Talk:LiveJasmin

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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 [Gattyán as boss] 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)."

Wikipedia itself lists Uganda as a country where pornography is illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 ^{Talk to me} 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 Wikipedia's policies. You were in fact engaging in WP:Original research as Seraphimblade informed you.

I appreciate your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia, 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: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] 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 Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 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)

You may want to read WP:RGW as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You may want to read this Pornhub. Also based on Luxembourg - guy got arrested too. Give it some time and this page will not be much different. There is nothing wrong with reporting abuse and eventually nothing wrong with reporting how great wrongs were righted. Alexfotios (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the source of the proposed addition to only include references that directly allege LiveJasmin's hiring of cam models in countries where this job is illegal and draw no conclusions - only state facts as shown by the independent and reliable sources. No Original Research. Blocking this should reveal clear bias on your part which I will then reference in the upcoming mediation. Thank you - it's been fun learning some Wikipedia basics! Alexfotios (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

After the suggestion of Redrose64 we will be adding the latest "Controversy" titled entry as a subsection. Based on the current structure of the LiveJasmin page I think it would best fit under the existing "History" section. Alexfotios (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Redrose64 did not suggest that you add "Controversey" to LiveJasmin, they were simply moving the new talk section you created below to be a subsection under this existing heading. You do not have a consensus to add a "Controversey" section to the LiveJasmin article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok, thank you for making this clear. I guess we will have to wait for actual comments on the talk page. Alexfotios (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Latest Proposed Controversy Section

For a number of years there have been allegations that LiveJasmin, a brand of JWS Americas S.à r.l., which is a subsidiary of "Duodecad IT Services" (part of "Docler Holding"), is offering cam model work to models residing in countries where this job is illegal

Recently, a Parliamentary Question regarding LiveJasmin, titled "Parliamentary question relating to activities deemed dangerous by a Luxembourg holding company operating a pornographic webcam streaming platform.", was filed in the Parliament of Luxembourg, by MP Marc Baum of the "déi Lénk" party.

A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication reported allegations, about LiveJasmin, that were similar to those made in the Parliamentary Question, in an article titled "Luxembourg porn company: Docler's delicate dealings in Uganda". The article was authored by Luc Caregari, an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg. Alexfotios (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

References

RfC about whether the proposed "Controversy" section should be included

The question is whether or not to add the following section, named "Controversy", to the article:

There have been allegations, over the years, that LiveJasmin, a brand of JWS Americas S.à r.l., which is a subsidiary of "Duodecad IT Services" (part of "Docler Holding"), is offering cam model work to models residing in countries where this job is illegal

Recently, a Parliamentary Question regarding LiveJasmin, titled "Parliamentary question relating to activities deemed dangerous by a Luxembourg holding company operating a pornographic webcam streaming platform.", was filed in the Parliament of Luxembourg, by MP Marc Baum of the "déi Lénk" party.

A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication reported allegations, about LiveJasmin, that were similar to those made in the Parliamentary Question, in an article titled "Luxembourg porn company: Docler's delicate dealings in Uganda". The article was authored by Luc Caregari, an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg.

For more background, see discussion threads above as well as initial comments on my talk page User_talk:Alexfotios. Alexfotios (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Bad RFC — see WP:RFCBEFORE. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Well, let's see what others think and then we do it right. We got all the time in the world and finally, it seems, a WP rules compliant content addition. Alexfotios (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Bad RFC. No biscuit. But, you know, the paradigm here is supposed to see, if a person makes a mistake, well thats easy to fix, its the content thats important, and mistakes are how we learn. Below I'll put how a proper RfC. Before that is done tho, the person making the proposal might want to cut it down by half or more. You're going to get votes "No, it is too long" to add on to the "No, in any form" votes and remember you're looking for consensus. People might want to offer suggestions (on only improving it and/or making it more likely to pass. IDK.

FWIW the section looks too POV. Usuallt, the ideal is for the reader to walk away thinking "I have absolutely no idea where the Wikipedia itself stands on this issue". Present the facts and let the reader decide for herself. Herostratus (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I am grateful User:Herostratus for your very helpful comments. "True WP spirit" I would call it and maybe it is POV but I won't edit that. I am not used to writing non-POV but will learn. I will further improve the section in that respect and replace my original bad RfC with your suggested one. Alexfotios (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Herostratus I have edited the proposed Controversy section - do you still think it looks POV, even a little? I would appreciate any suggestions very much! Alexfotios (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you don't seem to have read WP:SYNTH, which your proposed section clearly violates. The reporter.lu link is the only one that might pass for a third-party reliable source; everything else consists of primary sources or sources that don't even mention LiveJasmin. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

LiveJasmin is part of Docler Holding and it is mentioned in a couple of the sources - let me me make this more clear in the article actually. Always very constructive User:User:Ohnoitsjamie. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. However, there are so many more refs to the link between LiveJasmin and Docler Holding. What I don't understand though User:Ohnoitsjamie is why you made the comment you made when this fact (that LiveJasmin is run by Docler Holding) is already in the page I am trying to edit... Alexfotios (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Please don't bother pinging me anymore, as I've disabled pings from you. I'm done wasting time here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you were doing more than wasting time User:Ohnoitsjamie. Enjoy your day! Alexfotios (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per reasons given by Ohnoitsjamie, this all smacks of original research and synthesis, and per WP:CSECTION. (Summoned by bot) Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking the time. "smacks of original research and synthesis" does "smack" of a sort of aggression I cannot fully understand. Where is the synthesis or the original research? Please give an example and I will fix it. I mean the point here is not to lose valuable information rather than bury it because it may "smack" of something. Are you sure you read the latest version: Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest_Proposed_Controversy_Section? Cheers! Alexfotios (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  User:Avgeekamfot I have edited it super aggressively hoping to completely remove any doubt about original research and synthesis. Please, take another look. I tried to listen and learn. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  I did read the proposed version. I don't think it's appropriate. Avgeekamfot (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for verifying Alexfotios (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  I will be removing this RfC and opening a new one though because initial comments were based on a version of it that was a badly formatted RfC. Apologies for the hassle. Alexfotios (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  We don't need multiple requests for comment on the same thing. This content isn't appropriate without a reliable source putting it all together and using its own voice to explain it. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking the time User:Avgeekamfot. Much appreciated. Can you please check the newly sourced content here? Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest_proposed_"Controversy"_section_after_a_number_of_suggestions Especially the newly formatted ref: Talk:LiveJasmin#cite_note-49. Cheers! Alexfotios (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  This has gotten quite tiresome. Seems as though other editors looking at your proposed content have uniformly said it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. Time to move to a different article imo. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input User:Avgeekamfot. You are replying in the wrong section. I am simply following the dispute process step by step as instructed and as is proper according to WP etiquette. May I ask why this is particularly tiresome for you? Alexfotios (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Herostratus I think I may have edited it right now! Alexfotios (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of a disconnect here. The problem isn't that you haven't edited the material enough. It's that there isn't enough secondary and independent source material available about this at all, so you're engaging in original research and synthesis. No edits you make can change that; the material is, at least at this time, fundamentally not appropriate to go in. Now, of course, it may be that in the future, more independent and secondary source material becomes available, and then that would very much change. So it's not a "not ever", but it is a "not now", and no edits you make could really fix it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I respect your opinion User:Seraphimblade and in fact I partly agree with it - I agree that there is a disconnect. IMO all the numerous sources are reputable, reliable and independent and they all, and that is crucial, make the exact same allegation, which is also brought forward by the very Parliament of Luxembourg with recipient the Prime Minister of the country himself. Now, I am sure there is a lot of material that is already published on WP and even more on this very page, that is a lot less appropriate, by the almost impossible standard you are setting, than this proposed entry. What I am not sure about is why you are making this standard so hard to achieve. I also do not understand why you have been in complete agreement with User:Ohnoitsjamie whose first comment, on my talk page User_talk:Alexfotios, about my very first edit, was that it was "unconstructive" and who claimed that Docler and LiveJasmin were not related while the fact of their connection is recorded at the very header of this page which he is administering. Alexfotios (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed RfC

The question is whether or not to add the following section, named "Controversy" to the article:

For a number of years there have been allegations, from a number of sources, that LiveJasmin is offering cam model work to models residing in countries where this job is illegal; something that, if indeed true, not only potentially places those models in danger of arrest and abuse but also creates tax evasion loopholes for LiveJasmin itself.

Recently a formal Parliamentary Question , regarding "LiveJasmin's dangerous activities in Uganda", was filed in the Parliament of Luxembourg, by MP Marc Baum of the déi Lénk party.

A Luxembourg-based investigative journalism publication corroborated the same allegations, that were made in the Parliamentary Question, focusing on the country of Uganda, by approaching multiple sources (including Ugandan Journalists) as well as visiting LiveJasmin's Luxembourg Offices, where LiveJasmin's representatives admitted to be offering cam work to Ugandan models, adding that they saw nothing wrong with that. The journal published its findings on its website. The article was authored by Luc Caregari, an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg.

Uganda stands out, from the rest of the countries where cam work is illegal, because there is reliable evidence that sex cam models are indeed being arrested there by the Ugandan Police but also because the country has recently enacted an Anti-LGBTQ+ law, that includes the death penalty. Alexfotios (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

For more background, see Section X above.

---"Survey" section--

--"Threaded discussion" section-- Herostratus (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this guide. So, I wanted to ask, should I create a new RfC section on this talk page or edit the existing one according to your suggestions here? Alexfotios (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Edited the RfC according to your suggestion. Many thanks! Alexfotios (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Latest proposed "Controversy" section after a number of suggestions

For a number of years there have been allegations that LiveJasmin, a brand of JWS Americas S.à r.l., which is a subsidiary of "Duodecad IT Services" (part of "Docler Holding"), is offering cam model work to models residing in countries where this job is illegal, like the Philippines and Russia

Recently, a Parliamentary Question regarding LiveJasmin's operation in Uganda, titled "Parliamentary question relating to activities deemed dangerous by a Luxembourg holding company operating a pornographic webcam streaming platform.", was filed in the Parliament of Luxembourg, by MP Marc Baum of the "déi Lénk" party.

Your text above is still full of inappropriate references. As already noted other Wikipedias cannot be used as references per WP:UGC. You're still using a number of primary sources as well. In any case, Morbidthoughts has already added appropriately-sourced material from the few references above that are usable. There's nothing in your proposed version above that would be appropriate to add based on the ongoing problems with WP:SYNTH which you still fail to recognize. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank your for the heads up User:Ohnoitsjamie - I quote from WP:UGC "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are Ancestry.com, Discogs, Facebook, Famous Birthdays, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads, IMDb, Instagram, Know Your Meme, ODMP, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Tumblr, TV Tropes, Twitter, WhoSampled, and Wikipedia (self referencing). For official accounts from celebrities and organizations on social media, see the section about self-published sources below." I only see citing this page itself as WP:UGC so I will remove it. How are the other refs WP:UGC please? Alexfotios (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

...most wikis and other collaboratively created websites.', and In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source should make it clear that other wikis are not reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

And now User:Ohnoitsjamie all wiki refs are gone. Anything else? Alexfotios (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Added two non WP:UGC refs that make the same case as the two Wikipedia ones that I removed. Thank you User:Ohnoitsjamie Alexfotios (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication reported allegations, about LiveJasmin, that were similar to those made in the Parliamentary Question, in an article titled "Luxembourg porn company: Docler's delicate dealings in Uganda". The article was authored by Luc Caregari, an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg. Alexfotios (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I've disabled notifications from you so don't waste your time pinging me again. As I've already noted, there's nothing usable in your proposed text above that hasn't already been covered by Mordbidthought's in there last edits to the page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Well you said that before User:Ohnoitsjamie but u came back. May I ask why? Alexfotios (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello all - in my latest edits I have 1) Removed a ref that was indeed WP:SYNTH and 2)added multiple references, that IMO, are sufficiently independent, reliable and reputable, and all support, again in my opinion, what is said in a neutral and non-POV way. I would greatly appreciate it if anyone who believes this to not be the case to let me know; taking a few extra seconds to provide a fairly specific hint on what exactly is the problem would be very constructive and helpful to me. Thank you very much! Alexfotios (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This is hardly different than your previous versions, and it's still clear that you either haven't read or don't understand WP:SYNTH and WP:RS. You have a single 3rd party source that might pass WP:RS; everything else clearly does not meet RS (citing English and other versions of Wikipedia), primary (citing government filings), or sources that don't mention LiveJasmin and Uganda together (WP:SYNTH). How many different users need to tell you the same thing? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion User:Ohnoitsjamie Alexfotios (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie The section is about allegations from multiple sources that LiveJasmin is hiring cam models in countries where the job is illegal. It is not about the specific case of LiveJasmin doing it in Uganda just because this where we have the most allegations about. The sources mention the Philippines and other countries too. Read again - it seems you have misjudged what the point is here from the beginning. I am not trying to add a section about LiveJasmin illegally offering cam modeling work to models in Uganda or the fact that an MP made a formal Parliamentary question about it to the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, among others; I am trying to add a section about LiveJasmin doing that in multiple countries with Uganda, currently, being in the center of the controversy. Besides I am not in any hurry - this is good WP training for me. If the whole process shows that this section as is now is indeed not publishable, I will find more sources and improve it until it is. If it takes a year, so be it. Alexfotios (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's about more than Uganda, 90% of what you've written above clearly violates WP:SYNTH. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, we are trying to determine if you are right. Alexfotios (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The article itself needs to be rewritten. Many of the current sources do not directly support what is written and new references must be found. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello User:Morbidthoughts - thank you very much for the input. I just added one more independent source that directly link LiveJasmin with illegal work in Russia. I would appreciate it if you told me which sources do not directly support what is written and give me any other hint on what should be changed in the section. Cheers! Alexfotios (talk) Alexfotios (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Latest proposed "Legal Issues" section improved after a number of suggestions from the community

There have been allegations that LiveJasmin, a brand of JWS Americas S.à r.l., which is a subsidiary of "Duodecad IT Services" (part of "Docler Holding"), is offering cam model work to models residing in countries where this job is illegal, like the Philippines and Russia

A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication reported allegations, about LiveJasmin, that were similar to those made in the Parliamentary Question, in an article titled "Luxembourg porn company: Docler's delicate dealings in Uganda". The article was authored by Luc Caregari, an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg. Alexfotios (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

References

RfC on whether #Latest proposed "Legal Issues" section improved after a number of suggestions from the community should be included in the page

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion appears to be moot at this point. Avgeekamfot (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

---

The question is whether or not to add the following section, named "Controversy", to the article:

There have been allegations that LiveJasmin, a brand of JWS Americas S.à r.l., which is a subsidiary of "Duodecad IT Services" (part of "Docler Holding"), is offering cam model work to models in countries where this job is illegal, like the Philippines and Russia

A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication reported allegations, about LiveJasmin, relating to model arrests in Uganda, in an article titled "Luxembourg porn company: Docler's delicate dealings in Uganda". The article was authored by Luc Caregari, an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg.

For more background, see discussion threads above as well as initial comments on my talk page User_talk:Alexfotios. Alexfotios (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Alexfotios (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

As a principle, people who wish to do such work ought to be free to anywhere in the world. Enabling such is a defense of human rights. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I support it too as long as the people are not in serious danger. If they are, in my book, it is corporations using people as disposable batteries. Alexfotios (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No. You need to cite sources that include everything needed. You should be summarizing what, e.g., Reporter.lu is saying instead of talking about the metadata of the source (which you can only do if the source discusses it). You can't just WP:SYNTH things together like that. The sources you're citing need to directly say that there is a controversy over LiveJasmin's actions. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you but I do not see how stating the title of the source which basically summarizes what the source is about is better than writing it in my own words what the source mentions which many have commented is what actually constitutes WP:SYNTH. Regardless, I respect your opinion. Alexfotios (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its entire purpose is to summarize sources, which just putting down the title fails to do. Not to mention you can see all the source names in the references section at the end, anyway.

That wasn't what I meant by SYNTH. For example, in paragraph 1, you put sources next to each other to suggest that LiveJasmin is doing something wrong and encouraging people to break the law, which none of the sources in paragraph 1 say. You also cannot put in paragraph 2, as WP:DUE weight has not been given to it due to a lack of secondary reporting on the question.

Anyways, it seems I'm not very good at explaining this. You can ask the people over at the WP:TEAHOUSE to get what I mean. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Now I think u are engaging in SYNTH. Since when putting multiple sources together is SYNTH? I did that because I wanted to make clear that Docler and LiveJasmin are related. In any case, I have to respectfully disagree. The point of WP is to state the allegations and the sources and let the people walk away with their own conclusions, which is what I tried to do. Alexfotios (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Ask anyone, and they'll hopefully explain in better terms than I can. The folks at TEAHOUSE seem experienced in answering questions. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you - much appreciated User:Aaron_Liu. Alexfotios (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I just want to put in two cents -- often the headlines (titles) of sources are meant to draw in readers, and they do not objectively summarize the meat and potatoes of the overall analysis found deeper in the article. We see this, for example, when a headline might say that a court "upheld a law", when in fact it could be more accurate to say that the court vacated an order, or it did not consider the merits of claims raised. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

What u are suggesting would be SYNTH - the refs tell the story and the results are there for people to see and make up their own minds. It is also up to them to decide whether the titles of the refs are there to draw in readers (which again is POV thinking) or not. Regardless, thank you very much for your opinion. Alexfotios (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

To give a specific example that titles are actually milder in this case than what is written, the proposed section writes that the Caregari article talks about "model arrests in Uganda" while the tile simply says "Docler's delicate dealings in Uganda" Alexfotios (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• No, the section should not be titled "Controversy". "Controversy" sections tend to lead to NPOV issues, and they are generally not a good way to structure articles (articles should be organized by subtopic, not by point of view or level of controversy). See WP:CSECTION for more on this. No opinion on including the material in a section with a different heading. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you Alexfotios (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is your beef just the title of the section and how would you propose this obviously not imagined, relevant and, I think, adequately cited section, makes it to Wikipedia? Is it best the information of the facts relating to model arrests remain unknown as far as WP is concerned? Any suggestion would be appreciated and followed as long as it is WP compliant and does not omit the essence of the section. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  User:Mx. Granger the title of the proposed section has been changed to "Legal Issues". Is that acceptable to you? Alexfotios (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  "Legal issues" is fine with me. With that heading, I'm neutral on whether or not to include, as I haven't looked at the sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: The first paragraph is entirely WP:SYNTH and original research, and one of your references is even citing Wikipedia. Both issues were already raised with you weeks ago. Your second paragraph contains WP:SYNTH, but less original research: it seems true that an MP did in fact submit a question about this practice, however, it was already explained to you that this is not notable. The third paragraph also contains WP:SYNTH, but actually has an okay third-party reliable reference to Reporter.lu. Congrats, this was added to the article! Since the only part of your RfC with any standing has already been added to the article, the RfC should be closed. Going forward, you have to stop reposting this RfCs with minimal changes from the last, WP:BLUDGEONING everyone who disagrees with you. RfC literally means request for comments, but you're not hearing the comments given to you. If you continue to do this, and if you continue to accuse other editors of acting with bias, you are likely to be reported and blocked. Mokadoshi (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

"Completely synth" is definitely a phrase not advisable to someone who claims someone else is doing it. Last forgotten Wiki reference is removed, Also u did not give us any reasons as to why it is WP:SYNTH. I am not bludgeoning anyone - simply defending my position to extravagant claims and expressions that I think are undeserving. Thank you for the addition but I do not agree the RfC should be closed. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, why don't you try reading WP:SYNTH, then compare the examples in that article to your first paragraph, and explain to me how it's not WP:SYNTH. It sounds like you don't understand what SYNTH is, and I encourage you to try this because it might help me understand what the confusion is. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Dear User:Mokadoshi I read WP:SYNTH and I do not see it. Since you seem to have such a deep understanding of the concept it should not be too hard to help me make the first paragraph non WP:SYNTH. I mean we are talking 3-4 lines of text here. Alexfotios (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

SYNTH is when references are used to support statements that are true in isolation, but do not support the overall claim. An example could be the claim: The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security,[1] but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.[2] Lets suppose that these 2 references truly do support their respective claims. These are true statements in isolation, but together they imply a claim that the UN is failing in its objective, which is not actually supported by either reference. This claim about the UN's failure may actually be true, but you need to find a reference that actually supports that specific claim.

If you look at your first paragraph the claim being made is (paraphrasing for brevity): For a number of years there have been allegations that LiveJasmin is offering cam model work to models residing in countries where this job is illegal. In order for this claim to be added to the article, you need to find at least one reliable, third party reference that supports this entire claim. But you didn't. You gave 4 references about the company name, and references that cam model work is illegal in various countries. But none of these references in this paragraph support the claim. Again, I'm not saying that your claim is wrong, I'm saying that you aren't demonstrating it with the references you gave. You need to delete all the references from this paragraph, and replace it with one reference that supports the entire claim. Mokadoshi (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You are right User:Mokadoshi - let me change it Alexfotios (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It is now chnaged User:Mokadoshi. Anything else? Alexfotios (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

In my response to you, I gave you specific suggestions on how to address the SYNTH for the first paragraph, and explained that a similar process should be done for all your paragraphs as they have similar problems. Explain to me what you understand my suggested changes to be, and then explain what you've changed. Mokadoshi (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Mokadoshi In the first paragraph I changed "For a number of years there have been allegations that LiveJasmin..." to "There have been allegations that LiveJasmin..." Should I change something more? Alexfotios (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The short answer is yes. All your change does is remove the years claim while the other claims are still there. The only reference that alleges against LiveJasmin is Reporter.lu, and all the citations in the first paragraph is tangential. You may want to reread Mokadoshi's second paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Also User:Mokadoshi I do not see in the article the section your said that was added. Alexfotios (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that the entire section was added to the article, just the Reporter.lu reference. The sentence in the article is In countries where sex webcamming is illegal, studios and models assume legal risk instead of the platform. This sentence is appropriately supported by the Reporter.lu reference since the article is about models facing legal trouble due to their local laws (as far as I can tell, because I don't speak German). Mokadoshi (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Mokadoshi, the one line that you added is definitely POV and SYNTH: "In countries where sex webcamming is illegal, studios and models assume legal risk instead of the platform." Specifically "studios and models assume legal risk instead of the platform" is an absolute assertion that implies a number of falsehoods: 1) That all studios and models are fully aware of their legal responsibility and the possible penalties they face when they sign on, as those are well laid out or omitted in very carefully crafted terms in the site's ToS, 2) That the company, although in full knowledge of the repercussions that go up to life imprisonment up to now and may reach the death penalty, at some point, in countries like Uganda (Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66645740), bears no moral or business ethics responsibility at all; e.g. something similar can be claimed by a drug dealer who sells to adults - yet drug dealers are not absolved of moral or legal repercussions. Alexfotios (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

But LiveJasmin is in a different country and thus are absolved of legal repercussions. Reporter.lu contains all the content next to each other for the entire sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No, they aren't. If you operate in a country, you are bound by their laws, no matter where your company is based. Cortador (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, and that still applies if it's uploading over the internet with no other operations? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. As soon as you offer an online service in a country, you are operating there. Cortador (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct - and that is why their ToS is carefully crafted to shove as much of the legal responsibility to the model/studio. They have crafted and re-crafted their model ToS multiple times to this purpose. For more details see this study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14614448211059117 Alexfotios (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) Seemingly every editor here except Alexfotios has said the same thing: that this addition is pretty much entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Time to move on. Avgeekamfot (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you but problem is, if the same standard were applied to all articles maybe half of WP content would be gone. Alexfotios (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  No they wouldn't. 90% of our current, separately referenced claims follow each other but don't change the impression of each other. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  How did u come up with the 90% number User:Avgeekamfot. I propose a simple experiment - we take 10 articles in the same category as this one and see how many of them don't do that while mine, also , does not do that. It is just an arbitrary claim you make. Alexfotios (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sure. Make sure they aren't already tagged as synthesis. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ok we can do that - let me get 10 and show you. Couple of days though. This is an experiment just for fun. Alexfotios (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that the article from Reporter is suitable for inclusion. However, as others have noted, the OR needs to go, and Reporter should be attributed if a section on this is included in the article. Lastly, "Controversy" is the wrong term to use here. If this was controversial, there would be a heated public debate about it, with strong opinions on both sides. That is not the case. Cortador (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed User:Cortador that is why I changed the proosed section's title to "Legal Issues". Do you have another suggestion as a title? 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Alexfotios (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  User:Cortador What is the "OR" please? Alexfotios (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Original research. Cortador (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please point out what you think is original research and I will take a good hard look at it. Thank you so much! Alexfotios (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  The SYNTH Aaron Liu (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  I have heard you User:Aaron_Liu - please point out the synth and I am waiting for User:Cortador to give a suggestion too. As far as I see the first serction's refs are all about linking Docler and LiveJasmin which is needed, and articles from reputable independent sources that report allegations of arrests and incarcerations. So, as far as I am concerned it is ok. Is the second paragraph that you consider noon-compliant? The third paragraph, I again find to be quite ok. Please let me know. Cheeers! Alexfotios (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agree Jack4576 (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you User:Jack4576 Alexfotios (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have now removed the middle (OR) paragraph about the parliamentary question. Will add it when I have more good independent links referring to it. Thank you! Alexfotios (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not as worded and not in a "Controversy" section. The article already says "In countries where sex webcamming is illegal ... the platform has studios and models assume legal risk," hence it's nonsensical to say "allegations that LiveJasmin ... is offering cam model work to models in countries where this job is illegal" as if that was somehow unknown and surprising. And the text about "allegations" supposedly discovered by a journalist in Luxembourg is so vague as to be useless. Frankly, our readers will not care who wrote the article, but which allegations were made – now that might be relevant for Wikipedia, but the suggested wording doesn't tell it at all. If there's something interesting there (especially if not yet covered in the article), it should be reworded accordingly prior to adding it. Gawaon (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

  Update: I've noticed that OP has been blocked for sockpuppetry, so the issue may have become kinda moot. Gawaon (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  It was partially mooted before that since the text you quoted was added to the article (as a result of this discussion, see #c-Mokadoshi-20240410035000-Alexfotios-20240409215300), though I really disagree with the block as they did not use the alternate account for nefarious reasons. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.