This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Also, a complaint [3] was launched with ALIA (Luxembourg Independent Audiovisual Authority) [4], containing the exact same allegations. ALIA considered the complaint, and although the allegations against Docler Holding and LiveJasmin were not disputed in their decision [3], ALIA suggested, in that same decision document [3], 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 [4], and not the particulars of the conditions and parties involved in the creation of that content.
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: /info/en/?search=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)
References
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") [1] [2] [3] [4], is offering cam model work to models residing in countries where this job is illegal [5] [6] [7]
Recently, a Parliamentary Question regarding LiveJasmin [8], titled "Parliamentary question relating to activities deemed dangerous by a Luxembourg holding company operating a pornographic webcam streaming platform." [9], was filed in the Parliament of Luxembourg, by MP Marc Baum [10] of the "déi Lénk" [11] party.
A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication [12] 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". [13] The article was authored by Luc Caregari [14], an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg. Alexfotios ( talk) 21:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
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") [1] [2] [3] [4], is offering cam model work to models residing in countries where this job is illegal [5] [6] [7]
Recently, a Parliamentary Question regarding LiveJasmin [8], titled "Parliamentary question relating to activities deemed dangerous by a Luxembourg holding company operating a pornographic webcam streaming platform." [9], was filed in the Parliament of Luxembourg, by MP Marc Baum [10] of the "déi Lénk" [11] party.
A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication [12] 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". [13] The article was authored by Luc Caregari [14], 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)
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 [15]; 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. [16] [17]
Recently a formal Parliamentary Question [18], regarding "LiveJasmin's dangerous activities in Uganda", was filed in the Parliament of Luxembourg, by MP Marc Baum [19] 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. [20] The article was authored by Luc Caregari [21], 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 [22] but also because the country has recently enacted an Anti-LGBTQ+ law, that includes the death penalty. [23] 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)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
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") [1] [2] [3] [4], is offering cam model work to models residing in countries [5] where this job is illegal [6], like the Philippines [7] [8] and Russia [9] [6]
Recently, a Parliamentary Question regarding LiveJasmin's operation in Uganda [10], titled "Parliamentary question relating to activities deemed dangerous by a Luxembourg holding company operating a pornographic webcam streaming platform." [11], was filed in the Parliament of Luxembourg, by MP Marc Baum [12] of the "déi Lénk" [13] party.
A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication [14] 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". [15] The article was authored by Luc Caregari [16], an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg. Alexfotios ( talk) 16:21, 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)
References
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") [1] [2] [3] [4], is offering cam model work to models residing in countries [5] where this job is illegal [6], like the Philippines [7] [8] and Russia [9] [6]
A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication [10] 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". [11] The article was authored by Luc Caregari [12], an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg. Alexfotios ( talk) 20:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
References
|
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") [1] [2] [3] [4], is offering cam model work to models in countries where this job is illegal [5], like the Philippines [6] [7] and Russia [8] [5]
A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication [9] reported allegations, about LiveJasmin, relating to model arrests in Uganda, in an article titled "Luxembourg porn company: Docler's delicate dealings in Uganda". [10] The article was authored by Luc Caregari [11], 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)
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.
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)
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)
References
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Also, a complaint [3] was launched with ALIA (Luxembourg Independent Audiovisual Authority) [4], containing the exact same allegations. ALIA considered the complaint, and although the allegations against Docler Holding and LiveJasmin were not disputed in their decision [3], ALIA suggested, in that same decision document [3], 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 [4], and not the particulars of the conditions and parties involved in the creation of that content.
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: /info/en/?search=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)
References
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") [1] [2] [3] [4], is offering cam model work to models residing in countries where this job is illegal [5] [6] [7]
Recently, a Parliamentary Question regarding LiveJasmin [8], titled "Parliamentary question relating to activities deemed dangerous by a Luxembourg holding company operating a pornographic webcam streaming platform." [9], was filed in the Parliament of Luxembourg, by MP Marc Baum [10] of the "déi Lénk" [11] party.
A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication [12] 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". [13] The article was authored by Luc Caregari [14], an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg. Alexfotios ( talk) 21:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
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") [1] [2] [3] [4], is offering cam model work to models residing in countries where this job is illegal [5] [6] [7]
Recently, a Parliamentary Question regarding LiveJasmin [8], titled "Parliamentary question relating to activities deemed dangerous by a Luxembourg holding company operating a pornographic webcam streaming platform." [9], was filed in the Parliament of Luxembourg, by MP Marc Baum [10] of the "déi Lénk" [11] party.
A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication [12] 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". [13] The article was authored by Luc Caregari [14], 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)
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 [15]; 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. [16] [17]
Recently a formal Parliamentary Question [18], regarding "LiveJasmin's dangerous activities in Uganda", was filed in the Parliament of Luxembourg, by MP Marc Baum [19] 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. [20] The article was authored by Luc Caregari [21], 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 [22] but also because the country has recently enacted an Anti-LGBTQ+ law, that includes the death penalty. [23] 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)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
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") [1] [2] [3] [4], is offering cam model work to models residing in countries [5] where this job is illegal [6], like the Philippines [7] [8] and Russia [9] [6]
Recently, a Parliamentary Question regarding LiveJasmin's operation in Uganda [10], titled "Parliamentary question relating to activities deemed dangerous by a Luxembourg holding company operating a pornographic webcam streaming platform." [11], was filed in the Parliament of Luxembourg, by MP Marc Baum [12] of the "déi Lénk" [13] party.
A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication [14] 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". [15] The article was authored by Luc Caregari [16], an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg. Alexfotios ( talk) 16:21, 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)
References
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") [1] [2] [3] [4], is offering cam model work to models residing in countries [5] where this job is illegal [6], like the Philippines [7] [8] and Russia [9] [6]
A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication [10] 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". [11] The article was authored by Luc Caregari [12], an investigative Journalist in Luxembourg. Alexfotios ( talk) 20:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
References
|
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") [1] [2] [3] [4], is offering cam model work to models in countries where this job is illegal [5], like the Philippines [6] [7] and Russia [8] [5]
A Luxembourg based investigative journalism publication [9] reported allegations, about LiveJasmin, relating to model arrests in Uganda, in an article titled "Luxembourg porn company: Docler's delicate dealings in Uganda". [10] The article was authored by Luc Caregari [11], 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)
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.
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)
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)
References