Talk:Upskirt/Archive 1

Link provided
Please add an addendum notifying that the link is pornographic in nature.--VarunRajendran

Merge Suggestion
It has been suggested that the article Panchira be merged into Upskirt. Personally, I agree: it's unnecessary to have a separate article for a term when it can simply go under a subheading… If anyone else has an opinion on this, it would be much appreciated if they stated it. Depending on what the majority (or only) opinion is within the next month or so, the merge suggestion should be executed and/or removed. 24.126.199.129 10:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to disagree with merging-- The panchira article is much more focused on the anime aspect of panchira, which is quite different than the photographic focus of upskirts (in the western world). The articles focuses are quite distinct, and I think that prominent cross linking is far more appropriate. Darkonc 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, same reason. While Upskirt and Panchira appear to involve closely related or overlapping interests, they seem to describe distinct cultural phenomena. –edgarde 06:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words in "Legal consideration" section

 * "Many individuals..."
 * "often ... is considered..."
 * "Commonly ... is regarded"
 * "many people think quite negatively of..."
 * "Some places have laws..." and "Other places have no such laws."
 * "Arguments ... are generally based on..."

--  ExpImp talk con 21:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
If anyone is particularly gifted in the art of writing, could they rewrite this whole article? It's riddled with gramatical flaws and lack of logical flow between sentences. --Daniel Olsen 00:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I, in fact, did exactly that a while ago, when I found the article to be in pretty bad shape. I kept my eye on the article for a while afterwards, trying to keep it in good shape, but I have since gotten too busy and I think too many people throwing disjointed edits into it have put it less good shape again.  Go ahead and fix it yourself if you'd like... I really just don't have time anymore.  HalfDome 09:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/4536286.html

2007 cleanup
This article seems to include a lot of original research, particularly under Internet presence &mdash; what any Wikipedia editor may have noticed about paid "upskirt" websites cannot be used unless it can be verified.

Remember better no information than unverified information.

Legal considerations
Could we have some links for the legal considerations section? Even just pasting a few URLs into this Talk page section would help a lot. Newspaper articles and online legal sites are best, but as right now we have nothing, any reasonably unbiased link would help. edgarde 05:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Need examples for the following terms

 * upskirt as a noun -- is this word used as a noun outside of internet chatrooms and article tags? Can someone link a news report where this type of image is clearly described as an "upskirt"? Since it's a slang term we don't need "formal" use, but I need a usage that is not a shorthand from by people who refer to it repetitively, such as an IRC pic-traders' group, or a porn editor's jargon. &mdash; edgarde 07:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Approve. I think I can count WordSpy as confirmation enough for me on this one. Many other sites use upskirt as a regular noun. &mdash; edgarde 03:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For one, the Business Week article I added earlier today is reference to use of the word upskirt outside of it's ordinary usage. I'm thinking about the best way to put this in to the text of the article. For two, I want the Wikipedia article to be seen by as many people as possible, once it's up to speed. People, especially "porn people", need to read about some of the issues upskirts raise. There is nothing wrong with using the term upskirt in an article about upskirts. Once again, it yielded almost 40 hits in google news yesterday alone. Since I've been watching this article, it's never been vandalised, so I don't think that's an issue. As far as teaching people techniques, they can get plenty of that pretty much everywhere else, believe me.
 * Oh, my intention wasn't to decide what link to use. I just wanted some confirmation for myself that the word was used that way. I agree WordSpy itself isn't the most encyclopedic source. &mdash; edgarde 07:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Visual only upskirters -- who uses this term? Was it coined for the article? (Wikipedia articles cannot introduce new terms) Only the word "upskirt" links this practice with upskirt photography. Otherwise this article refers to only images, not to Peeping Tom methods &mdash; without a confirmed connection, this section has to come out!
 * Reject. No Google hits on "Visual only upskirter", tho "upskirter" by itself gets 1900 or so. I'm deleting this term, and with it the Variations section. With it goes Mirrorman Kazuhide Uekusa, who may be a panchira fetishist, but is not taking upskirt pictures.
 * Comment. It actually happens all the time in bathroom stalls and dressing rooms. It happened to me once. However, I coined the phrase, so lets leave it out.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 07:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What is there a proper term for this thing? Perhaps upskirt photography? Repeatedly saying "upskirt" seems informal and not encyclopedic in tone. &mdash; edgarde 07:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Undecided. NY Times says up skirt photography (note space &mdash; they hate neologisms) in at least one article. I doubt it's made their style manual yet, so I'll want more confirmation on the proper term. &mdash; edgarde 03:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Edgarde, Pokemon or Tomb Raiders is not encyclopedic in tone either. It's Wikipedia.

Other cleanup

 * Downblouse seems kind of related as it's a comparable practice from a different angle, but cameltoe seems only connected by the interest in candid (and maybe surreptious ) photographs. I'm deleting cameltoe and leaving downblouse as a See also. &mdash; edgarde 07:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have a strong objection towards cameltoe being put under see also? Because if only a weak objection towards it feel like it should be added to that. Mathmo Talk 03:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. I kinda do object and here's why: I think we're trying to cram the entire issue of "candid"/"hidden cam" stuff into Upskirt, when really there's a bigger subject here needs its own Main article. And I'm not sure where that would be.
 * I would have removed downblouse except the term is obviously a back-formation from upskirt. &mdash; edgarde 05:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Woman or girl  (and plural or possessive equivalent) is pretty tiresome and unnecessary. Changed all occurrances to Woman('s) on the presumption that readers will understand an underaged woman may be considered a "girl".

Usually when I try to work on articles like this, the replies I receive from certain parties are in the form of gainsaying and personal attacks. No biggie, but what I could really use are verification-suitable links for some of the abovementioned issues. &mdash; edgarde 07:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're on board, Ed. This is great. I'll try to address the perfectly expressed issues you've raised as time progresses. The first, being the word "Upskirt". I cannot find it's exact etymology or date of origin, but I'll try to find something soon. In any event, it's a Compound word, and it's being used more and more outside of websites and blogs. A google news search yielded 39 hits of this word today alone. Unfortunately, those links aren't usually stable, but you get the idea. You can do it yourself and see what you find:). Again, welcome! NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Grand unifying Main article
Mathmo raises the question of linking various "candid"/"hidden cam" articles. This all hints at a larger Main article, connected to all the related interests. Voyeurism (which links to here, Cameltoe & Downblouse) is close but not quite right. It links to Secret photography, which is mostly non-sexual.

Any idea what the grand unifying Main article would be?

Without it we'll be duplicating all the legislative/social/consent stuff into Downblouse, Cameltoe, whatever article the guy who hides spy cams in public toilets gets, and probably other stuff I've not imagined.

Still thinking about how to handle this. Thanks to NinaEliza I have a lot of websites to read first, which is a good thing because frankly I'm going in with minimal knowledge of the subject. &mdash; edgarde 05:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How about Covert sexual surveillance.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 05:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That may be a little too intriguing. ;) &mdash; edgarde 06:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Intriguing is good. Articles are written to be read.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 07:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Voyeur pornography
Pornography has a Voyeur pornography type that's exactly what we're looking for (even listing "upskirt" as an example). Currently it's simply a piped link to Voyeurism, which isn't a good container for our stuff.

One step at a time. I think the best approach would be Sound good? &mdash; edgarde 06:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Work on a sensible Upskirt article.
 * 2) Any information or ideas we have that fit more in the Main article would go into a sandbox draft, perhaps here. (All are free to edit.)
 * 3) We propose in Talk:Pornography to redirect that link to a new article. By that time I'd like to have a decent draft to show them.
 * 4) Create the real Voyeur pornography article, pasting in content from the draft.
 * 5) Develop from there. At this point pervs should move in and add further content.

* Sigh*
* Sigh*NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 07:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a question: what do you think of the content of the article so far? &mdash; edgarde 07:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, I wrote most of this article, and all of the references. Here's what it looked like before []. Having said that, I think it's weird to have a quote at the very top of the page. What exactly is it, that you want me to say? If you want to know what I want done with the article, you can look at my "to-do" list [].


 * I understand that. Not much has happened yet and I wanted to understand what the objections were. There is some interesting (albeit unreferenced) content in the version you link that was not there when I arrived (when it looked like this).


 * I should probably mention I had not been watching this article for content. It has been on my watchlist because it seemed like an attractive nuisance for adult site spammers. I don't have much of an idea about the article's history. My next step should probably be to review the old versions. &mdash; edgarde 07:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, don't knock yourself out. Trust me - I did the same thing and all the content was pretty much useless. It's had that "no references" tag on it for practically ever. I really don't think much will happen, as far as other editors are concerned. As long as things are civil and NPOV, we can get this done in a week or so. I haven't even started writing, because I want to make sure we're on the same page going forward. I'm pretty sure you're in the same boat. It's important to me that no or few pejoratives are used in this article. The re-direct is fine for now, because it's not going to be the only redirect.
 * One of the things I never got around to mentioning in this article is that when I did research for this topic (yes I went to upskirt sites), I found that the free sites were overwhelmingly consensual. When I say consensual, I mean smiling faces looking down at the camera. Women actually send in their own photos, and develop friendships (or whatever) with the viewers - who aren't all necessarily men, I might add. Part of being NPOV is acknowledging both these points (though not to give them undue weight).
 * Before you get the wrong idea, let me point out that I'm not one of these women. Yes, I did research. No, I don't have a burning desire to see up a woman's skirt.But considering the remarks of admiration I saw from members of these internet "clubs" with female user names, I'm pretty sure I'm correct in my assertion. No, I never went on a pay site - or at least I never paid for one.
 * So that's my whole hand, except for the part where I say that nothing sexual that's consensual and among adults disgusts me, so I feel uniquely qualified to keep this article NPOV. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • [ logs ] ) 15:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, I can give you some sense of the article's history. When I first discovered the article, it looked like this .  I considered the article to have POV language and be unencyclopedic, so I started editing the language.  (In fact, this was my first-ever Wikipedia edit.)  When I got to a point that I was fairly happy with, it looked like this .  Those first 3 paragraphs are basically mine, although I left some previous language in.  The remaining paragraphs were essentially kept in tact.


 * Note that my contributions there were only about removing POV and adding some content. I hoped that someone else would be able to wikify the page and add references.  (Note that I was new to editing Wikipedia at the time.)  Then, up until a couple months ago, I kept my eye on the page and tried to keep POV out and somewhat tried to keep the flow of the article in decent shape.  Some things were added on (eg. like about celebrities and censoring on Maury, etc.), and someone (apparently Nina) did a nice job of finally wikifying the page.  Still, it lacked in references.


 * I think probably the best state it was in (with the lack of refs) was here . After that, I have no longer had the time to keep POV and bad flow out, and I think the article went downhill a bit.  I cleaned up just the first paragraph on Oct 27, but that was the end to my edits and to me regularly "policing" the page.


 * The refs that are in there now are great, and hopefully this article can end up in a state that upholds Wikipedia's standards. I hope this gives you some sense of the history, and maybe some of the language that I had in there before will be useful to you now...  Cheers, HalfDome 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No images??
The curryntly used Image in this article should be removed. (File:Marcia Imperator legs.jpg) It may be taken without any admission of the woman AND - more problematic - the Fotographer no longer exists on Flickr. Kaddinsky 14:13, 27 April 2012 (GMT)

Why is there no image? If the article of a vulva(which does not look medical) has an image why not this article???
 * --Margrave1206 05:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct in that this page ought to have an image. Many times people have tried to add an image but they keep on getting deleted over claimed copyright problems. If you have a free image which can be used for this you are very welcome to add it to the page. Mathmo Talk 07:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For a variety of reasons, either the face of the woman should be shown with the proper "provenance" (ie, an additional photo with the woman stating that she freely licenses this image), or an illustration. If you have a free illustration, or if you're an artist, that would be great:).NinaOdell | Talk 01:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * where is there such a photo at pudendal cleft? i see no face of any woman in that photo and it's a lot more revealing than any upskirt. r b-j 05:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nina, you are caught in a common misconception. When a picture is taken, the photographer holds the copyright, not the subject.  DSArmageddon 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a free image from Wikicommons that illustrates the subject archetypically - is this acceptable? Skomorokh  incite 01:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I put it in. As a free GDFL image that more or less covers the subject, it is highly acceptable and preferable to attempting to get "fair use" on any commercial image. Default "thumb" size (set in user Preferences) is used; if someone wants to view the nice lady in all her glory, it's a click away.
 * A downside is this image might not demonstrate the constellation of sexual interests to which upskirt images typically appeal, such as
 * plausibly surreptitious voyeurism (this appears to be at a sex show)
 * panty fetishism (thong underwear is a different taste), or
 * ubiquity (women wearing panties under skirts are commonplace, whereas women in stripper outfits are not).
 * In other words, it may be an upskirt in letter but not in spirit. Minor quibbles; I say we go with it. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel like the commons image could use a caption, but can't think of anything that's informative and encyclopedic. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Image:The_gogo-dancers_red_G-String.jpg may have the usual legal issues. It is being at Commons. Wish I'd noticed this earlier. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There should not be any images, unless they are images of someone taking an upskirt photograph (as opposed to the photograph taken by upskirting). Upskirting is a form of pornography; therefore, this article is featuring pornographic images. Additionally, as upskirting is unwanted sexual attention, it could be considered sexual assault -- and images of sexual assault are also not featured on this website. Inter something 21:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored, and a number of articles contain sexually explicit images if they are appropriate to the article. This article does present another issue that you allude to, which is that in addition to copyright issues, there could be a privacy issue with an image witha recognizable subject. However, an image with a proper copyright status and consent of the subject or where the subject is not recognizable would be proper, and in fact, very useful to the article to demonstrate the concept. --MCB (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * However, a Wikipedia-compatible (preferably free use or GFDL) picture of someone taking an upskirt photograph would improve this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Swing
In addition to adding the commons image, I've also cropped Image:Fragonard, The Swing.jpg so the point is more clearly made. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma case
Mentioned in Huffington Post, Feminist Daily News, Salon.com. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)