Talk:Blue Blood (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Pornography Portal This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[edit] NPOV Tag

I've tagged this article as NPOV because of the overall tone of the article. The overall tone is rather promotional in nature. NPOV means that articles should describe a subject rather than promote or denigrate. This article could be easily made NPOV with a little bit of editing. I'll do so if I have some free time soon, but if anybody else wants to do this, go ahead. Iamcuriousblue 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I found this article to be informing, and did not find anything that would be considered "promotional in nature" other than the websites. Other than that this article sustains a neutral point of view. TheQuietPlace 19:05, 10 October 2006 (PST)

First paragraph: "seminal", "provided the blueprint", "and of course", etc. Pretty promotional, especially with no references to back up these claims. Instead of references, we get five pointers to their various web sites—why so many? —johndburger 13:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole thing's an ad. 71.248.89.20 02:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Very typical of Blue Blood's owners, and altporn.net. An orchestrated attempt at presenting inaccurate information and rewriting themselves as founders or originators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.84.214 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 23 July 2007

Wrong. I'm the one who originally tagged this article, and even I acknowledge that Blue Blood played a central role in starting altporn as a genre. What's your version of altporn history, pray tell? This article needs some basic cleanup (I'll try and get to that soon) and then I'm removing the tags. 97, or whoever you are, who's been going around posting anonymous nastygrams to Blue Blood and altporn related pages – do you have any content to contribute or citable facts that wish to contribute to this article or other articles on altporn? Because so far, I'll I've seen is a lot of sniping on your part and zero contribution toward content improvement. Iamcuriousblue 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the 'gothic fashion' link because this magazine is basically a porn mag. I don't see why there is a constant link between the goth subculture and porn. Plus, the people who run this mag have declared on the board/website that they took over, gothic.net, that they don't like the goth subculture. Crescentia 01:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Blue Blood in print and online and the Gothic and deathrock fashions are one of my favorite parts. [1] [2] [3] You've deleted everything from Cruxshadows to Blue Blood from Gothic and deathrock entries on here. Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts. Where does it say that Blue Blood took over Gothic.net? If Blue Blood does own Gothic.net, doesn't that make them even more relevent for Gothic entries? Where on Gothic.net did Blue Blood say they do not like the goth subculture? You need to actually cite what you are talking about. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not just what you personally do or do not like. (76.170.56.7 05:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

I have stated numerous times that the Cruxshadows are a 'darkwave' band but you seem to ignore that fact. Go look at their Wikipedia entry and see for yourself. Just because Blue Blood took over gothic. net does not make them more relevant. For the simple fact that they spam that site with advertisements for their magazine. They have not contributed any new material for that site since they bought it. It was/is a literary site and NOT a fashion site. Crescentia 16:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed gothic fashion yet again because the magazine has nothing to do with it. If it did it would be advertised as such. Crescentia 04:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the advertisements you refer to. If you are talking about this Wikipedia entry, Wikipedia is a reference and not an advertisement and it is my opinion that this entry is very incomplete. If I have some time, I will put a bit of work into it. See links above for a few fashion cites. (76.170.56.7 05:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

Crescentia, I provided cites demonstrating BlueBlood.net fashion content. You have provided no cites for your claim that Blue Blood owns Gothic.net. You have provided no cites for your contention that Blue Blood has ever stated anything negative about Gothic culture. Your conflicting contentions that Blue Blood owns Gothic.net and spams Gothic.net do not even make any sense. If you delete content from Wikipedia pages with no proper cites, when other people can back up what they say, then you are committing vandalism. Please stop vandalizing Gothic and deathrock pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to discuss edits, please take controversial issues to Talk before you start wholesale deletions. (76.170.56.7 17:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

I have gone to your talk page and you haven't responded, so please do not act like you are acting out of some sort ofself justification for arguing with me. I gave some very valid reasons why Blue Blood should not be in the deathrock section and you happen to disagree with me. That does not make me a vandal in regards to that. I have not done 'wholesale' deletions. I have been deleting a spam link that you keep putting back up. A wholesale deletion would be taking out whole paragraphs, which I did NOT do. You are obviously angry because I do not agree with you on the subject. Why is it so important that the Blue Blood links be kept up? Have they really been that important to the deathrock/goth scenes? If they don't advertise themselves as goth OR deathrock why should they be included in those sections? Crescentia 18:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your private note that you feel I was personally attacking you didn't make sense and you repeated it in the deathrock entry and I already replied to you there. I am upset that you deleted so many Gothic rock bands, including Cruxshadows, Murder Dolls, and Jack Off Jill, among many others. Blue Blood is definitely not the only thing you deleted information about. People on Wikipedia have been reverting your entries like crazy, so clearly others view you as a vandal as well. Maybe you really do know all the people in these bands and publications and have a reason to be mad at them, but it seems like you are just deleting things you do not like for personal reasons, as your main justification you state seems to be whether or not you think the people involved are nice. I think basing opinions on advertisements does not wholly make sense, but what advertisements are you talking about? Here are two I found pretty easily: [4][5] Not that I think having the terms Gothic and deathrock in advertising is the most compelling thing. Everyone knows Blue Blood has been very important to the deathrock and Gothic scenes. Can you name any Gothic or deathrock magazine from the last decade which Blue Blood has not done something with? Can you name any important American deathrockers Blue Blood has not photographed? I realize that I am a big fan of Blue Blood and of many of the bands you deleted and I don't like that you messed up the formatting on my Drop Dead and Deathrock Magazine entries. But you can't seem to provide cites to back up any of what you are saying and Wikipedia does not allow original research, only documented facts. (76.170.56.7 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

You have also been warned on your talk page to stop reverting entries so I am not alone. I gave you proof that The Cruxshadows is not a gothic rock band but you continue to ignore that fact. There is a difference between a band being considered 'goth' and being considered 'gothic rock'. If you can't tell the difference between 'darkwave', which could be considered goth but NOT gothic rock, and gothic rock then maybe you should read the Wiki entires on the subject. This is my last message to you, because to be quite frank there is no use in talking to somebody who is not listening. Crescentia 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major edit

I just did a major re-edit of the article in order to deal with substantial NPOV, promotional, and plagiarism issues. The version I have just posted is free of these problems to the best of my knowledge, so I have removed the various tags at the beginning of the article. Iamcuriousblue 06:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit is a big improvement! However, there are still no references establishing notability; in fact, there are no references at all except those that link back to the Blue Blood site, not good. I'm going to see what Mr Google can find. 72.85.35.109 02:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I didn't really have time to rewrite the entire article from multiple sources, so I at least took the time to rewrite it from a more NPOV standpoint using a conveniently available history. I can confirm from personal knowledge (which I know isn't how you source things for Wikipedia, but anyway) that BlueBlood Magazine did exist during the 1990s, had fairly wide circulation, and was one of the earliest examples of the genre now known as alt porn. (Albeit, Richard Kern was earlier, as were art-porn movies like Cafe Flesh.) Apparently, they were among the first to take alt porn onto the web, another important milestone. All of this, I think, makes Blue Blood very notable. It would be nice to have some independent confirmation of this, though. Iamcuriousblue 02:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)