Talk:Young People Fucking

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Young People Fucking appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 April 2019, and was viewed approximately 6,877 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a Genie and three Beavers recognized Young People Fucking?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Young People Fucking.

Wikipedia

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Baffle gab1978, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 22 February 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Previous copyedits:
/
	This article was copy edited by Fluffernutter on 21 February 2019.
	This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist on 21 February 2019.

Film: Canadian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.

Canada: Ontario / Toronto / Cinema / The 10,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the joint Canadian film and cinema task force
	This article was created or improved during The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada, which started in November 2016 and is ongoing. You can help!!

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pornography Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I searched for /.ing and this was second on the list... interesting... (was hoping for a reference to Slashdot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.203.42 (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a section for the soundtrack of the film. 99.245.48.26 (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've come back to this time and again but am not sure that (a) the overall soundtrack is notable enough to list every track, such as in a track list template; or (b) that there were any standout tracks to be mentioned in prose. More than 10% of the film's budget was spent on music rights, but I haven't found a whole lot of mention in reliable secondary sources. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the use of women for sexual entertainment

is there anything at all about how there is not one penis shot in this film? considering that men and women are both having sex in it and men are the ones claiming society is so sexually repressed it is extremely sexist to only show women's breasts and then conveniently and blatently hide all the men's penises. this is usually done by men because they like to use women for sexual entertainment only and seeing women naked like this gives them power over women. If they show penises they lose that power. for a movie that claims to be about sexual liberation why is it only women are being "liberated" here and why is it the only reviews are from males who got a free titty show? and of course they liked it. are there any women talking about this at all and giving their reviews and why dont you point out that the reviews are only from men with no male nudity in the film?

If you'll reference Sex differences in humans, you will note that breasts and the penis are not similar organs. I will refrain from pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about sexism while simultaneously maintaining a sexual double-standard. However, if you can produce sources of sociological criticisms of this film pertaining specifically to the dearth of full frontal male nudity, feel free to edit the article accordingly. Tha Pyngwyn (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Young People Fucking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706172822/http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/thehouse_20080531_6051.mp3 to http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/thehouse_20080531_6051.mp3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

I posted a major expansion of the article, and am submitting it for DYK review. I'm pretty satisfied with it, but I feel the lead could be expanded a bit and the critical response section trimmed. I wasn't too sure what to pull from it; many of the reviews which I felt were lower quality were also the negative ones, and I didn't want to lose NPOV. Also, I was afraid that my attempts at summarizing multiple reviews started to get into WP:SYNTH. For example, it seems that Canadian reviews were more positive, as were reviews from the film festivals, while American and DVD reviewers tended to go more negative (some perhaps disappointed that it wasn't porn). There were many disagreements between reviewers about the realism of the movie, and of which segments and performances were better than others. Assistance from an experienced hand at summarizing reviews would be appreciated. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commented out reviews

An editor thought it was appropriate to comment out various reviews, hiding them from the article. The editor did not feel strongly enough to remove the reviews or even start a discussion about removing or keeping them.

Out of sight is out of mind, I have deleted those hidden reviews from the article. If anyone wants to discuss if any of them should be included in the article then please do go back and review the edit when they were hidden.[1] Restore them, delete them, make a decision, just don't hide them. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text -- 109.77.203.218 (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]