Talk:Incest pornography

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 May 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Pornography Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History and legality[edit]

This section is missing any mention of the legal status of actual Incest pornography in any country. Laws regarding incest has quite a bit of information on the legality of incest in general, can we assume the laws would be no different in the context of pornography? Should that page be referenced in this section? 2601:1C2:4D01:54FE:388A:411:DDA:B396 (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV issue[edit]

This article currently suffers from a tendency to amalgamate child pornography and pornographic depictions of sexual activity among siblings. E.g., after having established subdivisions, the article goes on to say that “Many argue that it encourages the sexual abuse of children and rape”. I presume this is supposed to refer to child pornography, but in the current version it refers to all depictions of sexual activity between siblings. We need to apply clearer distinctions. Also, the article is full of ‘weasel words’ and unsourced statements. E.g. “Many argue that”, it “is often regarded as mainstream”, “it is widely available”. While such statements lean towards a particular POV, they are hardly aiding the reader in understanding the subject matter. In any case, they should be sourced. And obviously this sentence is problematic: “Many argue that it encourages the sexual abuse of children and rape, and religious conservatives see its presence on the internet as sinful.”. This is a POV in any case. Frankly I find it hard to see that a pornographic film, which claims that two of the actors are relatives, should spur sexual abuse of children. Accordingly, I have tagged the article. Alfons Åberg 19:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I’ve made an attempt to fix some of the problems. I have removed two un-sourced statements (“Porn depicting sex between identical twins or real-life siblings is often regarded as mainstream, although it also exploits the same theme.” and “Despite this, it is widely available on the Internet.”). Alfons Åberg 20:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed one clearly POV sentence ("Many argue that it encourages the sexual abuse of children and rape, and religious conservatives see its presence on the internet as sinful."). Alfons Åberg 21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV situation should be improved by now, so I've removed the POV tag. Alfons Åberg 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the statement 'If one or more partners are minors it constitutes child pornography' be in this article? If one of the partners in ANY TYPE of porn is a minor, then it constitutes child pornography. I think it should be removed, or added to every other article of porn on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.5.67 (talk) 21:13, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Recent addition of a section on homosexual incest pornography[edit]

There appear to be objections against my recent expansion of the article to include examples of gay incest pornography. Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz undid my revisions, claiming that they represent original research, are subjective and undocumented. As far as the documentation is concerned, I inserted two footnotes, which provide clear evidence of my claims. I do not see much in my text that is subjective; perhaps the phrase, "appears to be a recent phenomenon"? If that is the problem, I suggest deleting or replacing the phrase, rather than deleting the entire edit.GBataille (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source (WP:CIRCULAR), so I have reverted your revert. You must provide reliable sources. See also WP:Verifiability. Anemone Projectors 11:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I think it would be a good idea, if we're going to include examples of incest in gay pornography, that we include Jirka and Karel Bartok from Double Czech (2000) and Adam and Konrad Richter from Double Czech 2009 (2009)[1] and Double Czech: Twins in Lust (2010). Anemone Projectors 11:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new material on this topic, it is an obvious omission from the article. 121.217.36.168 (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of External Link[edit]

In issue is whether to add to the current "External links" section the following link:

online video of mother-son sexual intercourse

The Wikipedia:External links guidelines state:

Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links).... Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic.... Some external links are welcome.... There is no blanket ban on linking to ... user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page.... Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis....

The link was added in this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:216.64.190.250 , but then several users engaged in illegitimate blanking (vandalism) to delete the link. They have given no valid reasons (with specific reference to the relevant guidelines) for their blanking. In the absence of clear justification here, the blanking appears to be arbitrary. 150.135.72.62 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 150.135.72.62 (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

jeff g. Appears to be on a mission to rid wikipedia of all external links, unless I'm missing some reason for his blanking in this article. What's the deal? The external-link guidelines he cites say that links to video sites can be appropriate. Why not here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.190.250 (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your reason, from WP:ELNO#EL11 and because the link is to a blog: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid: ... 11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you cite (Section 4 in Wikipedia:External links) states in pertinent part: "one should generally avoid ... Links to blogs [and] personal web pages...."; but Section 4.6.1 creates an exception to the general rule: "There is no blanket ban on linking to ... user-submitted video sites...." If the prohibition on links to blogs were absolute, it would prohibit all links to YouTube videos, but such a ban would clearly run contrary to Section 4.6.1.150.135.72.61 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are misreading the guideline. All 4.6.1 tells you is that being a video does not in-and-of-itself invalidate a link, provided it meets the other guideline requirements. The two primary inclusion criteria sections are WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE - the site added meets neither of those, while it does fail under WP:ELNO criteria. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Fauxcest[edit]

"Faux incest" porn is simply a subtopic of incest porn. No sense in having a separate article. Slashme (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]