Talk:Tijuana bible

Comics Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pornography Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Tijuana (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tijuana, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TijuanaWikipedia:WikiProject TijuanaTemplate:WikiProject TijuanaTijuana articles

Is it ok to refer to Playboy as the example of a pornographic magazine?

Was Playboy a pornographic magazine then? Is it now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.179.10.192 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and yes. Our article Pornography starts with a fair definition of the term. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Playboy was very careful NOT to cross the line back then, kind of dull by modern standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylerspal (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, ironically because of your good definition. Pornography is an explicit representation. I haven't looked at Playboy in many years, but the closest I remember to anything "explicit" was a sequence of shots of a nude Kris Kristofferson and Sarah Miles in bed to promote The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea. The photos suggested some form of sexual activity, but did not show anything specific. (Nevertheless, Rita Coolidge, Kristofferson's wife, was not happy.) I would consider these photos erotic, not pornographic.

The confusion occurs because both erotic and pornographic art seek to sexually arouse the viewer/reader. The distinction is that eroticism is not explicit. In this context, "explicit" means the graphic display of sexual acts. I find James Bama's depictions of cowboys and mountain men arousing, but that doesn't make them pornography -- at least, not with respect to Bama's intent.

I'm getting a bit OT here, but it might be useful to consider the brief scene in Deadwood where the bartender is having sex with one of the prostitutes. We see no genitalia, only his buttocks. Does that make the scene sufficiently explicit to be pornography? I don't know, but I'm inclinded to say "no".

With respect to this article... It would be more correct to say that the rise of general-circulation magazines that showed frontal female nudity (such as Playboy), as well as the general lessening of legal restrictions in the US against the explicit depiction of sex, reduced interest in Tijuana Bibles.

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists .... ?

I'm not sure the lists of cartoon characters and celebrities adds a lot to the article. Thoughts? 66.191.19.68 (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think you could craft a sentence or two that lists some examples of characters and celebrities that appeared in the bibles, and then drop the lists. ike9898 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clean up work. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why bibles

Should French bibles redirect here - seems rather strange —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.37.77 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tijuana bible. 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/20120315184042/http://www.tijuanabible.org/articles/birth-of-the-8-pager-by-donald-h-gilmore-phd.html to http://www.tijuanabible.org/articles/birth-of-the-8-pager-by-donald-h-gilmore-phd.html

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) 05:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]