Jump to content

Talk:Pornography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.80.7.142 (talk) at 07:35, 12 April 2024 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2023: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured article candidatePornography is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 19, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Semi Protected Edit Request on 30th of August 2021

Pornography

Change the text from:

Pornography (often shortened to porn) is the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal.[1] Pornography may be presented in a variety of media,…

To:

Pornography (often shortened to porn) is the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal.[1] A distinction could be drawn between erotic art and hard pornography.[ref] Pornography may be presented in a variety of media,


[ref] Lancet 11 June 1241/2 (1977), https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/148012?redirectedFrom=Pornography#eid


Etymology

Change the text from:

…As early as 1864, Webster's Dictionary defined the word bluntly as "a licentious painting".[21], The more inclusive word erotica, sometimes used as a synonym...

to:

…As early as 1864, Webster's Dictionary defined the word bluntly as "a licentious painting"[21], and the Oxford English Dictionary definition is from obscene painting (1842), description of obscene matters, obscene publication (1977 or earlier).[ref] The more inclusive word erotica when not demoted to pornography by censors, is used as a synonym…


[ref] OED, 2021, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/148012?redirectedFrom=Pornography#eid

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

Change what is being publicized as legal, because it's not legal in the America's. Research the topic further beyond disenfranchised infiltrators. It is federally illegal via 18 us code 1465. "Pornstars" are descendant of globally known kidnap/abduction victims or infiltrators attempting to usurp. It's been listed repeatedly as legal and it is not legal. 173.80.13.48 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Porn is not legal in the US and as a whole is described as sexual entertainment. The reference is the keyword "production" in 18 us code 1465. Pornography is not a political cartoon nor is it an admiration of a healthy physically fit form. Pornography is not an artistic comparison of the human body to vegetation found in nature. Pornography is not legal by any means. It, definition, is obscene.
18 U.S. Code § 1465 - Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change "Pornography is legal in the Us" to "Pornography is illegal in the US" referencing 18 US Code 1465. It IS obscene as indicated by its specific quality of lacking any value other than its usage and description of sexual entertainment. It is LITERALLY disinformation to say "Pornography is legal [in the United states]" 173.80.7.142 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would need to be supported by a reliable, secondary source. Your (mis)interpretation of the US Code is not a usable source on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What dictionary should be used as a teritary source?
"...obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph recording, electrical transcription or other article capable of producing sound or any other matter of indecent or immoral character, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
"The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely accepted as the most complete record of the English language ever assembled." -https://library.harvard.edu/services-tools/oxford-english-dictionary#:~:text=The%20Oxford%20English%20Dictionary%20(OED,OED%20is%20a%20historical%20dictionary.
Oxford dictionary via google
Obscene: (of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency.
"obscene jokes"
Similar: pornographic
Lewd: crude and offensive in a sexual way.
"she began to gyrate to the music and sing a lewd song" 173.80.7.142 (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lascivious:
(of a person, manner, or gesture) feeling or revealing an overt and often offensive sexual desire.
"he gave her a lascivious wink"
Similar:
lecherous
lewd
It is extremely clear...it's better to say illegal but not enforced rather than to blatantly claim that its legal...because that is BLATANT disinformation. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion does not matter. My opinion does not matter, either. You need very strong WP:RS in order to add your claim to the article. WP:OR won't do. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally the US code itself via Cornell along with Oxford definitions. What more do you actually feel like you need? There are other pages describing laws in other countries listed as illegal but not enforced, what is the actual problem? Which do you feel is an opinion? The definition to the words themselves or the "shall be [fined and/or imprisoned] section? It's literally not an opinion.
As early as June 28th, 1955:
https://www.govinfo.gov/link/statute/69/183
18 U.S. Code § 2256 2. A. (v)lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person;
I can literally keep listing references... 173.80.7.142 (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lascivious is legitimately used as an adjective to describe the [display]. None of this is an opinion. Its not "original research" either; I didnt reference myself. I referenced cornell, oxford, govinfo.gov, and now justice.gov
https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity
The examples literally include the words "erotic" and "lascivious". Ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse. Along with the criteria of lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The definition wikipedia uses to describe it "...for sexual satisfaction" 173.80.7.142 (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional references, from wikipedia itself Pornography in the Us..."the U.S. Customs and Border Protection prohibits the importation of any pornographic material (19 U.S.C. § 1305a "Immoral articles; importation prohibited").[62]
And the source itself is the US code via Cornell: "...or any obscene.."
If I'm (mis)interpreting an entire US code that uses the same word(s) then how is that article truthful?
That is a clear contradiction. One of them is clearly domestic the other is foreign import surrounding the same exact topic...theres honestly nothing misinterpreted. This totals to approximately 6 references now. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concocting your own original research or original synthesis (WP:SYNTH) is prohibited by website policy. So you still have a no, next week it will still be a no, next month still a no, and next year still a no. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said a newspaper article...as a secondary source...but not official US codes, multiple .gov websites, pdfs, and an official dictionary? The Miller test, which is repeatedly referred to, isn't even enough in YOUR opinion good enough to edit it to say "legal but regulated"?.
19 U.S.C. § 1305a "Immoral articles; importation prohibited" is good enough for the sentence via Wikipedia that the "importation of pornography is banned" despite the fact that the word "obscene" is what is used in the referenced US code..yet the same word "obscene" along with "lewd" and "lascivious" is what is used in 18 us code 1465.
Here's another definition: Prurient, the word used in the Miller test: having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters.
Pornography
Oxford languages definition: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.
Wikipedia's definition contains "explicitly for sexual arousal"
Explain how my claim fits original research when i didnt reference myself.
Explain how my claims fits the description of synthesis when I literally used the explicitly stated definitions, the explicitly stated synonyms, and the SAME exact word that is explicitly stated in another US code that is utilized for the sentence "[The importation of pornography is banned]" via Wikipedia's own article, Pornography in the US 173.80.7.142 (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been said repeatedly before, you really need a reliable, secondary source to back up this claim. Such a source would be a (reliable) newspaper article stating – not arguing, but stating – such, or strong evidence of a successful recent prosecution on those grounds. Without such a source, your argument does not hold up to the standards of an Encyclopaedia. Frankly, your persistence on this matter despite repeated explanations of why the answer is 'no' may constitute disruptive editing, which could result in an editing ban. I would also like to remind you that edit requests are specifically for edits that are uncontroversial or have already received consensus, not for arguing about your personal interpretation of a law. If you really wish to take this further, there are other avenues for dispute resolution; edit requests are not such. I highly doubt, however, that further attempts will be successful, so my polite suggestion would be to reconsider if this is worth your time. See also: WP:STICK -- Irltoad (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has negated any source that ive supplied. Another wikipedia article also agrees. No one has explained how ny sources fit "original research" or "synthesis" either, especially when whats being used are the same exact words that are written...Did you actually even look at my sources? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative studies indicate higher tolerance and consumption of pornography among people tends to be associated with their greater support for gender equality.

What studies? Because there's studies that actually say the opposite like this one:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcom.12037

So I think that statement should be removed unless an actual source can be provided. 2A04:4A43:436F:E703:0:0:1FBF:B9E3 (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Pornography Consumption and Attitudes Towards Pornography Legality Predict Attitudes of Sexual Equality Journal of Sex Research. 58 (3): 396–408. Jan 2021
Lead text is summary of the article. All the claims in the lead are elaborated in the article's body with references, thanks. Rim sim (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first paper is not indexed for PubMed, the second is. The second paper is even indexed for MEDLINE. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a surprise? Pornography does not promote conservative ideas about gender roles. Dimadick (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is a systematic review, but if it is a review, it is higher in the pecking order than a WP:PRIMARY study. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good revert

The reverted edits are pseudoscientific ("The way of dopamine release is similar to addictive drugs such as meth"), antisemitic ("Not to mention, Roth was Jewish... Which the co-founder is also Jewish"), and a conspiracy theory ("The invalidation of obcenity laws went against the will of the american people, but multiple courts ensured it happened"). I mean, since the Bill of Rights declared that freedom of speech is holy, courts did not have any other option than to legalize pornography. They can claim that the Bill of Rights is the conspiracy, but that's a profoundly un-American view. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carterand (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pornography&oldid=1218530135"