Talk:Interracial pornography

Merge
For discussion, please see Talk:Interracial fetish. NicM 08:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
 * I'm against a merge. The article Pornography is already very large, and interracial poronography is a completely different matter from social/psychological/intellectual etc. viewpoints. 惑乱 分からん 15:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No merge. This is a subgenre. --Behemoth 10:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dwanyewest 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Ethnicity of performers in pornography should be merged with Interracial porn as many of the topics overlap

Semi-protect
Should this page be semi-protected for new and anonymous users? It seems as a magnet for disputes, personal opinions and edit wars. 惑乱 分からん 14:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is all the stuff deleted from this article
Honestly why the hell is all the informations about interracial porn deleted from this article... this use to be a VERY LARGE article and now I only see one paragraph... I'm sick of jerks on wikipedia going around and deleting stuff... if it offends you then dont read it however the information is accurate from what I read. It makes me sick to see morons go around and delete crap... and honestly i dont care if you're white or black if you find the information offending or inappropriate [as in offend ing you in a personal way] THEN DO NOT READ IT. The informations was accurate... and now i see only a parage instead of an entire page of info of all kinds on it and aboutt he different variations and websites. this makes me sick and i feel rules need to be put in place cause i seen all kind of info deleted from wikipedia and from articles like Tookie Williams and such.

Cleanuo
This article makes numerous uncited statements (I find that the statement about white males in the 4th paragraph to be slander and not fact, as I cannot find a source for this so in essence it is hate speech), has far to many stereotypes without actual base, and makes huge leaps with its claims. If it was cited I't be ok, but I am going to tag this page RFD if a cleanup is not had. Oh, and this is Scryer_360 btw, Im just to lazy to sign in (and have no idea where to begin in a cleanup of this). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.152.170.185 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

It's not slanderous, it's the truth. Watch Howard Stern, read interviews with women in the industry, they always say the same thing, doing interracial lowers your value as a performer. It may need to be reworded, but it's simply a fact. Spman 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This article focuses on BM/WF porn and nothing else. Can someone help me improve this article?(At least to B status)You very nice place 23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in this article is up to encyclopedic level of fact verification. Pretty much all of it is subjective and conjecture based upon individual opinion, not verifible research.

there is little salvagable here, delete
Nothing. The whole thing needs to be deleted. What isn't completely wrong in the article is completely speculative and/or makes all sorts of blanket claims it does not at all support.

Reverted edits
I wanted to explain my edits, and why I restored them, to the anonymous editor who has undone them twice. If you think that I'm misunderstanding something, please let me know. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the word white is more widely understood ("a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin", "a human group having light-colored skin, especially of European ancestry") than the word Caucasian ("With the turn away from racial theory in the late 20th century the term 'Caucasian' as a racial classification fell into disuse in Europe. Thus, in the United Kingdom, 'Caucasian' is more likely than in the United States to refer to people from the Caucasus, although it may still be used as a racial classification. In the United States, 'Caucasian' has primarily been used as a distinction based on skin color, for a group commonly referred to as White Americans, as defined by the government and Census Bureau.").
 * Since the article makes allegations about living people (they "have refused, at one time or another, to work with African-Americans"), it has to adhere to Biographies of living persons. I think that making such allegations under a heading of "Racism amongst porn stars" suggests that each person is (or was) a racist, and I don't we can do that unless we can provide reliable sources that say they are/were racists. On the other hand, the section can be titled "Refusal to participate in interracial pornography" because that is a simple description of what the allegation is — that these performers refused to participate in interracial pornography.

what's now left should be merged with pornography
I've removed the vast majority of the utter trash in this wiki, though somestill remains. If every bit is removed the article magically becomes a sinlge sentence or paragraph.68.187.117.71 01:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The refusal and current trends sections
Both are highly speculative, point of view, and do not add much to the topic. Probably would be best if both were dropped as it is specific to a sub genre of one country's type of pornography, and is inapplicable to the broader topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.176.5 (talk • contribs) 21:15, July 9, 2007


 * this whole wiki is written by some black racists that have never seen a movie not pimped out by "blacks on blondes" or something. Seriously read it critically and you will find less than 5% of this article belons on wikipedia, including things like actors that "often" persorm interracial films. How the hell do you define OFTEN? The whole thing is garbage and any attempts to actually make it a valid wikipedia are met with racist editors stuck in their fantasy world.68.187.117.71 04:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What a pathetic, bigoted statement. You have no idea what the ethnicity of wiki editors are. And by the way, most interracial porn is written by, for, and viewed by Caucasians. As for the term "often" you obviously haven't seen any of the movies by the performers in question. If you did, you wouldn't say something so ridiculous. I agree with you on one note though, less than 5% of this article is worthy of inclusion on wikipedia since the assumptions cannot be verified, is filled with POV, and is inherently racist- to all groups involved.

Massive deletions
If the editors who have been deleting sections of this article would like to explain why they have been doing so, I would appreciate hearing their reasons. Words like "garbage", "trash", and "racist" are not helpful.

Some of your edit summaries say that the article is "editorializing", "speculation", "made up", "lies", "libel", and "no proof of claims". Please review Verifiability and Reliable sources. The article cites six different sources. If you don't like what those sources say, find sources that say otherwise and the article will include different points of view. The solution isn't to delete sections because you don't like what they says, or you don't agree with them.

I agree that the article is too US-centric, which is why I put a banner on it that said so. If somebody can help write about non-US interracial pornography, I think that would be very helpful. Again, the solution is to add to the article, not remove from it.

Finally, the fact that nobody has responded to your non-specific and unhelpful gripes on this Talk page does not indicate a consensus that you are right. It only indicates that your comments are too non-specific and unhelpful to warrant a response. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources are dubious. It seems by reading the rest of this talk page that there is consensus to clean this article up, and I believe the revisions removed massive US-centric stereotypical POV.  I think stating interracial porn often plays off racial stereotypes is sufficient.  Do we really need to explicitly say black men have huge penises and Asian women have tiny vaginas? Talmage 05:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This whole article is poorly constructed, poorly cited, and FILLED with POV. The POV omission of racism within the porn industry is academically reprehensible. To "choose" to not work with an entire group of people due to skin color is BY DEFINITION racism. If you have any question of that, talk to your company's HR director or the EEOC. Or look it up in the dictionary or even here racism. To ignore the fact that interracial porn is infested with racism is to ignore the fact that the ocean is filled with water. It is absurd and makes this article absolutely worthless as an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.20.149 (talk • contribs) 10:56, July 14, 2007


 * Please help by improving it. Keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons will require that any allegations of racism be substantiated by reliable sources. The mere fact the somebody refused to participate in interracial sex cannot be used as evidence of racism, as this is considered synthesis, and it not permitted by Wikipedia's policy against original research. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your assumptions are incorrect. #1- they are not simply refusing to participate in interracial sex. They are refusing to take contracts with and work with people who are a different skin color. That is racial discrimination. Period. It is an expression of racism, regardless of your POV. As mentioned above, consult the EEOC or your own human resources division if you work for a company. If the article was discussing personal preference in private life, then that's a different story. BUT THIS IS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE. This is NOT an employer warning an employee not to work with another due to productivity, financial, or organizational needs. It is based upon racial prejudice. #2, synthesis has to do with stretching published works to support a position that is not clear, and constitutes original research. One major flaw of this article is that there ARE NO academic works that have been cited. There is no synthesis, as there is no published citations. You should understand the policies you site before quoting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.20.149 (talk • contribs) 13:35, July 16, 2007


 * First, I don't care what a dictionary, the Human Resources Department, the EEOC, or Jesus Christ says constitutes racism in the workplace. Unless a published source uses the word racism to refer to specific people and their refusal to participate in interracial pornography, writing that they are racists is synthesis and it also violates WP:BLP. Second, "no published citations"? There are references at the end of every paragraph. Finally, if you don't like the article or its lack of academic works — and there was one, until it was deleted last week — help improve it instead of insulting other editors. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course you don't care- except about your own POV. And obviously you have no understanding of the concept of synthesis as is refers to the use of current published works to justify an idea which they are not supporting. As far as your misunderstanding of WP:BLP, the comment that unnamed producers are racist is not applicable to a "biography of a living person." The rule you erroneously quote again applies to something other than what you are trying to prove- named individuals. Also, that policy does not include descriptions of racism. I suggest you study what you are referencing before you attempt to reference it. But again, academic validity an relevance is not something you care about as you stated above. It is thought processes like these and "articles" like this one that continue to make wikipedia the laughing stock of the academic and reference community. This is supposed to be an attempt at a credible encyclopedia not the justification of one editor's POV (which is another violation of wiki policy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.20.149 (talk • contribs) 02:21, July 20, 2007


 * It seems like you can't make up your mind whether it's the performers who are racists ("They are refusing to take contracts with and work with people who are a different skin color. ... It is an expression of racism") or the producers. As I wrote, you can continue to Wikiwhine or you can improve the article. The choice is yours. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as your "references" go let me remind you that sources have to be CREDIBLE to be used:Reliable sources "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."

Citing libelous web pages is violating wiki policy on credible sources and verifiability. But as you stated - you don't care about valid sources. 24.9.20.149 06:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I disagree with the anonymous editor's conclusions. Racism is defined as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.  Choosing not to perform sex scenes based on one's race may have nothing to do with personal feelings towards the race, but rather a fear that in so doing one's future career would suffer.  This might be racial discrimination, but it is not necessarily racism.  An actress could conceivably have a best friend who is of a different race, but yet still not want to film a sex scene with someone of that race for the reasons mentioned above.  In addition, one could choose never to have sex or date someone of a particular race simply because he or she is not typically physically attracted to that race.  This is not racism, any more than a porn actress refusing to work with a fat person (Ron Jeremy) because she doesn't find him sexually appealing.  I am not categorically stating there is no racism in porn, but I disagree with the conclusion the anonymous editor has made that discrimination equals racism.  While this may often be the case, it need not always be so. Talmage 17:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct, that it is racial discrimination, which is an expression of racism. The idea that an entire group of people could be deemed categorically "ugly" based upon skin color is racism by your own definition as quoted above. Discrimination based upon the poor health (i.e. physical deformity or obesity) of a potential partner has been scientifically shown to be an evolutionary function of natural selection that even babies can recognize. Read your high school biology text books if you are not clear on that one. Discrimination based upon skin color is a function of negative societal conditioning, much like what is being promoted in this article, and on this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.20.149 (talk • contribs) 14:15, July 16, 2007

Oh, and by the way, before you include statements of broad POV such as "a fear that in so doing one's future career would suffer," please provide referenced evidence and examples. Otherwise, you are violating wikipedia policies on verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.20.149 (talk • contribs) 14:15, July 16, 2007
 * No, I'm not. Comments in talk pages need not be referenced in the same manner as information in an article.  So get your facts straight.  Not signing your posts on talk pages, by the way, is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Talmage 16:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement asking for references was referring to using this talk page to create concensus in order to add to the main article- which is what talk pages are supposed to do, or have you forgotten? This is not a forum page. Do that elsewhere. So the statement STILL STANDS. If you want to add to the article PROVIDE EVIDENCE AND EXAMPLES. And YES, get your facts straight. You are correct, if you want to make clearly unfounded and prejudiced statements -you can post them here, as you clearly have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.20.149 (talk • contribs) 19:03, July 19, 2007

Clarification
Dwanyewest 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Can someone explain to me what what chinese martial arts movies have to do with interracial porn i feel it should be removed. Plus I feel that ethnicity of pornstars should be merge with interracial porn as they both deal with sex of people of differing races


 * Because the section it is under deals with the influence that interracial porn as had on other media. Read the paragraph about the movie again. It mentions the main character watches an American interracial porn to divert his attention from the bullet being pulled from his leg. Just because one editor deletes it from the page without explaining, doesn't mean it does not belong. --Ghostexorcist 20:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * While I've not seen the movie in question, the point seems to be that the character is watching porn. That porn being "interracial" seems like an unimportant detail in that story, like the brand name of the TV he watches it on. Unless the character states he has to see X ethnicity get it on with Y ethnicity, I'd say leave this out. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if you haven't seen the movie, I don't think you are qualified to weigh in on the matter. Before the bullet is retrieved, the main character specifically pulls the porn out of his brief case and calls it his "anesthetic". Whenever it happens to show the tv screen, a white woman is shown moaning. The moans are apart of the ambient noise in the backward during further dialogue. He then refers to the male actor as "the darky". --Ghostexorcist 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining that. It still seems quite trivial in this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. The section is about the genre's influence on other media. It has even influenced Chinese movies. I'm sure others can add more information about other movies. --Ghostexorcist 23:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Per your Edit summary here, would you object to my deleting this section? Most Wikipedia articles do not benefit from a list do not benefit from lists of times the article topic was spotted in some movie, and the only entry currently under Influence on other media is such an observance. It's really not an example of "influence", nor is it notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I would. Your "essay" is not a guideline. And it is not a list. The only way I would not have a problem is if the articles mentioned above were merged. As it is right now, the current article needs all of the material it can get. --Ghostexorcist 22:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The item your are defending is non-notable trivia that should be removed. It does not demonstrate influence; it's just a sighting. Incidentally, what you call my essay was written by someone else. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever, it's an essay and not a guideline. --Ghostexorcist 23:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are ignoring my point. This is a non-notable sighting. It is not encyclopedic. It should be removed. I would propose we get a third opinion here. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring anything. Since you believe it to be trivia, WP:TRIVIA states "Don't simply remove trivia sections, but seek to integrate each fact into the article in a more organized fashion." It is not a bullet-pointed list of various facts. It is a paragraph that has been integrated into the article. --Ghostexorcist 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion: It strikes me as a totally extraneous, un-called-for inclusion which adds nothing to understanding of the subject. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is essentially a "trivia list" of one item. The information is not "integrated into the article", nor could it be, since it has only tangential relevance to the article. I see no reason to keep it. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 00:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)