Template talk:Pornography

Wow

G S Palmer, this is brilliant! Thank you for taking such a controversial topic and applying a clinical and logical perspective to it!!! -Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow Manoj0028 (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

OK Anbu moni (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Revenge porn is not pornography

I replaced the term "revenge porn" by "nonconsensual pornography" which redirects to "revenge porn". It was reverted by the creator of this template. Likewise I would prefer to see the term "child pornography" replaced by "images of child abuse", but I know that's a cause not worth pursuing.

The world knows that child pornography is child abuse and not pornography. The world knows that "revenge porn" is on-line harassment and hate speech and not pornography.

Have this G S Palmer. It's not brilliant. It's not worth a jerk and the world will make its own conclusions about your good faith. c1cada (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: I'm sorry if it makes you angry that I reverted your edit, but I stand by my reversion. In this case it is a matter of what is the most common name for the subject: searching revenge porn on Google returns over 24 million hits, whereas searching nonconsensual pornography only returns 426,000 hits. It is readily apparent which is more appropriate.

As to my good faith, I don't see why devoting time I could easily spend elsewhere to constructing a navigation template solely to help others find related articles could be construed as a gesture of bad faith. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Strange. I quoted a Google search in precisely the opposite terms at revenge porn:

First of all, a Google search on exact terms give about 22,000 hits for "revenge pornography" against about 4,000,000 for "revenge porn". That suggests to me a clear tendency by the general public not to regard revenge porn as just "pornography". Go to a porn videos streaming site and you won't find "revenge" in the catalogue of genres offered up. The objection to categorizing revenge porn as a form of pornography is the same as for the much criticized term "child pornography", that it effectively legitimizes abuse. Adolescents today, well guarded and advised against sexual predators, are astonished to discover that as little as 15 years ago search engines such as Google were linking to child pornography sites and those sites were by no means all hosted in emerging nations with inadequate laws (for example Network Solutions were hosting such sites in the US). Part of the problem there, at least, was the focus on the pornography and freedom of expression issues (the latter invariably cited by the site owners along with various US Supreme Court decisions as to what constituted child pornography), rather than the child abuse it implied.

Your template is about pornography. "Child pornography" and "revenge porn" is not pornography. They shouldn't be listed. They belong to the sexual abuse template. c1cada (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: Yes, I saw your comment, and I see what you're driving at. And while your argument may be true, something can be categorized in more than one category at once, which is the case with these topics. Furthermore, it is not the job of Wikipedia to provide interpretation, but rather to report established fact, and both of your listed examples are widely viewed as a type of pornography, proven by the use of the word in their names.

Lastly, this isn't "my" template. I only created it, with the hope that other people would be able to add to it, as many have. And I wish that this interaction could be more congenial, since I don't feel that this is an issue that needs to create hard feelings. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. But you have to admit it's something likely to stir up strong feelings. It's just that I think you're giving pornography a bad name .... Good luck with the template. Best. c1cada (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Very good. Channyeinwai (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete, move or clarify?

About a revert of an edit I made.

Note: The "some disputed" I put in were not about the effects article, but clarifying the category, e.g. what is under it. As the template implies there are (these) effects and if you look no further, you will not notice a controversy about it, thinking these effects are a fact, an "addiction", a medical-term (see WP:MEDRS about them). "Possible effects" is not good as also implies "possible", maybe "Proposed effects"?

It seems the template is mostly WP:NPOV, I guess grouping what is under "Pornography", is actually that, and to counteract, there is "Anti-pornography".

I'm all for inclusion of even disputed medical conditions/thoeries here (that may get recognition later) and in WP in general (then they can be debunked at those pages); [I'm generally pro-inclusion in WP (just did an AfD, so there are limits..).]

We, could put "Internet sex addiction" ("proposed as a sexual addiction"), and "Pornography addiction"

("Porn addiction is not currently a diagnosis in DSM-5.[13][14][15] "Viewing online pornography" is mentioned verbatim inside DSM-5,[12] but it is not considered a mental disorder either.[13][14][15]", in DSM-5: "Excessive use of the Internet not involving playing of online games (e.g., excessive use of social media, such as Facebook; viewing pornography online) is not considered analogous to Internet gaming disorder, and future research on other excessive uses of the Internet would need to follow similar guidelines as suggested herein.")

under the "Anti-pornography"-heading (the propaganda(?) against-categories). Or just delete them, as an alternative, as as it stands the heading for them is WP:POV. Saying these are "Effects" is just not proven. I didn't want to use scare quotes: e.g. Pornography "addiction", is this is the article title, and it says it is disputed. comp.arch (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Comp.arch: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I understand what you are arguing. Could you please clarify? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

In short, category templates are to give an overview of a subject. I think they should include what is relevant, yes. We have some leeway in how we organize the categories, but I believe putting something under "Effects", implies that pornography leads to (one or two) "addiction". That seems to be a "point-of-view" WP:POV (a WP policy disallowing those, article need to be neutral). Unless something is proven, it seems categorization, should also follow it.

Here is an article, Mobile phone radiation and health that is very strict about including WP:FRINGE non-scientific bullshit in. I would wish the brain and sex (biology) and society was as clear-cut about proving an effect as in physics. If I saw a template on non-ionizing radiation, with a heading "Effects" and there-under "Radiation", I would throw it out or at least, change to "Unproven effects" or something. comp.arch (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing. I was merely trying to include those articles in the navbox, since they were in Category:Pornography and its related subcats (I built this whole article from the Pornography category system). "Effects" seemed like the best generalization to put all of them under, so that's what I did. If you can think of a better categorization, go ahead. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with simply going with "effects" in this case. After all, the article is titled Effects of pornography, not Proposed effects of pornography, or something similar; nor should it be. Pornography does come with effects, but it's the "to what extent" and "how much of it is medical" aspects that are being debated. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I'm not having issue with *that* article (the name is shortened, but I guess ok, here). I'm having issue, with what is categories under it. See my next edit, it may resolve the issue. comp.arch (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not bad. Perhaps, however, it would work better in the "related" subsection? @Flyer22:, what do you think? Should it go where it is, be moved to "related", or back to effects? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Effects of pornography, I couldn't locate, the most obvious, unstated "effect" of porn.. why people use it at all :) It seemed more "anti-porn". I could go with a "Related"-section added to "anti-pornography" and putting it all there. Internet sex addiction is related to, but not only porn, so that is something against moving it under "porn", maybe not "anti-porn"? I'm not sure if they should not be separated, or maybe they actually should? Others might object, but thinking about it Erotica, might be related to "porn" and go under "related" there, not pushing for it.. comp.arch (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't misunderstand. You misunderstand that there was nothing wrong with the "Effects" listing and having the articles that were under it categorized as aspects of it. A template is not the place to try to argue whether or not those aspects are effects of pornography. And because of your edits here and here, we no longer have an Effects listing on the template. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not strictly true, under "See also" I put Effects of pornography, so that is an "effect", it's just not a category in the template; also there Internet sex addiction, and by being in the template (and "sex"), I think people will put two and two together and infer (rightly or wrongly) that its related to "porn" (and an effect). If you want it under "Related", I already proposed that. I edited to that effect and got reverted again. comp.arch (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't state that you removed the links, now did I? I stated that the "Effects" listing was removed, and it was. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Internet sex addiction, pornography addiction, pornophobia and STDs in the porn industry are indeed all effects of pornography, as noted in the literature because people (mostly men) have cited them as effects. Of course, pornography affects people differently, but that doesn't negate that all of these aspects have been cited by reliable sources as effects of pornography. Flyer22 (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I have reverted Comp.arch's edits until the matter has been discussed further. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Self, reported "addiction" doesn't make it true. If the medical community would have concurred, that it is an actual phenomenon, would they not have added it to the newly released DSM-5? They chose against it. I'm not strictly against the STD part, but medically its a consequence of [unprotected] sex, not [just] porn (correlated w/frequency of sex). It can go under related. comp.arch (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

An effect does not have to mean a medical effect. I am speaking of any effect of pornography, be it social, physical or medical (meaning psychological as well). Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have again reverted your change, since you failed to discuss further before making it. As it stands, two editors disagree with you on your stance. If you feel more eyes (and opinions) are needed, you can open an RFC. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, not strictly true, I discussed again, see above, I just didn't wait for a response.. You seems to oppose, if the other party really also does (not ok, with the alternatives), I may to that. Now think this over, one other alternative is that I propose drastic changes to the pages involved. comp.arch (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You "commented" again: you didn't "discuss". A resolution to the issue should be agreed on (consensus) before any further changes are made. As to your suggestion that you "propose drastic changes to the pages involved", go ahead. Of course, you'll be dealing with a different set of editors (not me at least) while doing so. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok. How about a compromise that all here, seem to agree with. Change "Effects" to not link to anything, just be a heading with the name "Controversial effects" and at the same time move Effects of pornography under that heading. Note, even that page has a neutrality banner template. I didn't put it there.. honest :) I think the "Controversial" applies to all of the other articles in the category – for sure. This seems to be the most simple solution. comp.arch (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No. I think adding "controversial effects" would be far too POV. These are all supposed to be effects of pornography, and listing them under that heading makes sense. The fact that the effects of pornography article has some issues doesn't affect this template at all. What do you think, @Flyer22:? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"controversial" means I think.. that there are (at least) two sides and the word then acknowledged that there is POV 1 and POV and by doing that it is WP:NPOV, isn't that the case here between us here and also about all of these concepts? I thought "disputed effects", might sound more negative, and what I propose a neutral term. Any other better word to add? comp.arch (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think any modifiers are needed, and you'll have to try pretty hard to convince me otherwise. This template is supposed to be just a collection of links, without commentary. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with G S Palmer on this. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

And the Template:POV tag was placed on the Effects of pornography article without any explanation for it on the talk page or in the edit summary. It has therefore since been removed. Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Pornography in the United Kingdom

I notice that By region>Europe>United Kingdom links to Outline of British pornography, which is merely an unsourced list. There is now a much longer article on the subject at Pornography in the United Kingdom. The link presumably dates to a time before the longer article was written. Is there any objection if I change the link to point to the longer article? Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Very large temple

How about removing section Awards and Laws / Child pornography laws for independent templates?Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That could work, and I'm not opposed to it. Another option would be to convert the whole template to {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}. What do you think? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: I'd rather not. Template:Navbox with collapsible groups does not display in the mobiles and it will not solve the problem of size. But I'll wait a while for the opinion of other editors.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. I've never accessed Wikipedia via mobile, so I didn't know that was a problem. Since that's the case, I don't object to splitting the template. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 04:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I think it would be interesting to also remove some not-so-notorious items, such as exemple Mormon pornography and Tentacle erotica.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Why does it have to be pink?

Diffs

• 1
• 2

It's not doing much to tackle gender bias on Wikipedia. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: Why not? Also, how is the color of the template related to gender bias? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: Pink for girls, better yet, ones with no clothes on. See Pinkstinks. Why not isn't really a case for. Why revert when other editors have made the template gender neutral? I see nothing in the diffs above other than "don't", there's no link to policy or a talk page consensus, no rationale has been offered for the reverts. Perhaps you can offer one? See also: Wikipedia:Writing about women by SlimVirgin and others. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist:This pink color is inherited from Portal:Pornography. And it's a default theme color de:Portal:Erotik und Pornografie, pt:Portal:Pornografia.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Guilherme Burn: and @G S Palmer: I think I'll do a RfC for this to see what the community thinks. Do either of you have any other arguments to put forward for the pro-pink choice, other than the ones you've already given i.e. "Why not?" and it is inherited from the English Wikipedia portal and is the colour used by the German and the Portuguese portals? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: please do start an RFC. I don't see any strong reason for this to be pink per WP:DEVIATIONS. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I will go ahead but I'll give Guilherme Burn and G S Palmer chance to add to the argument for keeping it pink but the argument against will include a breach of WP:COLOURCONTRAST for white text on a pink background. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi @The Vintage Feminist: I don't see any problem in open a RfC. These details really can offend, but in this case I think it's a case of "editorial freedom". Let us know here, ok?Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: I don't have time for a full comment right now, but where do you see white text on a pink background? All I see is black on white or black on pink, with the occasional blue on pink due to a link. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: On the Portal:Pornography that Guilherme Burn linked to. Come to think of it, it might be better to do the RfC there for both the template and the portal. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

{{Biology nav}} Why does it have to be green? {{Anarchism}} Why does it have to be black? Colors have associations. I do not see gender bias here, pink color is associated with all types of pornography, men, women, hetero, gay, etc. See[1], of the 12 portals, 11 use pink themes.Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC) I edited the portal.Guilherme Burn (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is that proposed title is unnecessary (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 18:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Template:Pornography → Template:Erotica and Pornography – See Talk:Erotica#Wikipedian concept of Erotica and Pornography. Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unnecessary. So leave as is. Take note that Guilherme Burn moved Portal:Pornography to Portal:Erotica and Pornography with no discussion. If that portal is to have the latter name, "pornography" should be decapitalized. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Portal talk:Erotica and Pornography#Portal:Pornography move and update, per WP:BB.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That is still no discussion. And you still need to fix that title by decapitalizing "pornography." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

And the ability to be bold on Wikipedia doesn't mean that you should go ahead and change a title that might be contested. WP:Bold has a WP:CAREFUL section. At least you've taken the time to ask about changing the title of this template, and queried the erotica matter at Talk:Erotica. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Flyer22. The proposed title is unnecessarily verbose, especially since very few people will actually see the template except where it is transcluded onto a page, meaning concision is more important. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.