Talk:Amateur pornography

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amateur pornography article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Pornography Top‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spyware

Is there a great deal of spyware on the linked sites? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elcella (talk • contribs) .

Shouldn't be. Just exersize common sense and you won't ever get spyware. J.reed

03:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hceuisudi 103.244.49.238 (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General complaint

What is the purpose of Wikipedia when a small group is able to decide what is note worthy or not. Especially when I see no credentials and a willfulness to protect the status quo as they see it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.81.4 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, right (sarcasm here). Wikipedia is not run by a group of people, it's just that some have the power to execute. We need to be selective with them, otherwise Wikipedia would be roaming with vandals. If you disagree at something, report it where appropriate.--Orthologist 19:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

I consider myself an expert in the field of "Amateur Pornography" but am unsure how I can contribute properly without spamming or my comments being considered as merely opinion. I am one of the leaders in the industry, but I'm not certain if that matters or if that means I should contribute to this topic? Tshcomm 18:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find some information relevant to this at Conflict of Interest and Verifiability - basically, WRT 'opinions', anything you add should be verifiable with reliable sources. Personal experience isn't appropriate, as that is original research, which isn't appropriate for wikipedia. Wibbble 19:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

In order to avoid their repeated recreation, I have created several redirects to this article from articles referred to on this page Citybest (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Many are independently run by the women themselves, such as femnudist and the now-defunct jennicam."

Jennicam was a webcam site, not a porn site. If she was nude or having sex, it was everyday life, not a special performance for the camera (except for the stripteases early on). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.170.165 (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does red tube redirect here? There isn't a good readon why a specific site reidrects to a vague and barley related topic. Why not redirect all pages here then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand these redirects. I came to wikipedia looking for info on a supposedly famous porn website. And all I get is a redirect to a page that doesn't even mention it? I wanted to know some neutral pov info about the site. I think it would be better if the redirects were to the porn 2.0 wiki article. that article doesn't mention the site either but at least it has some info that seems more relevant. Frodfy (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RedTube Hacked

Redtube was just hacked between 14:00 and 15:58 EST. By the Netdevilz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right! I also removed the following link from the "User-generated online content" section added by a user: asiannsfw.com [1]. 2003:DD:3F35:BC00:6190:FB00:C784:36D9 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected, IP range blocked

I have now temporarily semi-protected this article, and also blocked an IP range from which links were repeatedly being inserted into this article. -- The Anome (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Tube

Red Tube has 20.276 videos (16 categories) - 1.267 videos peur category (average) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.245.56 (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-removed-

And...? Also, this is an instantly obsolete metric, so if you're going to insert it into the article somewhere, make certain you use some type of time-dependence tag. JohannVII (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising/original research

There seem to be several websites that are plugged and listed with minimal justification. Anton.hung (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; however, we should also note that examples of a subject are often helpful in understanding it. Are there Wikipedia guidelines that would be helpful in determining appropriate example sites? Do these guidelines countermand the examples given? If not, I'm inclined to let them stand. Given the global trend toward commercial capitalism, it would be hard to find examples of just about anything in contemporary culture that are not commercial products, and, given the wide variety of brands of a particular product, the inclusion of some and not others could amount to advertising. Since we don't really have space to include all examples of a product (especially when we're talking about something with as many different and transient examples as websites), this is going to be an ongoing concern that is not particular to this article. JohannVII (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is very true Watchersweb is hardly unique and the citations come from very few independent sources. I have added a section about the VCR age and reports from the US press in 1992/1993 including the interesting case of a Florida Sheriff's Deputy and his wife. There is a big danger with wikipedia in distinguishing facts backed by citations that are put together in an article and which in some sense is original "research" and original ideas and viewpoints which seems to me what the no "original research" means. So when any article has multiple authors contributing facts it becomes original research. (Just a point of view). So I would like anyone who had the same experiences of local video stores to be able to add that experience if they have some evidence. Pornhistorian (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated addition

Just going to add this here: "In October 2008 The Weinstein Company distributed the film Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Although the professional industry based out of the San Fernando Valley in California was suffering, Kevin Smith's movie had brought a financial answer to the general public. Mimicking the fiction movie more amateurs sought out to make extra income via internet adult pay sites. An example includes a small time website like My Girl Fantasy, a website that utilizes volunteer actors, actresses, and models all from the local area of which it was established."

Preceeding section is minimally referenced, while the part above is wholly unsubstantiated and refers to a malware/spyware infested site. Why is it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.55.62 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pornhub is biggest porn 2.0 site in the web

Reffering to Alexa: [2]

That should be mention in the article! --Don-golione (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then... put it in! You seem to have both the knowledge of how to edit pages (given the existence of your comment here) and a source for the claim. JohannVII (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Effects of the Recession on the Pornography Business and the Rise of the "Mom & Pop" Pornography Sites

Does this section meet the notability standards? The "Zack and Miri" paragraph seems to be of particularly dubious utility, since it is not cited at all, and a claim that a particular movie has influenced an industry to a noteworthy extent definitely requires reliable citation. JohannVII (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divided into photographs, movies and stories

I divided the article up as the history of amateur pornography is quite different for photos, video and writing. Now photos and video are coming together but stories lead a very different life and these should be mentioned as they are as much a part of pornography as the images. Pornhistorian (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-date figures versus original research

The 'User Generated Online Content' section now has the following two statements:

By January 2008 a search for "porn" and "tube" returned 8.3 million results on Yahoo and 8.5 million on MSN.[11] (By October 2012 searches for "porn" and "tube" returned 1420 million results on Google, and 293 million results on Google images.)

The first statement was already there, and references an allegedly reliable source, which gives figures which now appear over 100 times too small. (Incidentally there seems logically almost no reliable way of knowing whether a source is reliable or not - indeed arguably the more reliable it is believed to be, the more likely it is to be a source of much unreliable propaganda to suit the purposes of one or more powerful vested interests, in this case presumably sites which can be found by the afore-mentioned search, and perhaps also Yahoo and MNS; it's strange that the first statement makes no mention of Google, given that most people seem to use Google as their primary search engine, and already did so in 2008, and long before). The second statement, inserted by me, gives up-to-date figures, is currently 100% reliable, and its reliability or otherwise over longer periods of time can easily be checked by anybody doing the same Google searches. But, at least as I (perhaps mistakenly) understand Wiki rules, which are supposedly designed to ensure that Wikipedia is a source of reliable knowledge, my statement is illegal 'original research' which should presumably be deleted and replaced by inevitably out-of-date and possibly unreliable figures from some allegedly reliable source.

Can any expert editor please enlighten me on what I should really have done? Tlhslobus (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Data

Regarding the entry on "amateur pronography," the article contains a noteworthy error I would like corrected.

While Homegrown Video was the first widely successful marketer of adult home movies, it was by far not the first. A company called Susan's Video preceded it by at least a year, and there was one or two others as well (I do not recall the names, though I may still have their flyers).

The industry began, as the entry noted, with people who filmed themselves at home and wanted to share their tapes and to view those produced by other people. Initially, such people made contact with one another via want ads in the back of nationally distributed magazines devoted to the home video market in general. After amassing a handful of videos, some guy (or couple) decided to offer them to other people who had nothing to trade. [One such enterpreneur, with whom I did business, avoided potentially running afoul of the postal service by only trading films for several blank tapes, which at the time cost about $10 apiece.]

I do not know what problems prompted the action, but Homegrown actually shut down not too long after its launch. It resurfaced a few months later with a wider selection of tapes, and took off from there. The competors were not so fortunate. One of them struggled on for a while offering shorter, half-hour films on T-30 tapes, whereas Homegrown would edit two or three segments onto a T-60, hour-long tape. It was also one of the first to offer preview tapes.

The Wikipedia entry on "amateur pornography" included something that prompted me to double-check a couple of related entries. I was glad to see that the one for "AVN" mentioned its origin as a print trade journal, not just a promoter of an awards show (which came much later).

The entry on "VHS," however, contains a major error: It says the letters stand for "Video Home System." They do not! That was, in fact, the first time I have ever seen that term, and I have been involved in the field ever since I purchased my first 50-pound, top-loading VHS player.

At one time, I wrote a weekly column for my local newspaper about the at-that-time newly emerging technology. We were aware of Beta, but the selection of films available on VHS was greater, which is why it soon surpassed the competition. (I later realized that Beta was indeed superior). A colleague and fellow afficianado (now deceased) informed me that he had found a reference which explained that VHS stood for "Vertical Helical Scanning" system, a cumbersome technical term soon reduced to just its abbreviation. "Video Home System" is but a poor retronym.

As I am an aged reader with an older model computer that operates on dial-up, I shall not endeavor to make these changes to Wikipedia myself, but am submitting them for an editor or moderator to evaluate their value and to determine how best to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.111.26 (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about mods

The mods are being highly inconsistent. They vehemently oppose anything new being added without sources or sources they think are reliable yet there are many sentences and claims in this article without ANY sources at all. They should be modified or removed as well. Just my two cents.

Human trafficking

I'm surprised there's been no mention in this section on "Amateur pornography" of its inherent connection with human trafficking. How would one know whether not the "performer" in a pornographic video or image is a human trafficking victim? The closest thing is the section on "Revenge Porn": "The advent of amateur and self-produced pornography has given rise to civil suits and newly identified and defined criminal activity." but that's only talking about the people that sued for having their video published online without their consent. What about the people who cannot fight back? 71.231.87.107 (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Porn2ube listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Porn2ube. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –Davey2010^Talk 21:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reality pornography

Ed Powers does reality pornography; What is mentioned as Reality Pornography is Commercial Pornography; Commercial I will define as material which is capable of being vended at retail where statute allows; Most actual pornographic material which prominently displays genitalia is often not concerned with reality though it is not rare; Commercial may and often is attempting some sort of story or portrayal which would be considered art but they are specifically not looking for the art exemption 2600:1700:BFC2:A3E0:6973:78B5:D2FB:D419 (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not making any edits because I do not know how;

"PornTube" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect PornTube. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 15#PornTube until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]