Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:30, 26 March 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pornography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Tags

HW, care to explain the basis for your tagging. Your Edit summaries are insufficient. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

As an experienced editor who's cited BRD elsewhere, you know perfectly well that the editor whose removal of a longstanding tag is disputed should initiate discussion here rather than reverting and WP;CANVASSING improperly. And you also know how to properly notify me; your failure to do so speaks volumes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

HW, stop being obtuse, you know that it doesn't matter who starts the discussion as long as it starts. Both YOU and Rebecca failed on this occasion, but given your propensity to argue via Edit summary, you're hardly taking the high road, but you know that. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LiveJasmin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://avnawards.avn.com/2011_nominations2.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://avnawards.avn.com/2012_AVN_Awards_nominations.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://avnawards.avn.com/page/3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://xbizawards.xbiz.com/nominees.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://xbizawards.xbiz.com/nominees.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LiveJasmin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141125015310/http://avnawards.avn.com/pages/4 to http://avnawards.avn.com/pages/4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

Recently a formal Parliamentary Question "Activités jugées dangereuses d'une holding luxembourgeoise exploitant une plateforme de streaming de webcams". www.chd.lu (in French). Retrieved 2024-03-22., regarding LiveJasmin's potentially "dangerous" activities in Uganda, was launched in the Parliament of Luxembourg by Member of parliament Marc Baum of the the déi Lénk party. Only members of parliament can launch Parliamentary Questions and the Government is under obligation to reply within a month.Alexfotios (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

As I've already noted on your talk page, that is a primary source. The material you are trying to add requires third-party reliable sources, not only for verification but to establish that it's notable enough to be included on the article. Someone filing a question with a government is not an inherently notable occurence. OhNoitsJamie 18:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Marc Baum is not anyone - he is an MP and ONLY MPs can issue Parliamentary questions. Perhaps this is what u did not understand. A Parliamentary Questions is a political actions of the highest importance and is not done or taken lightly. The event per se ids rare and important. There has not been a parliamentary question about a cms site before in Luxembourg. Alexfotios (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that it is notable enough to be included here without third-party reliable sources. I understand that you are new here, but please take some time to read the policy links I've posted on your talk page. OhNoitsJamie 18:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I have a third party link but it does not pass the filter because the link contains a "bad" word. Not very smart that filter. It is actually the site of the party itself that also publishes the parliamentary question but the filter chokes on it because it is rated G? Alexfotios (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the link that filter was blocking; that's just a copy of the letter in the first link you posted. A copy of the link being hosted elsewhere doesn't make it a third party source. OhNoitsJamie 18:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok so you want another site that mentions the fact of the parliamentary question being made? And how is that different than the party's site mentioning the fact? Same text, different site, both respectable sources. I mean what will it take to publish an important political action that is recorded in the two relevant websites of the two parties involve? What else do I need? A serious site that mentions the fact? Alexfotios (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt that a question was sent to parliament; that's not the issue. It's clear you either haven't read WP:SYNTH and WP:RS or are unwilling to acknowledge those policies. For this to be included on this article, you'd at least one, preferably multiple instances of third-party reporting from reputable news organizations like Luxemburger Wort or similar that discuss the issue with some depth, not simple mentions. OhNoitsJamie 19:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Why so many requirements to post something so solid? Did every other link on this page go through the same kind of scrutiny? Or it is because u simply do not want anything "unconstructive" to be written about LiveJasmin? Surely, when they posted their awards your did not ask them for multiple links that verified the fact and discussed the issue in depth. Alexfotios (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of this article until today. This issue came to my attention because I monitor the WP:EFFP board since I maintain several filters. Regardless of the topic, I routinely revert material that does not conform to our policies. OhNoitsJamie 19:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I am new but as an editor u are using a double standard. I see no discussion about multi-source verification of awards. Someone came and and gave the awards original sources and they were simply accepted as they should if they come from the legitimate site. I will ask for mediation on this. Alexfotios (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Simple enumeration of awards doesn't require the same kind of sourcing as a lengthy "Controversy" section. Some of the awards on the page might not meet notability criteria (e.g., awards that don't have a corresponding article). OhNoitsJamie 19:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, but it is not lengthy any more as you can see. Just reporting on the Parliamentary Question only straight from the most respected site of Luxembourg: the Luxembourg Parliament site and the question even directly addresses the Prime Minister of Luxembourg. So, not true, at least any more, what you claim. Alexfotios (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What I intent to post is simply this: Recently a formal Parliamentary Question "Activités jugées dangereuses d'une holding luxembourgeoise exploitant une plateforme de streaming de webcams". www.chd.lu (in French). Retrieved 2024-03-22., regarding LiveJasmin's potentially "dangerous" activities in Uganda, was launched in the Parliament of Luxembourg. Alexfotios (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you seek the mediation/WP:THIRDOPINION you keep alluding to. OhNoitsJamie 20:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I know you mean well but so do I. We'll figure it out. Best of Fridays! Alexfotios (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Third Opinion requested. WP:THIRDOPINION#Active_disagreements. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: I agree that without any reliable and independent sources having noted this as being somehow significant, its inclusion in the article would constitute undue weight. If there does come to be a substantial amount of reliable and independent material regarding this, the question could of course be revisited at that time, but it should not be included just on the basis of a primary source or any copies thereof. Seraphimblade 11:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. Does the fact that the primary source is the official site of the Parliament/Government of Luxembourg and that a parliamentary question asked by an MP of that government, in writing and addressed to the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, does not, in your opinion constitute that single source and the grave nature of the event significant enough? Are all sources and events treated as if the carry the same weight? Cheers! Alexfotios (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added two more sources, that I think are both independent and reliable, and make the exact same allegations about LiveJasmin as the parliamentary question does. Is that enough now? Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Added two more sources where? There are typically over 1,000 parliamentary questions posted every year; they are not inherently notable. OhNoitsJamie 13:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

How many of those questions involve a cam site based in Luxembourg itself and make such serious allegations? This makes this particular Parliamentary Question stand out but in any case I have provided two more, in my opinion both reliable and independent sources, that make the exact same allegations. Alexfotios (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying you've provided two more, but we have no idea which links you are talking about. OhNoitsJamie 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

They are here and you can see see them in the updated proposed "Controversy" section source too: A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication corroborated the same allegations, that were made in the Parliamentary Question, by approaching multiple sources (including Ugandan Journalists) and published its findings on its website. The article was authored by Luc Caregari, an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg.

Also, a complaint was launched with ALIA (Luxembourg Independent Audiovisual Authority), containing the exact same allegations. ALIA considered the complaint, and although the allegations against Docler Holding and LiveJasmin were not disputed in their decision, ALIA suggested, in that same decision document, that they could not do much as they were solely responsible for the broadcast content per se of the Audio and Video content delivery platforms they were overseeing, with LiveJasmin being one of them, and not the particulars of the conditions and parties involved in the creation of that content.

This source] from Reporter.lu might meet WP:RS criteria; not sure how notable of a publication it is, but appears to have editorial overight, though the paywall prevents the bulk of the article from being viewed. A single third-party source is somewhat borderline for weight concerns. Thoughts, User:Seraphimblade? OhNoitsJamie 17:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I searched RSN, and can't find anything on the "reporter.lu" site one way or the other. I, like Ohnoitsjamie, also can't read the whole thing since it's paywalled, so that's tough to evaluate. If there's just the one local source, I think that's still kind of at the "breaking news" phase—at this point, someone apparently complained about something, and some legislator might inquire into it. At least in my experience, that may turn out to be a big deal, or turn out to be nothing really at all. So, right now it's still rather WP:NOTNEWS; we're not the newspaper and not trying to "scoop" anyone. Let's see if either more substantial sources confirm this to be a major thing, or anything actually comes of the legislative inquiry. So, it's not to say this would never be worth including a bit about in the article; it certainly might at some point be. But if that happens, I don't think today is that time. For us, unlike newspapers, there's no deadline. Seraphimblade 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. If you can't properly evaluate reporter.lu, please evaluate the author Luc Caregari. The exact same info is reported by three separate sites two of which are Government Run (chd.lu is the Luxembourg Parliament and alia.public.lu is the independent authority the Government has appointed to oversee such matters. If the reporter.lu paywal is the issue I can hopefully convince reporter.lu to make this full article free to view in its entirety; would that help? Also, there is no doubt that there is some truth to the allegations. This is the official website of Uganda's Police reporting arrests of cam models: https://www.upf.go.ug/police-busts-on-line-sex-and-pornography-hub/. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that doesn't really change my thoughts. It's too soon to really be writing about it; we don't really have enough independent source material to summarize the issue. If that changes in the future, we can revisit it then, but "not at this time" will remain my thoughts for the moment. Seraphimblade 19:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That is fine. One question: how much more you need? We already have three reputable sources reporting the same thing. What is missing for this to make it because I need to say, there are Controversy sections of WP articles that do have flimsier references. Regardless, please help me out and tell me: besides these three independent and reliable sources, what else do you need? Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read what constitutes an independent source. The government posting a government complaint, or "ALIA" posting a complaint to them, is not independent, so no, we do not have three independent sources. The "reporter.lu" source would be an example of an independent source (like I said, I don't know its reliability, but even if we presume it is for the sake of argument, that's not enough). There's not going to be some "magic number"; it would always depend on context. But right now there's only one independent source of unknown reliability, and that's definitely not enough. Editors shouldn't be writing article material on the basis of reading and interpreting primary documents. Seraphimblade 19:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. In my mind nothing could be more independent than a government voted by the people. I certainly rated such reports as much higher in independence, gravity and reputability than newspapers and other private media that, in my opinion, are much more likely to have a commercial and political agenda that is steered by certain interests. Obviously Misplaced Pages has a different view on that (I can think of some reasons why). I will look for as many reliable and diverse sources as I can and get back to you. Do written, signed and stamped Police Complaint documents from Hungary (the administrative seat of Docler and LiveJasmin) that the police has approved and executed, with LiveJasmin temporarily stopping the practice and then starting again count? Trade/Commerce Union reports? Human rights reports? Ugandan newspaper/media webpages? Alexfotios (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Please make sure the next time you post any sources, it is the best ones. I do not intend to try evaluating a flood of them. So post a few examples of what you think are the best available sources on the subject, if that's not the ones you posted already. Seraphimblade 19:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Will be posting a select few here in a couple of days. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence but tried to bring you the best and make my case for inclusion as good as I could. Here goes. To begin, this is not a new situation. Hiring models in countries where the work is illegal and paying for that work while also avoiding taxes is something that Mr. György Gattyán (CEO of Docler Holding and LiveJasmin) has been masterfully "toying" with for many years as this document, from 2015, reveals: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=ecli:ECLI%3AEU%3AC%3A2015%3A606

Some relevant sections of document follow:

"20. Lalib exploited the know-how at issue on a number of websites (the most important of which was livejasmin.com) offering X-rated entertainment by ‘performers’ from all over the world..."

"21. The ‘performers’ are bound by contract to the Seychelles company Leandra Entreprises Ltd, which is part of the Lalib group and was formed on account of the certification requirements..."

"22. In 2012, Lalib sold its contracts relating to the exploitation of the know-how, its databases, its customer lists and its management know-how at the market price to a Luxembourg company belonging to the Docler group."

"23. According to WebMindLicenses, the reason why Lalib became involved in 2008 in exploiting the know-how at issue is that its exploitation within the Docler group and the commercial growth of the online service had come up against the fact that the main Hungarian banks, which processed the collection of bank card payments, did not at that time allow suppliers of X-rated services to join the bank card system...."

"24. Following a tax inspection relating to part of 2009 and to 2010 and 2011, the first-tier tax authority (Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adózók Igazgatósága), by notice of 8 October 2013, made various adjustments and instructed WebMindLicenses to pay a tax shortfall of 10 587 371 000 Hungarian forints (HUF), including HUF 10 293 457 0006 by way of VAT, on the ground that, according to the evidence which it had gathered, the licensing agreement between WebMindLicenses and Lalib had not actually transferred the right to exploit the know-how to Lalib as that know-how was in fact exploited by WebMindLicenses and Mr Gattyán took all the decisions necessary to increase the turnover generated by the livejasmin.com website, with the result that the exploitation was to be regarded as actually having taken place in Hungary...."

Furthermore, in this document from 2021: https://wdocs-pub.chd.lu/docs/exped/0126/029/252290.pdf we can find (translated from French):

On page 38 : "In any case, the author believes that the company in question is not an isolated case. He generally seems that a non-negligible number of multinational companies, in the field of cybersex has grown in recent years in Luxembourg. They are exposed to a significant risk of contributing, in one way or another, to the sexual exploitation of people in situations vulnerable and other human rights violations. Even if these companies are not necessarily all involved in THB offences, the author considers that the risk is particularly high. We can for example cite Docler Holding, established in Luxembourg since 2013, which is active in the fields of entertainment, technology, personal development and luxury or even life style – with all it working to hide the distribution of sexual content by the interactive platform LiveJasmin. It is sometimes particularly difficult to detect potential risks while these companies have structures that are not very transparent and diverse activities, while maintaining relationships of trust with political representatives and financially supporting NGOs through activities linked to their purported 'social responsibility'."

In this document from 2020: https://epa.oszk.hu/03100/03109/00017/pdf/EPA03109_replika_2020_4-5.pdf we find the following (translated from Hungarian):

Page 101: "The majority of studies dealing with the sex cam industry focus on the situation of models from the center countries, with a higher social status, who have been present in the industry for a long time and are therefore more "successful", while the global industry is based on inequalities. Other locations and characters are far under-researched. The Eastern European region, which is also of decisive importance in the industry - not only because of LiveJasmin - is underrepresented in the literature, as are the models working in the Philippines, which are also present in a large proportion. Only a few studies analyze its situation and working conditions (Mathews 2015, 2017)."

Page 108: "The individual countries also differ in terms of regulations: in Russia or in the Philippines, sex cams are illegal, which puts the workers in the industry in a more vulnerable position."

Page 117: "In contrast, the legal operation of Docler actually covers the informal economy of the wider, global sex cam industry, which enables the platform to operate - including the black operation of studios in Hungary, or indeed the studios and a large number of models joining the platform from countries where sex cams are illegal, with worker conditions invariably vulnerable and risky, in most cases, forced into the situation. Just like one of our interviewees, previously employed by Docler stated: 'When we teased that it was social responsibility, and we didn't get enough, then he always said to be glad that you are employed in white." Bu the seven hundred people who were employed in white is a miniscule number - the performer network is a global one and is probably the largest black economy network that exists. (I8)."

Misplaced Pages itself lists Uganda as a country where pornography is illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/Pornography_laws_by_region

And this recent BBC article shows how dangerous that country has become for anything related to homosexuality and, by extension, homosexual shows on platforms like LiveJasmin: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66645740

This article here (this time no paywall): https://www.reporter.lu/fr/diversification-plateforme-porno-docler-holding-docteur-docler-et-mister-jasmin/ shows how LiveJasmin and Mr. György Gattyán, manage to continue exercising the exact same practices, throughout all these years of repeated reports and allegations, by keeping close ties with the highest echelons of the Government of Luxembourg (which makes the fact that a "Parliamentary Question" was recently filed even more impressive). Alexfotios (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You're doing original research. Until secondary sources explicitly cover this matter, exactly, the answer will remain "No". Seraphimblade 09:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't accept the allegation of original research. Each one of the sources is a separate independent source on its own right confirming the original allegations. I am just gathering the corroborating sources together. I guess we will have to escalate mediation with whatecer comes after 3O. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"I guess we will have to escalate mediation with whatecer comes after 3O." Not a good idea in my opinion. Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policies. You were in fact engaging in WP:Original research as Seraphimblade informed you.

I appreciate your efforts to contribute to Misplaced Pages, but again, you'll have to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines to do so.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice but the sources are provided and as WP:Original research mentions: "Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research. On Misplaced Pages, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." But, I am not synthesizing an opinion - all sources I cite mention the same thing on their own: LiveJasmin hires cam models in countries where it is illegal. So, you are actually wrong in my opinion. Alexfotios (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You are assembling content from various primary sources and drawing your own conclusions from it; that is the definition of WP:SYNTH. If you are unable to understand this or unwilling to abide by it, you shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages. OhNoitsJamie 12:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is all good my friend. I like the process. There is a certain truth that needs to come out here too. The truth cannot be obfuscated by rules; rather it will find a way to conform with them and come out eventually and you can't stop it - sorry. It will not even just be me that will be trying to post that truth that u find "unconstructive" as you called it in your very first comment. Truth is constructive - not unconstructive. I am sure you will agree. Have a great day! Alexfotios (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Caregari, Luc (2023-08-01). "Luxemburger Porno-Firma: Die heiklen Geschäfte von Docler in Uganda". Reporter.lu (in German). Retrieved 2024-03-22.
2. "ICIJ member Luc Caregari". Retrieved 2024-03-22.
3. ^ ALIA. "ALIA - Décisions" (in French). Retrieved 2024-03-22.
4. ^ ALIA. "ALIA" (in French). Retrieved 2024-03-22. Cite error: The named reference ":5" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
5. "ICIJ member Luc Caregari". Retrieved 2024-03-22.

• Start-Class Pornography articles
• Low-importance Pornography articles
• Start-Class Low-importance Pornography articles
• WikiProject Pornography articles
• Start-Class Websites articles
• Low-importance Websites articles
• Start-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles