  As far as I know though, no one has pursued Wikipedia for content that did not violate Florida or U.S. law, but did their own laws.  I assure you, the Miller test applies directly to Internet content, including Wikipedia.  The First amendment guarantees apply in any U.S. state, in any format.  As for how it would be applied in Denmark or Japan??  My guess is that they do not have jurisdiction to people within the U.S.  They probably do have jurisdiction to people who view illegal content in their own jurisdiction.  I would be willing to bet that the images are different on the foreign language versions of Wikipedia.  Denmark and Japan and Norway and Czech  Atom (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Miller Test is relevant because Wikipedia servers are hosted in the US. The images have to be legal - it doesn't matter where the readers are. Mdwh (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm simply stating that the picture, as a single photo, does not represent the general concept of hardcore pornography adequately and needs to be removed until it it is added to an array of others.--Feddx (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx


 * I respect your opinion, I am sorry to disagree about its applicability. I see it as bringing useful information to the article whether it is perceived as a picture of a film being made, or as an example of gay porn.  If you feel that this sways the article out of balance, and does not represent a neutral POV, then we can add a POV tag to the article until the situation can be remedied.  Atom (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A square has a special property. I'm not sure that "two men" makes it a special property - it's no more special than "a man and a woman". The analogy would be complaining about a rectangle that's 100 pixels by 50 pixels, because someone might think that all rectangles must be exactly that ratio. You could make this argument about just about any picture on any Wikipedia article. If we think it's a problem, the answer is to add more pictures to show the range. Mdwh (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said. Atom (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Mdwh and Atom. Saying that unless we can illustrate the full range of an article, we can't illustrate it at all is a strawman argument that is played too often. That's like saying, "We can't have one photo of Madonna unless we have photos throughout her entire career, since that one look may not be representative, or even current." We use what we have. Fact is, this is a major porn studio making a hardcore film. Besides, hits to the page on a daily basis are far high since the photo has been included. You can see an analysis pre-photo in March, versus in June. Much higher daily average. -- David  Shankbone  23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So then is the opposite true? Without the photo, the article cannot be understood? Is this photo then to be judged invaluable to the understanding of the article? And the Madonna analogy is off point. Madonna is one human being. There simply isn't 1 example of hardcore pornography.  I think the mammal analogy is more on point. (Why are there many pictures of mammals on the mammal page? Or how about an article about colour with only a representation of one colour, say brown? If someone argued their needed to be be more colour to make the article more understandable, would this also be a "straw man" argument?). If the concept of the article is to be understood and it needs to have a visual to help understand it, one picture, of anything, will not suffice. This article needs more photos as examples or again (as stated before) the picture is misleading.


 * I apologize for my assumption that it is two men. Let's, for argument's sake say it's two people (I'll assume they are people but I don't know subjects or the artist so one or both may be shaven apes which would make it a far more interesting photo).  This is a picture of a camera person (again an assumption) filming the two subjects in either a genuine or simulated act of analingus or possibly cunnilingus (the assumption here is that it's the standing subject's face-analog in the inverted subject's buttocks-analog). Analingus and cunnilingus, whether simulated or actual, are sexual acts.  If this is not pornography, or the depiction of pornography, then why is it a solely necessary in an article to "represent" all hardcore pornography?


 * I was not aware that increasing an article's "page hits" was the aim of adding content to a Wikipedia article. I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to present reader composed articles to enlighten and educate factually about the entire subject. A page's popularity has nothing to do with it's encyclopedic value. I know some of the best written articles on Wikipedia get very few page visits, but are a wealth of insight and information.


 * All of that is actually irrelevant. I don't care to talk of obscenity/pornography and what constitutes it. My point was simply this one photo is not, as a singularity, enough of an image to properly exemplify the concept of hardcore pornography. And I've never asked the photo to be removed for content. But I would liketo see it be put with a group of photos that would more fully represent the subject. Alone it is misleading, along with other pictures it could enhance the article's content.


 * I'm currently trying to reach old contacts in the industry to see if I can get permission to use an acceptable image or images to flesh-out the photo array. If I can get agreeable content that meets all guidelines, hopefully it will satisfy all parties. And also, how about it Mr Shankbone? I was told to ask you if you could help with another picture to help with this argument. What else do you have that may add to this article and show us hardcore porn in a different light than just this photo? --Feddx (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx

New image added
Added a new image from the Wikipedia Commons--Feddx (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx

Here are my comments. I like the image, and have no problems with it, but do have concerns.

1) The image isn't hardcore, at least some people might argue that. You could counter that it is a picture of a hardcore film being made, if that statement is true.  (It might be a picture of a standard porno film being made, or softcore.)

2) The image is uploaded from Flikr, and there seem to be alot of copyrighted images that get transferred from Flikr. I note than the photographer, Larry Knowles, charges for access a photo set where this image is included.  One would think that he might object.  Also, the photograph is not credited to him as the photographer (on the common site).  .  The image is credited to "The Naughty American" which I think is him.  But, better to send him and email and ask him if he is okay with the images use.

3) Of the three images, I like slightly better.

Atom (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input, I'll contact Mr. Knowles this evening to see if these photos are ok'ed to be used for this article as part of Wikipedia Commons.


 * Also, through an odd series of events, I've just gotten off the phone with William Margold a recognized expert in the history and study of pornography, and an ardent pro-porn activist, who graciously has agreed to allow me to use materials from his personal website  for use here on Wikipedia (the downside is that now I have to figure out how to get it on the wiki commons or Wikipedia and have it cited that the owner and copyright holder has given it to Wikipedia without any of the "speedy deletion" warnings that are associated, but it's a fare trade off I think though).  I'm leaning toward this picture  as it is a picture taken during a hardcore photo shoot, that is more candid but not explicitly obscene. This would satisfy many of the previous requirements brought up by those that have a problem with any picture being up here.


 * Changed the image to Atom's suggested picture, as I'm in agreement that it's just better. Added more "hardcore photo" from above (Thank you Bill Margold!!) It probably needs to be moved around, but I'm new at this editing game. Thank you all for your help.--Feddx (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx


 * I'm also trying to get a few more pictures for this article as well.--Feddx (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx
 * The second one I like. The first one I think shouldn't be here.  Also, Feddx, you need to have Margold go through WP:OTRS to release those photos or they will be deleted.  -- David  Shankbone  23:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An email was sent yesterday to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org (the at and the dot are @ and . respectively to prevent spam emailing) prior to it being uploaded to the server (after a few misfires). Also I have yet to get a hold of Mr. Knowles for more assurance of permissions, and to get more detail about the photo. I'll keep at it though. Thank you.--Feddx (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx

Image change
I am reverting the image once again. It was replaced with a similar image from the same image set.

I assume good faith with the anon IP that changed the image to another image in the same set. Their are a couple problems with that.

1) There are three users who have been discussing and working thorugh the image son the talk page for the past week or so. You came in and changed one of the images without any prior discussion.  This essentially steps on our toes.  We welcome your opinions on the image, feel free to suggest changing them and we can discuss it.

2) The photographer that provided the set of images, including the one that you removed to replace with your preference is one of the three people discussing the images. He placed that image in the article.  I assume, although I could be wrong, that he placed that image from his image set, rather than the one you chose, or another, because he prefferred that one for some reason.  I know I prefer the previous image as well.

Atom (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologise as I was unaware of a discussion. However, it's from the same photographer and set of photos, only it includes more of the background crew in the shot (script, makeup personnel etc.) and the production side of the article's topic. The main criticism I had was that the previous photo did not depict anything the first two didn't already cover, and felt that there's no harm in switching to a different shot in the series that reveals more information that would be of interest to the reader. It's important to show that most often it's a production worked on by a team of people, not just two or three people filming themselves. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 58.172.32.51 Let's not get into some silly edit war. Let's put the original photo back (Number 6 in the series), and if you feel the need for changing the photo that has been up, then open an RfC. Ok?  Hold off on further edits until a consensus is reached.
 * Also why not create a user account? While Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it has always seemed that anonymous are under more scrutiny. --Feddx (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx
 * I agree. We can talk about other options, which is what we were doing before you (58.172.32.51) decided to help out.  I'd rather talk about it than have the images change every time a new editor finds the article and has a different preference.  Atom (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit reverted. Please, no more changes until a consensus is reached here or through the resolution of an RfC if need be.
 * I have no problem with Image 3 being used as long as it's agreed to here by everyone (Atom, while I appreciate Shankbone's work to get his picture here, and his opinion on this is valuable, he is only one person. He shouldn't have the final say). There has been some contention over Image 6, and if people here agree that it is more representative of the article then so-be-it. But it must be discussed here first to see if a consensus can be reached.  If we cannot get resolution, then it should be submitted as an RfC to see what the community-at-large's opinion is.  --Feddx (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx


 * I am flexible. In general, firstly, I respect a photographers art.  So, their vision on a photograph has some pertinence.  On the other hand, I think that other people have better perspective on where the art is most appropriate.  It is easy for a creative person to lose perspective and have a conflict of interest.  It is natural for someone to be attached to the work, and something they worked hard to produce.  That is my opinion, not some kind of law.  In this specific case, the artist provided a set of photographs, and his preference about which one he liked best in this article is probably for a good reason.
 * Speaking for myself, I liked that image (Image 6) the best, as it is edgy, in that it is a photo of the filming of hardcore, and looks like on the surface the image is of hardcore, and yet it is not hardcore, and not obscene. The other images being presented, although having many positive characteristics, do not provide that same look of being hardcore while still being useable within wikipedia (not obscene).  Atom (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with either Image 3 or Image 6 (Image 5 is ok, just not for this article on HC Porn, and I believe it's being used in two other articles currently: Pornography and Pornographic Actor).--Feddx (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx
 * I support 3 but not 6 as it does not show an aspect not already covered by the first two photos, and 3 shows much more of the production side which is important. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It does seem that everyone is at least on the same page. Atom has stated that he prefers 6 but is flexible with 3 and Feddx is fine with either. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I altered Shankbone's edit. Knowles picture was restored and placed on the right under the Margold picture. If your contention is that the picture shouldn't be on the left, then move it to the right (which I have done).  But from now on please discuss possible objections and desired edits here.  This discussion has been ongoing, and if the edits continue (including the changing of Shankbone's photo), prior to a consensus being reached, we will then have to find another means of solving this.--Feddx (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx
 * Agreed, and it seems Shankbone's photo has been ressolved. As the editors are fine with 3 but some have objected to 6, it can be agreed upon in switching to 3. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I object. We are putting hardcore porn photos on the article that are straight, but for some reason trying to lighten the gay one.  I will support the use of 6 or 7, but not 3.  There's no reason for a switch, though.  With the use of a straight one that is more graphic than the gay one, the only reason why the gay one is now under discussion is clearly because...it is gay.  -- David  Shankbone  23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like we will leave it at 6. No consensus for changing it.  Atom (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I don't see consensus for chainging to 7 either.  I have to admit, I like 6 better.  Atom (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6 has no consensus, however, particularly from 64.212.80.6 and other editors. Instead of removing it entirely, a switch to 3 or 7 is instead a compromise between the two. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Drive-by removals don't count, but I'm fine with 6 or 7. -- David  Shankbone  00:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6 has been up for a long time. It is the image with standing consensus.  The other two are new, and so far no one has said they want to remove them.  image 3 and image 7 have been suggested to replace 6 by one person, or another, but there has been no consensus for that, just one person or two suggesting it.  Atom (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Contrary to apparent popular belief, this article should not be a battleground for straight versus gay. If you are concerned that the "straight" picture is more hardcore than the "gay" then I believe your focus is misplaced. Who cares?  I don't, and if others do, well then they are also missing the point.
 * Also if obscenity is a concern for the people who run the Wikipedia servers, then I'm not sure if 7 is appropriate. The picture chosen from Bill Margold was intentionally not that graphic. There is no real visible genitalia, but the reader/viewer knows this is a picture from a hardcore pornographic photo shoot, and is therefor correctly representative of the article.
 * Agreed, and this was why the arguments against 3 (that it was too soft) were difficult to understand. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Picture 6 was up for a while; although no consensus has been reached, please leave 6 up until either a consensus is reached here or an RfC can be submitted to determine what is best for the article. Can we all agree to that instead of the continual edits?--Feddx (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx
 * I agree. Image 6 should stay up until we agree to change.  It is good because it is not obscene.  7 is not obscene either, but as it shows genitals, may be harder to defend (people will remove it constantly). Atom (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also agreed. However, it isn't a neutral stance to have 6 up during the discussion, if there is a disagreement. It may have been there a week or so, but the article has had no photos for most of the time. It would be neutral to remove 6, until a consensus is reached. There doesn't seem to be a dispute here, or an edit war, but it does seem more time is needed now that David Shankbone has returned. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is not an issue here. The reason 6 is up is because it has been in the article a long time (preceded the other images even).  It is the default consensus image -- we don't remove it just because one person complains, or because no one can agree whether to change it or not.  If someone where to throw in a new image, and there was disagreement about whether it should be there, or not, then we would probably remove until there was a consensus -- that was not the case with 6.  Atom (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though it was an attempt incorporate his point of view for the time being. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Porn Set Photos and Larry Knowles
I just received an email from Mr. Knowles telling me that indeed, the photos in question are available for use under the Creative Commons License. I also learned that the photos accompany an article called "One Fine Day on a Porn Set" []. The talent in the photo are Mikey Butders and Cali Chase for The Naughty American website. The Director of the shoot was Brett Brando and the photo(s) we have seen are taken by Larry Knowles, who wrote the article and took pictures to describe the quirkiness of the goings on behind-the-scenes on a porno set. The photographer we see pictured in the photos is only identified as Nicole in the article.--Feddx (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx

I wonder if you would consider moving more of the detail fom the caption, to the image itself Here and/or  on its description and talk pages. That is the best place to attribute the photographer and identify the participants. That way any usage anyplace else will have that data. Also, the caption of the article should focus on a brief description, and how it relates to the article. I don't see any problem with attributing the artist on the caption too, however. That is usually left off also, but it is up to the discretion of the editors, as in some instances the photographer requires attribution at each usage. (See Captions guidelines)   Atom (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My thought too. I tried to and just couldn't figure out how to edit the table or the image page (I see no, "edit this page" tab). If someone would take care of that, and feel free to edit the caption here as well, just citing the original article, I'd appreciate it.  Thank you.--Feddx (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx


 * I updated the info on Commons. Now I will update the Caption. Atom (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Image Consensus
A dispute over the current images used in this article needs a resolution by consensus. Which image(s) should be used for this article to properly represent the sensitive subject of the article without being obscene. Please try to read all of the earlier discussion to get a clear view before asking questions or posing opinions that were previously discussed.--Feddx (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx


 * Please wait a couple of days. There is no clear dispute here, and it may not be necessary. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't perceive a dispute at this time. We welcome other opinions, of course. I think there is an existing consensus for the current images. Several people have made suggestions on changes, but none that have risen to the level of gaining acceptance by all users participating.

The current images are: Image:Bearly Decent Bill Drea Bear-1980-82.jpg, Image:Porn Set 5.jpg and Image:The making of an adult film 6 by David Shankbone.JPG

Images that have been discussed, but failed to gain consensus include: Image:The making of an adult film 3 by David Shankbone.jpg and Image:The making of an adult film 7 by David Shankbone.JPG and one person mentioned Image:The making of an adult film 5 by David Shankbone.jpg

Personally I don't see why we would want to change from image 6, it is perfect. Atom (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand then what the influx of new opinions would hurt here. If there wasn't a problem with consensus, then why all the changes in the last day? (I believe there were 4 image edits today) Shankbone is stuck on 6 or 7 for his reasons stated above, Atom likes 6 or 3, the anons vascilate between 3, 6, and 7 (and they are right in the fact that there WAS problem with 6 earlier.  Many people voiced their opinion before, but simply have not continued to contribute. I understand you feel it's perfect Atom, but you are only one person.).  I feel that 7 is too graphic, and could be problematic.


 * A consensus has not been reached. And I feel pretty confident that others contributing to the discussion will only help this out. So why not do a WP:RfC? I'm not sure everyone feels so strongly as you that 6 is perfect. --Feddx (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize that I am only one editor. The image 6 has been on the article the longest.  There was no impetus to change it until you came along.  I respect your opinion to have a different one, although I don't understand why.  Why don;t we add images, why remove it?  Other people have suggested images to replace it only because you expressed a desire to replace it.  There has been no solid consensus for replacement.  You wanted to add additinal images, and no one had a problem with that.  If you are really the only one that has any desire to replace it, then as the image with standing consensus, it should stay.  Asking for other opinions is never a problem.  The issue we want to look out for though is dealing with the homophobia that too many editors seem to have.  Atom (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Feddx, there's no need to create conflict if none exists. David Shankbone stated that he took hundreds of photos so it would be relatively easy for him to find one that isn't 6, but is identical in terms of the aspects expressed by Atom (looks hardcore but isn't), and shows the production side. This would satisfy all aspects, including the ones expressed by anons. Let's give him the time to find one that fits the three criteria, as that would put it to rest. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feddx (talk • contribs)


 * A RfC is probably overreacting, as there hasn't been a dispute. David switched to 7, which were the changes you refer to, but it doesn't seem that anyone was reverting each other. As everyone has stated that they are flexible, there's no reason that there isn't a photo that no one objects to. This probably won't be 6, as it has run into problems, or perhaps 3, but David has returned and should have an opportunity to respond (and no doubt has a range of alternative photos to suggest). If in a couple of weeks there is a dispute, then a RfC may be necessary. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have compiled a list of all the image edits on this page since the introduction of the Shankbone Image 6 here. As you can see, there have bee a total of 92 edits to the images on this page, 76 directly dealing with Image 6,and 61 occurring prior to me looking at this page. To address the statement that "There was no impetus to change it until you came along." (referring to me); there are several editors that have voiced opinions against the image for one reason or another prior to me being here (see here), and there have been several deletions and reversions of the image as well. So that statement is not correct. There was an impetus prior to me being here, and there is evidence to back that up.


 * I have only ever asserted that the photo The making of an adult film 6 by David Shankbone.JPG was not a good representation for the article as a single image, and the only time I suggested removing it was when there was no other image in the article. Since then I've been working to add images, and content from contacts in the industry. In fact I've restored this image a few times (once at your behest Atomaton) and I've been working with others here on the discussion page trying to improve the article. I've stated publicly here that I would be fine with this photo staying on the page. I have no desire to see the picture removed now, so please don't imply that the reason for the RfC would be to do that.  I've never removed content or changed anything without discussing it here first.


 * The point of this is there has been no consensus on the images (the constant editing activity over the past month is proof enough of that), other than agreeing that one of the photos from Shankbone should be used (or that seems to be the current consensus for the time being). The edits and revisions between the images over the last few days bear me out on this. A WP:RfC can only help solidify the content and improve the article.  I've stated my opinion but if I need to repeat it,  I am fine with Image 6 or Image 3 from Shankbone, and keeping the other 2 images  as well (the current configuration of Image:Bearly Decent Bill Drea Bear-1980-82.jpg, Image:Porn Set 5.jpg and Image:The making of an adult film 6 by David Shankbone.JPG is good for now).  If we all decide by a consensus here that any of the images should go or new ones should be added then so-be-it. I'll wait a week or so before reopening the RfC, but I still feel there needs to be other input as well.


 * What I don't want is an edit war, or a pissing contest for that matter. Neither will do anything to improve the content of the article.--Feddx (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, since you started participating, there have been two added photos, and the image that you don't like has moved from lede image, to a section image. The image you brought into the article is now the lede.  I'm not sure I understand what your objections to image 6 are.  I've stated why I see it as a good image.  Even though I don't know why anyone would object to it I've stated that adding other images would not be a bad thing.  What is it about that specific image that bothers you that it must be removed?  I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'd just like to understand as my perceptions of the image are that it is perfect for the article.  Is your objection that the image shows two men?  Or is it because they seem to be involved in a sex act?  Or is it that it is an image of people filming a hardcore movie, rather than being a hardcore photo itself?  Are you one of the people in the photo, and you'd rather not be on Wikipedia?  You have a phobia about handstands?  (Sorry to be silly -- just a little humor to lighten things up).  Seriously, I'm not sure I understand what objections you have.  The image 7 doesn't appear to be as good of an image to me.  Atom (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The photo would have the same objections if it were a man and a woman. The gender of the persons depicted has never been objected to, only the specific content (for reasons stated in the discussion above and in the revision list by Feddx). To clarify though, you prefer 6 but would be fine with 7? 58.172.32.51 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Apologies up front for the length of this, but I feel like I have to clarify with repetitiveness to be understood.)


 * Atomaton, I have stated this several times simply but apparently it still isn't being clearly communicated; I have NO problem with Image 6 as it is in the article now. (See quotes from16:34 8 August 2008,"I'm fine with either Image 3 or Image 6 (Image 5 is ok, just not for this article on HC Porn, and I believe it's being used in two other articles currently: Pornography and Pornographic Actor)." ; from 21:33 15 August 2008:"I've stated publicly here that I would be fine with this photo staying on the page.",and  "I've stated my opinion but if I need to repeat it,  I am fine with Image 6 or Image 3 from Shankbone, and keeping the other 2 images  as well...").  Again, I have no problem with any of the images in the article, including Image 6 from Shankbone.  Meaning that I would leave Image 6 in the article because I have no problem with it in the article now.  I would appreciate you no longer implying (or saying outright) that I have a problem with Image 6, or that I'm the only one that has brought up objections to the image. Both of these implications (or statements) are incorrect, and would mislead the casual reader of this discussion.  I was hoping that the detailed posts yesterday would have cleared that up, but unfortunately I was incorrect.  I have never written that picture 6 should be removed from the article since more photos were added. So again, I do not want Image 6 removed (AS stated earlier I have readded it to the article a few times. If I thought it so objectionable, why would I have done that?)


 * The ONLY problem I ever had with Image 6 was as a sole photographic representation of the article on Hardcore Pornography it was misleading and therefore not representative. Meaning that if there was only one photo on this page, I'm not sure I'd want it to be Image 6 (or ANY other image for that matter).  To restate this, when Image 6 was the only image on the page, my objection was there needed to be more photos to better represent the article (I wrote that over and over again, I won't cite the exact quotes here, but please feel free to read my posts prior to the addition of other images to verify). The current contention with Image 6 for whatever reason, is from several people (including 58.172.32.51, who has changed the image and I've had to revert it). 58.172.32.51 and I are aware that the photo has met with contention from others (NOT ME!! Again I'll state that I have no problem with Image 6 in the article right now.  I'm fine with Image 6 in the article. I do not want to remove image 6 from the article. Clear enough yet?) and have simply brought it up when people on this talk page incorrectly stated that there has either been no objection to the photo or that I have been the only one to contest the article's inclusion in the page (Again, I do not want to remove Image 6 from the article).  These are fallacious statements, and I thought I'd posted enough evidence to prove that. Again though, apparently I was incorrect.


 * And to address some of the claims in your reply:
 * - I'm not even sure I ever saw the article with Image 6 as the lede photo (Shankbone moved it a few hours prior to me visiting the page and posting to the talk page on 4 August 2008).
 * - The reason that there are 2 new images in this article is because I put them in, and one of them was at your suggestion ( Porn Set 5.jpg). I spoke to the photographers/copyright owners, and I made sure that all was done correctly to allow them to be used.  If a consensus is reached they should be moved or need to be removed, I'm completely fine with that, as long as the arguments against them being in the article make sense, and that all edits are discussed here first to allow people to have their say.  I didn't put them here for anything other than to improve the article.  I don't care that they are the lede, and I truly don't care if anyone "likes" them.  They are representative of the article and that's the only reason for adding them. If they were being removed or vandalized constanly, I think I'd consider that there was at least some resistance to them being here.
 * - It is only for clarity that I'll write this again: I have no objection to Image 6 being in the article. I don't want it removed.  The ONLY time I objected to the image is when it was the only image, and I felt it was misrepresentative. I don't care what it shows. It is one photo and that simply not enough to show the spectrum that is Hardcore Pornography. (In fact I suggested that it may be a photo of shaven apes, I thought that was funny). Some have objected that it is either too graphic, or too narrow in its focus.  I LIKE that it's a bit graphic, it is a picture of a sex act (according to Shankbone's own posts about it here on this talk page) and therefore it IS hardcore pornography, and represents the article well.  With the other pictures on this page, it is good for the article.
 * - As for your inability to comprehend other's objections to Image 6, even when they wrote reasons and opinions on it, I cannot say why this is; other than to offer that I've repeatedly written that I do not want to remove Image 6, and you are under the impression that I do, and that I still have an objection to it. You've been oblivious of written statements such as, "I've stated publicly here that I would be fine with this photo staying on the page. I have no desire to see the picture removed now, so please don't imply that the reason for the RfC would be to do that.  I've never removed content or changed anything without discussing it here first." that I write on this page over and over. When I initially DID object to the photo being here, I wrote such things as, "If anyone can provide statistical data as to the breakdown of which acts are the most prevalent in hardcore pornography over say the last 30 years, or provide what percentage of porn made is straight, bi, gay, transgendered, zoophilia, etc. and cite it for the community, (which would satisfy the non-original research guidelines of Wikipedia) then a more representative picture can be chosen, or several perhaps.  Until then, the picture should probably be removed.", "The difference here is that there are many different categorizations of hardcore pornography, and is not easily represented by one picture.", "I just feel that one picture that is by your admission (and I'm sure others) not representative of what constitutes a majority of hardcore porn, should not be used.",  "As there are no other pictures on here to represent the concept of hardcore pornography, it is misleading.  If there were a layout of pictures, and the article discussed different types of HC pornography, then I'll assume this picture would be a good representation of gay pornography (I'll defer to others on that point) but as the only picture, it's not really representing the whole concept.", "I'm simply stating that the picture, as a single photo, does not represent the general concept of hardcore pornography adequately and needs to be removed until it it is added to an array of others.", or "If the concept of the article is to be understood and it needs to have a visual to help understand it, one picture, of anything, will not suffice. This article needs more photos as examples or again (as stated before) the picture is misleading.", and now you repeatedly write that you don't know what my objection is (actually was.  AGAIN I write that I have no objection to the picture being in this atricle NOW that there are other images). I'm not trying to be confrontational either. But I feel I've been pretty clear that I don't want Image 6 removed now, and you still seem to think that I do. Is there a correlation?  I cannot answer that.


 * So to recap:
 * - I don't want Image 6 removed; If a consensus is reached on Image 3 I'm ok with that too (Not with Image 7)
 * Support for 3 as well, or 7 or any other (but not 6, for reasons stated above). Atom has stated that whilst he feels 6 is perfect, he is flexible, and is fine with whichever David chooses. This is appreciated. Again, let's wait for David, he has said he has hundreds of photos. There's no reason that there isn't one (if not many) that all agree with. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * - As I am ok with Image 6, I have no objections to it. There's no longer any need to speculate on the reason(s) for my objection to it; Others have had objections to Image 6. Feel free to ask them why they object
 * - Please refrain from future implications or statements that I do object to image 6. It's tiring to me to have to repeat that I don't over and over, and it is an outright misrepresentation.
 * I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Thank you--Feddx (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies to you. I think it is clear that you have no objections to Image 6.
 * Since yourself, myself, Shankbone and others are okay with image 6, and only one anon editor does not like image 6, let's just leave it in there and stop wasting time on it.
 * I think the two images you suggested are great! You have taken great time and energy to work with other editors, and I know I appreciate it.  Atom (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Criteria? Arbitrary break
Hey guys - so just by skimming the discussion, it appears a new photo is desired? Can someone please sketch out the criteria and I will try to upload something that meets it? -- David  Shankbone  12:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a couple, David: that it has the appearance of hardcore but with no genitals showing (which was the objection to 7), not narrow in focus (objections to 6 were that it is niche, not representative etc.). Also, some photos in the series show the production side of things, such as in 3 and 5, so it would be good to include that if possible. Objections to 5 were that it was too soft and the objection to 3 came from yourself. 3, 5, 6, 7 were out for different reasons, but if the reasons are taken into consideration when finding a new photo there shouldn't be any objections to it. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the article as it is. If we exaonded the text from being regional to also describing different Genre's of Hardcore, then additional photos could possible be in those sections.  But, as it is, do we put a photo for each region?  I think, for the moment, the article is okay, and needs no more photos.  Atom (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he is referring to one all four of us can agree to, and I just submitted #15 as a compromise. Pretty good one, too - shows motioning by the director, no genitals, clearly hardcore filming...production, etc. How about this to replace? -- David  Shankbone  23:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, 15 is a more appropriate photo, and the various objections to 3, 5, 6, 7 are not relevant to 15. 58.172.32.51 (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think 15 fits the criteria. Atom (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If 6 needs to go then the image to the right (15) seems suitable. Anyone? Anyone? Beuller? (waits for the anons to come out of hiding)--Feddx (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Child Friendly?
I'm doing a report for school, and another Wikipedia page lead me to this one when mentioning a UK law. While I wasn't too interested in reading the page throughly to see if the images were even needed, I do feel that an encyclopedia should be work and parent friendly, if not child-friendly. I'm not saying the articles should be written using simple words or censored, but at a glance images, unlike text, will be noticed. I was using Wikipedia because for the nature of my assignment I thought that this website would be safe than a search engine that randomly shows some image results in the text search, and without the chance of a misrepresented site.

--99.50.224.163 (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with your suggestion is that we are a general encyclopedia and all illustrations have to fulfil a test of being valid in such terms, and once we start making exceptions, we are on a slippery slope to who knows where? For this reason, for example, there is strong consensus not to remove images from Depiction of Muhammad to placate one section of our readership; this consensus is based on a long-standing and widely accepted policy. There have been, historically, suggestions to get over this problem, all of which have failed to reach consensus. There is currently a proposal on one article to have a disputed image hidden by default and only viewable by clicking on "Show", but my knowledge of childrens' curiosity is that if they see "click to show", there's only one thing they're going to do. If you want to make such a proposal for all "questionable" images (and who is to decide where the boundary lies?), you should post it here to gain the widest possible input. The problem exists in printed encyclopedias other than those specifically targetted at children, so I wish you luck, but my impression is that it won't happen. Cheers, Rodhull  andemu  20:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As a child, and even now, I restrain my curiosity when there is a strong reason to do so. Looking on a page about pornography, would definitely be one of those times. Another is spoilers that are hidden, about a story I have not finished. There are many times where my curiosity nags at me, even for something simple or without much of a reason. However, I think a chance to think and be warned before viewing would be nice.
 * My report topic is a paper on internet pornography laws to protect children. I chose the argument that pornography is legal in other mediums, so the internet should not be picked on. I do think that random advertisements or misrepresented links are wrong, including sites that automatically show those images without any warning. I chose this side because censorship and laws governing the internet would suck. However, a person should be allowed to choose and know before seeing something they may not want to. I have yet to learn of a way to forget a specific image, while sill retaining the information of what not to ever do again. --99.14.209.69 (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bearly Legal pic was removed because it does not conform with Wikipedia's stated policy with regard to the safety of the site for children. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Schools for more information. The picture is unnecessary and doesn't even "fit" with the topic. A cover of an adult film (which does not need to portray any form of sexual contact) would suffice to describe the topic itself.


 * Sorry. No one desires to offend you. A reading of the page you reference [Wikipedia:FAQ/Schools#Is_it_a_safe_environment_for_young_people.3F|Is it a safe environment for young people]

"Wikipedia has similar safety issues to other equally open environments. Participation in Wikipedia requires youths to know basic Internet safety practices " "Wikipedia is not bowdlerized or censored. It contains articles on subjects such as racial slurs, controversial political and religious groups and movements, and sexual acts." (emphasis is mine) "Wikipedia can be configured to hide these images if needed." I think perhaps you misunderstand. Wikipedia is an uncensored encyclopedia. For the most part everything in it is factual. If there are things that you do now wish your child to know or understand about the world, then you should monitor their use of Wikipedia like you do other Internet sites. If you don't want them to know about sexual matters such as pregnancy, circumcision, ejaculation and such then you should not let them go to those pages. We aren't going to take them off because your child is not ready to learn about them yet. If it is strictly the images that offend you, then you can turn those off. Atom (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Legality
It says: * West Germany in 1976. (East Germany, which never legalized hardcore pornography, was unified with West Germany in 1990.) * Denmark in 1980 * Sweden in 1990 * United Kingdom in 2000 * Norway in 2006"

That sounds pretty bogus. For example, it says at [] that Denmark was the first country in the world to legalize pornography in 1969. The 2000 and 2006 dates I cannot believe at all. If no-one provides sources for those years, I will remove them altogether. –Kloth (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph deleted for the aforementioned reasons. –Kloth (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if either statement about Denmark is true, but the 1969 is for porn in general, it doesn't specify hardcore, so the sentences aren't necessarily icconsistent. I'm not sure why you can't believe the 2000 and 2006 dates - the date for the UK is correct (I have added sources), and actually claims that as of 2006, it's still banned in Norway. Btw, you can also use the  to mark unsourced statements as a warning in the text, before deleting them. Mdwh (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Images, redux
the image currently here featuring intercourse is up for deletion, and will probably be deleted. however, even if its not, its inappropriate for this article. An image here should be one that would be appropriate for hardcore pornography, but not so much for pornographic film or pornography. thus, it should be a common or avearage image from a hardcore pornographic work produced since the term was coined. this image is a highly unusual choice, its focus is on raunchy, debauched humor, hardcore content is secondary, and doesnt adequately portray the subject. If we had an article on humor in pornography, it would be ideal for that. the commons has this File:Pierre Woodman at work in Australia.png, which is better. the image we have here from a porn set is good too, i suppose. sorry to add more fuel to the fire, but i really think its got to go. and if we dont have an image from an actual hardcore porn work thats free use, then this article just wont have an image like that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a pretty good image featuring explicit depiction of penetration and oral sex at File:Strap-on pegging.jpg. I realise it's not a professional pornographic production, just an amateur photo, but I think it'll do better than File:Pierre Woodman at work in Australia.png, which doesn't show typical characteristics of hardcore pornography (you can't even really tell whether they're making a hardcore or softcore film). Dcoetzee 06:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed text about hotels and Mitt Romney
I've removed this text from the article because it is not about "hardcore" pornography. The videos offered in Marriott hotels are certainly not hardcore.


 * Recently, several prominent people in the porn industry have said that due to internet and free competition, porn sales are far below those that are reported. Paul Fishbein of trade magazine Adult Video News said that due to free and amateur Internet competition that rental sales are off 10 percent to 15 percent.
 * Hardcore porn remains controversial in the United States, and is used as a campaign issue for politicians. Mitt Romney decried the "cesspool" of pornography, but came under fire from social conservatives, including Tony Perkins, because he sat on the board of Marriott International, whose hotels profit from porn movies. Pay-per-view pornography generates a lot of revenue for hotels. Anti-porn activist John L. Harmer, who served as California's lieutenant governor under Ronald Reagan, estimated up to $500 million is generated industrywide.

Maybe some of this could/should be used in Pornography in the United States. Gronky (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Me
Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.249 (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Jaden Wenzil Gaten Rondganger (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Image for hardcore porn?
Should there be an image in hardcore instead of none? or is there a reason there is not one. (Mudak568 (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)) Mudak568 (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Why this Peter Pangyeom (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. Enjoyer of World (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

History?
Doesn't this article need a history section? Aditya (talk • contribs) 12:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline of the porn industry
We have some figures on the size and turnover of the porn industry which are now over a decade out of date. In recent years, the free availability of porn on the Internet has made making pornography more and more difficult to monetize, and I would expect this to be reflected in the sales and production figures. This definitely merits a section in this article: would anyone be interested in writing it? -- The Anome (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)