Talk:Pornhub/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citation needed

Alexa Internet has it at #68 in the list of populr websites and it appears to be #3 for porno sites. Source: Wikipedia, List of most popular websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.91.83 (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Bad link / bad source

This line and link is realy below any standart: "There are sites and programs dedicated to removing the site from one's computer, claiming it is "a browser hijackers that infects user computer through malignant tactics with the aim to steal confidential information such as online banking login details, credit card number and many others".[14]"

The link leads to an untrustworthy (read: fake, rippoff) malware removal site ("Spyhunter"). It doesnt qualify as a valid source. Visiting that site could even be harmfull to readers, if they believe the lies. There are several sites dealing with fakes like these, here are two of them. Please remove that line and the link. http://www.spywarewarrior.com/de-listed.htm#sh_note http://antivirus.about.com/b/2004/05/05/spyhunter-ad-campaign-an-enigma.htm 83.216.253.71 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that section; if nothing else, it was an obviously biased source. Trivialist (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2015

Please change 'Alexa Rank' in the company/website profile side bar from "(Increase) 71 (January 2015)" to "(Increase) 69 (June 2015)". Reference #3 that currently supports the present statistic is out dated and has since risen 2 positions in the global rankings. Resource: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pornhub.com Emtwins (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015

Please fix the following minor typo. In the last paragraph of the History section, "In June 2015 was announced..." should read "In June 2015 it was announced...". Chikinn (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Done (t) Josve05a (c) 00:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please replace Katie Kenzi (Community Coordinator) with PornHub Aria (Community Coordinator)

Please replace Katie Kenzi (Community Coordinator) with PornHub Aria (Community Coordinator)

https://www.instagram.com/pornhub https://twitter.com/Pornhub

Sarsarcook (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)sarsarcook

Change Community Coordinator to Pornhub Aria

Katie Kenzi (Community Coordinator) SHOULD BE CHANGED TO PornHub Aria

Katie Kenzi was removed from Pornhub in February of 2015

Proof found: https://twitter.com/Pornhub

https://instagram.com/pornhub/

 Not done Not clear that this is an outright replacement. See: Katie's Reddit account still being used in an official capacity ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Increase Negative

I think Alexa Rangking usually gives Increase Negative , not positive.

Hey does it mean? ??? Reply me fast! !!! Crajan891 (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2016

Please update

{{URL|http://www.pornhub.com/information#faq|http://www.pornhub.com/}}

to

{{URL|http://www.pornhub.com/|pornhub.com}}

Also, the Pornhub NEWORK is not a "campaign" but a set of interlinked websites (not all owned by MindGeek).

Gstree (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The desired URL is blacklisted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

Please edit: "Pornhub was founded by web developer Matt Keezer as a website within the company Interhub, and launched in early 2007" This company was not founded by Matt Keezer, he is not a web developer and it wasn't launched from Interhub it was launched by Mansef. As well, Matt Keezer would like his name stricken from this article. Source: Personal friend, colleague and previous employee of Mansef/ Interhub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethurai (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The articles sources (particularly this one) support the current text. A personal anecdote is not enough to overturn them. clpo13_(talk) 17:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Slogan

It says on the Wiki page that Pornhub's slogan is 'It makes your dick bigger and your pussy wet', but I cannot find any source for that. Instead at the bottom of the page www.pornhub.com you can clearly see 'The World's Biggest XXX Porno Tube'. I can't edit this page yet (new user), so could someone edit it please? Thanks ILoveVanessaCageSexyPornStar!! (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Does not appear on wewbsite's home page, where you would expect it, nor on linked video pages. I have removed it, IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2017

We need to change the number of years dictating how long PornHub has been around. We to change it from saying it was launched "9 years ago" to "10 years ago". Schoober (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Schoober: hi! Thanks for pointing it out. I think, instead of "10 years ago", we should add the launching year, with an automated counter. Can you tell me the year it was launched, and if possible, a reference? Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done

@Schoober: done. Here is the difference. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The Site was originally launched in 2001

To say the beginnings of this conglomerate was in 2007 is inaccurate and a deception favoring PornHub's reputation. The site was originally launched in 2001 and busted due to plagiarism. The first recordings of the sites activity was recorded on February 01, 2001. To access the link you'll have to type in Porn Hubs address into their archive search as Porn Hub is a black listed url and it will not allow me to complete the url string as such. TheHandOfQueenErotica — Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate Photo

You Do Relise That Kids Can Use Wikipedia, And Might Just You Know, See The Pictures Of ACTUAL VAGINAS Bonbondash1234 (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Bonbondash1234 - See WP:NOTCENSORED - This website is for teenagers and adults and although kids can and do access this site quite honestly it's not our problem, Parents should keep an eye on their kids. –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Remove the screenshot of the homepage, it’s EXTREMELY Inappropriate, underage people can view this! June1966 (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Again stop removing these screenshots and rad WP:NOTCENSORED. –Davey2010^Talk 17:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2017

Remove the screenshot, it’s very inappropriate June1966 (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia articles are not censored because they may contain offensive images, text, or be about an objectionable subject. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 00:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The screenshot is not suitable! June1966 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Again stop removing these screenshots and rad WP:NOTCENSORED. –Davey2010^Talk 17:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2018

158.248.225.155 (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

¨ål å¨l

 Not done ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

pornhub sets new mirror site for Indian users.

pornhub sets new mirror site for Indian users. source Ram nareshji (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019

Change the last line of the first paragraph of the "History" section: "Though not the most popular pornographic website, Pornhub holds the honour of being the single largest such website on the internet, hosting more videos than any similar site." to "As of 2016, it is the most popular popular pornographic website."

The source from 2011 (The Inquirer) mentions PornHub being the "third largest", which seems far outdated. The Alexa rank might pose as a new source saying it's the largest/most visited/most popular pornographic website. Jornam (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I don't think alexa rank is a reliable source for "popularity", and why remove the info about it having the most videos? DannyS712 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding a Criticism Section

This article fails to mention any of the criticism of Pornhub, part of why it was written like an advertisement. This section could become sprawling, but ideally would cover the following topics: 1) Criticism of Pornhub (and other Tube sites') proliferation of pirated content's effects on porn star earning potential and safety 2) Criticism of the ways that the proliferation of porn has changed attitudes around sex, especially of young people 3) Criticism of the proliferation of porn from an anti-porn perspective, although this sub-section would not be much different than Wikipedia's Opposition to Pornography page CLPond (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)CLPond

Sexplorations update

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pornhub-space-program-sexploration#/ The history section of the article mentions "sexplorations" but doesn't mention the outcome. It failed to meet its crowdfunding goal and was cancelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.9.152 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Why display this publicly. Fashion tender care (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Why ruin people's initiative image of self with explicit pages Fashion tender care (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate Material

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There should not be a screenshot of pornhub's home page, it's just unnecessary and inappropriate. What benefit is there to having it in the article? All it does is attract perverts and show naked images to young kids.BobRoberts14 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

Exposing what is not needed to be exposed. This has changed our Academic minds that our future has interpreted. What does it teach our youngsters image of self with explicit pages Fashion tender care (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

How is porn useful to reality if not media🤔🤔 Fashion tender care (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I removed the screenshot of Pornhub's home page, since it does not need to be there. Bob Roberts 08:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Why did you add it back? I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but that screenshot does not add anything to the article. If you think it belongs, then please tell me how it improves the article. Bob Roberts 08:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoberts14: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Images for the lead - It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. For some topics, selecting the lead image can be difficult. While Wikipedia is not censored, lead images should be selected with care. (see Offensive images) The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. Unlike other content beyond the lead, the lead image should be chosen with these considerations in mind. - there should be an image, and the fact that it is hidden means that people have to intentionally open it to view the image DannyS712 (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: For most things, having an image makes sense so people know what to see. But this page isn't supposed to be encouraging people to go on Pornhub, and the article is already "written like an advertisement". At least have "screenshot" say "pornhub home page (uncensored)" so people know exactly what they are clicking on. It currently does not explicitly warn people of an inappropriate image, or specify that it is a screenshot of the home page. Bob Roberts 08:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoberts14: There is already the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer - anything else is unneeded DannyS712 (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Only a small percentage of people actually read those disclaimers, you know that. Most people do not regularly edit wikipedia, or know all the guidelines. So yes, a disclaimer is needed so people don't accidentally see very inappropriate material. There can be a screenshot, but there should be some kind of disclaimer for it... Bob Roberts 09:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoberts14: I disagree - the whole point of WP:NOTCENSORED is that there is no such need for a disclaimer or warning. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content.. From WP:OM: Wikipedia articles may contain offensive words and images, but only for a good reason. Do not use disclaimers. --DannyS712 (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You literally just said that they may contain inappropriate images "for good reason", but there is no good reason to have them in this article. Bob Roberts 09:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

All you have to do to persuade me is tell me the benefit of having that screenshot, and overall, I do not see it as positive. Sure, people know what pornhub looks like, but how does that positively affect anything? On top of that, it attracts perverts and pedophiles who want to see that sort of thing, and kids who click on the article not knowing what it is may end up seeing it, which is not going to have a positive effect on them. Bob Roberts 09:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoberts14: It is representative of the site and serves as a visual aid. Facebook has a screenshot at the top, so does Myspace. This is another website, and like those has an image to show the site's content. That is the good reason - for the same reason images are put in other articles: to aid the readers. --DannyS712 (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: again, it makes no sense at all comparing facebook and myspace, two uncontroversial and appropriate social media platforms, to pornhub, which is a very controversial site filled that is commonly criticized when things like rape, child porn, and incest appear. There is no need to aid readers for this kind of site. Sure, it may help out some perverted people, but it will also be bad for others who don't know what pornhub is or who are just kids. Bob Roberts 09:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is meant to help the majority of readers, not the perverted people who want to see what pornhub looks like. If they want to see that, they can just go on the actual site. It makes no sense for them to look here, other than if it is blocked. Bob Roberts 09:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@BobRoberts14: I understand your views, but, again, Wikipedia is not censored. The same argument that "if they want to see that, they can just go on the actual site" applies to almost every website, and yet you aren't objecting to other screenshots. You say that "there is no need to aid readers for this kind of site" but there is; that is the purpose of this encyclopedia. I understand why you object, but unless there is a good reason to remove it (i.e. a reason other than its explicit content) it should stay in. DannyS712 (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Again though, this isn't every other site. This is a much more controversial one, since there isn't just porn on he site, sometimes there is even child porn. Wikipedia doesn't need to "aid readers" for this site. But whatever, apparently I am just wasting time arguing, so I'm sorry for taking up your time. Thanks for being respectful. I'll just leave things how they are. Bob Roberts 21:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dissolved 2019

Please revert the infobox vandalism to the last known good version by Red Jay. There are also various primary (self-published) references with an empty or missing url=. –84.46.52.250 (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done. Damage reverted, but I'm not sure what you're asking for about the refs. Feel free to reopen with more detail. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2019

I like Pornhub and want to edit. 2600:8800:7000:605A:E9B0:1422:E89D:813B (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2019

Kindly remove the pornographic image of the main page of the pornhub site displayed at the start of the article. That is highly inappropriate. Darkus shadow (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Image collapsed. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2020

add 69 and 420 somewhere for the sex meme joeks HentaiHeaven (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done As the instructions state, requests must include specific changes to the article. You will need to specify the exact recommended text to be added along with citations to WP:reliable sources that attest to it importance to the subject. Without the support of reliable sources, the addition is trivia. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

Look, now I know that I have no article edits, and that I am a newcomer, but I have found that the website that this article is promoting, Pornhub, has advertisements for prostitution, and such I am proposing a deletion of this article. But we need a consensus, so I opened up the topic discussion. Please let me know what you think. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That is not really a criteria for deletion. Wikipedia is guided by notability and the content therein is not censored. El_C 18:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. In order to understand what might qualify as an uncontroversial deletion, you have to be familiar with Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. Minecrafter, I believe you are acting in good faith, but you need to be around for a lot longer than 10 days and 50 edits to get a good feel for these policies and guidelines. Stick around, edit some articles, learn through experience, and then come back to maintenance edits like this once you have a good, solid foundation. Armadillopteryx^talk 18:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think if a person is a prude, then using that to dictate what articles one thinks should be kept and which should be deleted will not be a very good fit around here. Zaathras (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a prude, I just had legal concerns in the fact that it supports prostitution, which is illegal. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe where you live, but not everywhere. We have articles on lots of things that are illegal in most places, like homicide and cocaine, too. This is an encyclopedia, and you prodded a level-5 vital article (i.e. one of the most important articles on this site, as established by consensus). Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and it does not matter if an individual does not like an article just because it documents, directly or indirectly, a practice that is somewhere illegal. There's a difference between documentation and promotion. We do the former, and removing articles like this would be censorship, which is against policy. Armadillopteryx^talk 20:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Porn actors are...ACTORS, not hookers. What the actual fuck is wrong with you? Zaathras (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Minecrafter0271: I would like to reiterate my advice for you to spend some time learning about Wikipedia policies before making further edits. Your most recent edit, where you deleted this section of the talk page, is a violation of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, specifically those at WP:TALKO, which explain you may not delete talk page comments by other editors except in a couple of highly specific circumstances that are not present here. It's fine to make mistakes and learn as you go, but it's also important to understand when you need to pause and take a step back. You could start by reading Wikipedia:Editing policy and visiting the Teahouse, for example. Armadillopteryx^talk 01:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Zaathras, calm DOWN, man. First of all, I never mentioned the pornstars ONCE. I know that they are actors, and I never said that they weren't, so I see no reason to bring up that topic. AND, even if I did, you need to soften your tone, and calmly explain to me, not ask me "what the actual fuck is wrong with you?" I just was mixed up and I wasn't aware of the policies and as a result, I proposed a deletion with no basis. Armadillopteryx, I had no clue, I thought that I was allowed to delete subjects I started. Thanks for letting me know. I will read those policies, thanks. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Pornstars actors? Performers, yes, but they stopped using scripts decades ago. And they are being paid for having sex and little else.Opusv5 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 05 May 2020

"The site was blocked in September 2016 in Russia due to "spreading harmful information to children", and reinstated in April 2017 after specifying the age of users. The site requires Russian users to provide their cellphone numbers or passports to log in."

It actually only requires the authorization through Vkontakte, no passport is required and cellphone authentication is optional.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.0.184.1 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

References

•  Done source checks out and looks reliable. I've changed it to read The site requires Russian users to authenticate themselves via the social network VK, which I hope fixes the factual mistake. — Bilorv (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

I believe Wikipedia is a family friendly research site. I do not think the "pornhub.jpg" October 2019 webpage screenshot is appropriate. But I do not know all your policies on freedom of expression and on censorship. I personally do not object, as it is an honest representation of the website, but thinking conservatively, I do not think we need to unnecessarily expose underage Wikipedia users to this graphic. Just a suggestion, thank you. 97.90.128.171 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The documentation is at WP:CENSORED. El_C 09:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

On June 9, the “Traffickinghub”petition to shut down a Pornhub for enabling and profiting from the sex trafficking and rape of women and children reached 1 million signatures from 192 countries. The Traffickinghub campaign was endorsed by 300 child protection and anti-trafficking organizations as well as experts and survivors.

https://www.ibtimes.com/pornhub-shutdown-petition-alleged-sex-trafficking-videos-receives-over-1-million-2990885?amp=1

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/one-million-people-sign-petition-to-shut-down-pornhub-for-alleged-sex-trafficking-videos-301072809.html 2601:284:8204:DEA0:4578:B002:889A:BF1F (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done An edit request needs to specify a changing of X to Y in the article. Also, neither of the links about this petition milestone meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. International Business Times is generally considered unreliable per WP:RSPS. The other link is a press release from an activist group, again not a reliable source. • Gene93k (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

special:Diff/964382311

This is completely ridiculous. I would like you to defend hour claim that dw.com is not a reliable source. Also the petition is a seperate relevant event, so Gaz405 does not repeat the same incidents the upper pragraph already mentions. Imho the paragraph should be in this or slightly modified form readded. -- 2.247.248.52 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to respond to the issue about dw.com (I'll leave the rest of it to others to unwind): I'm not familiar with dw.com, but I'm inclined to agree that it looks like a high quality source. It's not listed at WP:PERENNIAL, but it is on an (apparently very old) Wikipedia list of good German sources: Wikipedia:News sources/Germany and favorably mentioned by WikiProject Germany: Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Bavaria/News. A quick scan of Wikipedia discussions involving the site over the years suggests it is viewed favorably by Wikipedians. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Help regarding translation

Hey there! I'm an admin of SqWiki and yesterday one of our members wanted to use CTT to translate this article but found out that he couldn't because it contained a link blocked as spam. Basically the website's link. I checked our Spam-blacklist page but I can't find the article's title on it. Any idea what might be happening? - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Klein Muçi: see Special:Permalink/945006664#Pornhub.com_links_at_Pornhub for the whitelisting request I made to add the links to this article. I think it's on a global blacklist (across all Wikimedia sites) and can be whitelisted locally. As a temporary solution, you could remove those references or just remove the "http(s)" part of the URL. — Bilorv (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I see... So it is global. Thank you for your explanation! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

Add a link of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines to the text "Philippines" in the second paragraph. Damaredayo (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for the request. — Bilorv (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Is the Screenshot truly necessary?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is clear to remove the screenshot. I have not taken any action about other screenshots in {{Pornographic video digital distribution platforms}}, but many of them could likely be removed under the same reasoning. There is a related discussion now on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#question: porn images in articles. — The Earwig ^talk 08:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

---

The thumbnail for this article literally has double penetration in it. Is that truly necessary for an Encyclopedia? -- Sleyece (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sleyece: the Page Preview seems to have identified the infobox screenshot as the first image in the page, I guess (maybe it has to be the first image of a certain size?). I don't think you can change the Page Preview (without changing the article) but including a screenshot is standard practice at articles about websites; WP:NOTCENSORED is the justification for not going against that practice here (see Wikipedia:Offensive material for more nuance). I don't think one could argue that a person could not reasonably expect clicking "Show" on a label "Screenshot" in an article about a porn website to lead to a picture of porn thumbnails. The Page Preview as shown on another page is possibly a bit unexpected, but the article still has the phrase "porn" in it. — Bilorv (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear you. I just think that's a weak argument when the page preview is that hardcore. It means currently there is technically porn on every article that even references pornhub. It doesn't seem Encyclopedic at all. I would file it hard under WP:NOT -- Sleyece (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Sleyece, I looked up how Wikipedia picks the thumbnail, more info at [1]. In summary, to get rid of the image from thumbnails, you can do 3 things.

• Remove the image from the article.
• Move the image out of the lead of the article.
• Request an admin add it to the image thumbnail blacklist, by placing an edit request at MediaWiki_talk:Pageimages-blacklist

The first two options you might not be able to get consensus for. That third option may be a good choice if you want to try that. I agree that pornographic article thumbnails are not ideal, and I think it'd be reasonable to get rid of just the thumbnail. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for giving a more knowledgeable description of Page Previews. The third could probably get consensus, I agree. — Bilorv (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think it should be removed. Children use this website. And really it does not add anything to the descriptive encyclopaedic value of this article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  I can guarantee from past discussions that "Children use this website" would not be accepted as a valid reason by the community if we held an RfC or wide discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  There is much worse on a very simple Google search that doesn't require navigating through an online encyclopaedia to see. This is an encyclopaedia, if you don't personally like it that's fine but sex is a perfectly natural human activity and we shouldn't be trying to hide that fact and attempt to make it a taboo subject. Canterbury Tail talk 14:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'd strongly contest any conflation of consensual private sexual activity with the commodified patriarchy of Pornhub, whose knowing decisions to continue hosting videos of real-life rape have only recently been attracting mainstream scrutiny. But this is all off-topic. — Bilorv (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I've placed that image on the MediaWiki:Pageimages-blacklist for now, this is temporary while this discussion is ongoing, if this image is kept on the article and this is not desired as determined by discussion any admin is welcome to revert. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Technical note: mobile clients do not support collapse, so the the "show" control in the infobox will do nothing for mobile readers (see mobile view here). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove. Schools around the world + children use wikipedia for their research etc, this image is inapporpiate, remove the image from the article. --Devokewater (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove it. I'm all for WP:NOTCENSORED, and proper tasteful images in articles where they add value, but seeing the homepage and its collection of random snippets from the site doens't IMHO help anyone understand what this site is. I'd question whether it even qualifies for fair use either.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove - The screenshot is totally unnecessary and adds nothing to the article, all it shows is that a porn site has porn on it, which is really a no-brainer. This is not censorship, it's mere editorial discretion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• And, yes, I agree, "children use this website" and "schools use this website" are not valid arguments for removing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well, yes and no. While it's generally accepted that when it comes to anatomy, penis and vagina and all that jazz, it is fine to put photographs that help add to the reader's understanding. But it remains the case that most cultures, including those in the US and Europe, still regard pornographic images and graphic nudity as unsuitable for children to view. We do want to be a resource that schools and parents can utilise with their minors, so I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the majority of our articles should be free from such images. This is common sense really because (a) in most cases it wouldn't add anything encyclopedic and (b) we'd be alienating readers for no reason. Children using the website is never a sole reason to delete something, but it should be kept in mind as an extra reason to tread carefully, as people seem minded to do in this discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not suggesting the schools should promulgate pornography, all I'm saying is that we are not a children-oriented website, and removing material on the basis of "Think of the children" is essentially a violation of WP:CENSORSHIP, whereas removing something because it doesn't enhance the article -- which I think is the case here -- is a normal editorial decision. That may seem like a technicality -- either way the material is removed -- but the "Think of the children" thing is a slippery slope that we really don't want to step on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove. Arguments about censorship are irrelevant, as this image would be inappropriate even if the site in question was PicturesOfKittensHub. This is a straightforward violation of WP:NFCC8 and as such should never have been on the article in the first place. Since there's nothing distinctive about a straightforward grid of generic images, the image can't possibly significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and as such I would argue that we can't use it even if we wanted. ‑ Iridescent 07:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

We live in a strange world, because Wikipedians are more likely to complain about WP:NFCC violations than porn being offensive. As a matter of fact, I agree that the screenshot isn't all that useful and that the logo is probably all that is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Lmao, well, anyone who's been here for more than 6 months already knows "i'M OfFeNdEd bEcAuSe iT'S pOrN" is an argument that's going to get laughed out of the the talk page. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

That's because the vast majority of times people get offended the image is not "porn", it's simply naked people, or naked parts of people. This stuff is actually porn and does not enhance the article. I mean, "Stop the presses! Porn site features porn!" Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove. I really don't see how this improves the article, and would make the same argument for the YouPorn, RedTube, Xtube, LiveJasmin and MyFreeCams articles. Wikipedia not being censored doesn't just mean we add pornographic images into the articles for the sake of it, and I don't see what value it is of the reader to know what the page looks like. (Plus, there is the issue of the uploader's copyright). I would even argue against the inclusion of screenshots on the XVideos (the login screen, not the site logo), even though it's not pornographic, as it's equally unhelpful and unencyclopaedic. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Bangalamania: How about Twitter, which also shows a login screen? — Bilorv (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Bilorv: I'd argue so, personally. – Bangalamania (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove as not really contributing anything to the article. I don't think the vague waves to WP:nOtCeNsOrEd are particularly helpful, and that policy must be read in line with WP:GRATUITOUS. Indeed, even if a screenshot is desired, it is possible to use an uncensored screenshot that happens not to include things like full-on double penetration and still delivering the same quality of information. My reading of WP:GRATUITOUS is that in a situation where we have two images, we should use the less-offensive image. And given we can make new screenshots of Pornhub pretty much at will, I think even if we decide a screenshot is desired, someone can just F5 on the Pornhub homepage until the collection of thumbnails is less offensive. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove The website URL is in the infobox, so readers can navigate to it in a couple of clicks, so my answer to the question posed is No, the screenshot is not at all necessary. It isn't meaningfully censorship if the images remain so easily accessible. Often Wikipedia illustrates articles with criminal or obscene subjects using distancing classical period artwork, but that doesn't work here. Jontel (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As this is an issue for most or all pornography sites, perhaps it should be raised at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). Jontel (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point. The problem is that these screenshots are actually random collections of thumbnails so they are not screenshots in the truest sense of the word.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove as per BMK and Amakuru - Admittedly I've defended it's use here and have myself uploaded similar screenshots elsewhere - Taking a step back I have to agree with BMK and Amakuru these don't enhance the article(s) - Most people will know what content's going to be on there and probably don't need an image showing them!, My main reasoning for defending them / uploading them was to sort of show what the website looked like as obviously each website's going to be different but maybe that was OTT on my part. –Davey2010^Talk 16:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove Completely unessecary, as a screenshot is useless. Mobile users auto see it, which creates a mess. should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.71.32 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

change 'the India' to just 'India' 2A00:23C8:3A04:B900:B9AC:919C:AA98:2450 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Rumors of bankruptcy

According to Trafficking Hub founder Laila Mickelwait, PornHub is rumored to be bankrupt and closing down. 91.196.124.230 (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Rumors are rarely good to mention in Wikipedia and this one less than most. If it's bankrupt and closing down then we'll find out when it happens. If it isn't then it's not worth mentioning. The speculation of someone who wants it to close down doesn't help us. — Bilorv (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

programming_language = VueJS 2A01:E0A:36F:2A20:0:0:C77E:BE2F (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 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. --Ferien (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of PornMD into Pornhub

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was do not merge (create new proposal for MindGeek instead). AlmTec (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

---

its merely their search engine. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not the right target, DGG, as it's a search engine for MindGeek websites of which Pornhub is just one, so MindGeek would be the right place for a merge. (Though it's not infeasible to me that PornMD is notable.) — Bilorv (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, Pornhub is the more notable of the two, however PornMD provides a search facility for numerous other websites. --Devokewater ^(talk) 16:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

so if we don't think there is enough notability for 3 separate articles. which one gets merged where? This is a problem. that frequently occurs with related companies, and for companies and their products. For related companies, the usual solution is to merge to the overall firm, unless it's just a relatively unknown holding company. For companies & their products, if they have only one notable product, the usual decision is make the article there. If they have many, the usual choice is to make the article for the firm, including a section on each product. The concept is we do not have to make separate articles if it's logical to make sections. What's the point of the added overhead if people will find it anyway just as easily? A reason might be that unless it's the heading of an article, google won't give it first or 2nd place, but are we an encyclopedia , or an auxiliary to google? DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Pornhub is massively notable independently from MindGeek. It's level 5 vital. But any content about any of MindGeek's other properties would be misplaced if in this article. The options are for PornMD to stand as is or be merged into MindGeek. As you say, there's a few considerations—to me, the question is, "are there sufficiently many sources about PornMD that it could be expanded to a size too large to fit as a subsection within MindGeek?" And my current answer is, "I don't know". — Bilorv (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it should be merged into MindGeek instead (in fact that page already mentions it). It's not notable in my opinion, the only coverage brought up by a web search appears to be the Wikipedia page. AlmTec (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A single unspecialised web search might not turn up everything that's out there; since the article cites at least a couple of reliable sources, if you don't rediscover them then you've not searched hard enough. — Bilorv (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Merging with MindGeek makes more sense then merging with Pornhub, however it should have its own prominent section on that wikipage. --Devokewater ^(talk) 15:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arson

Mentioning arson seems relevant, since there are a lot of threats against it from the extreme right. So, it's at least a working hypothesis that the arson was due to opposition to PornHub. The arson endangered third-parties, so it is at least an attempt at (involuntary) homicide (a reasonable person could foresee that people might die because of that arson). tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Well according to the articles that I looked at it was only suspected arson, so while it remains unknown, is there any point hypotheising? Even if it was arson, it would seem better suited to just Feras Antoon's personal page unless sources suggested the involvment of the extreme right or pressure against pornhub.. Unless there is a verifiable link between the house burning down and opposition to pornhub or it's CEO, any insinuations of such seem irrelevant. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

References

@Tgeorgescu: I plan on removing the sentence unless you have anything to add to the discussion. Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that we should only mention this on the Antoon article. — Bilorv (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pabsoluterince and Bilorv: Written in the press: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022/01/xxx-files-who-torched-the-pornhub-palace tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Usable for a few topics, as a very detailed source, but the arson will still belong at Antoon's article. — Bilorv (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Bilorv, per my previous comment. Pabsoluterince (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Restoration

I have restored content, with the source Der Spiegel not mentioning verbatim Pornhub, but giving a general overview of the threats arising from the radicalized manosphere. So it renders the Vice article at least plausible. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The article from Der Spiegel does not mention PornHub or the controversy surrounding them, and only very briefly mentions pornography (or specifically, anti-pornography) at all. Using it to reinforce the point made in Vice's article is a non-sequitur. I have read most of the article from Vice and they do provide examples and sources, but I believe it should be paraphrased in a less inflammatory manner, and with attribution. --DannyC55 (Talk) 20:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@DannyC55: I also object to Vice (which is not widely considered a reliable source): WP:RSP only affirms there is no consensus upon the reliability of Vice; it has not been deprecated as WP:RS, as it happened to many other sources (Daily Mail, Russia Today, etc.).

Let me be very clear: if the Wikipedia Community deprecates Vice, I will abide by that decision. AFAIK it did not happen yet.

What does Der Spiegel say? That the anti-porn forums are teeming with psychically unstable young radicals. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was a hasty description. I am aware that there are many editors who do consider Vice to be a reliable source as there are many who don't, and WP:RS claims that such sources are "marginally reliable" and should be used depending on the context. The way I see it, using such a source to support controversial claims without attribution is not appropriate. Samantha Cole's (the author) analysis on the extremist groups targeting PornHub and their narrative should be re-paraphrased and properly attributed to Vice. As for Der Spiegel, again, their article does not mention PornHub and only broadly talks about misogyny on the internet. Using to it to make Vice's assessment more "plausible" is a non-sequitur and possibly original research. --DannyC55 (Talk) 21:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@DannyC55: Verbatim quote from Burnett 2021 (peer-reviewed): "Unsurprisingly, Alt-Righters more frequently advocate for extreme forms of violence against pornographers, such as shooting them (e.g., @nmm20c, 16 November 2018)."

You see, it is not secret that Alt-Right aims to kill the pornographers, including porn stars. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there. That Burnett 2021 excerpt (as well as the Der Spiegel piece) should be used in an article about the alt-right, incels or anti-porn extremists in general, not in an article about PornHub. If the article by Der Spiegel or that study you just cited explicitly mentioned PornHub and talked about the alleged violent threats and misinformation campaigns brought against the website's staff following their exposed involvement in sex trafficking and rape pornography, it would be a fitting source to use. But it doesn't. Sources should not be used to validate a claim made by editors (or by unrelated sources), no matter how reliable or pertinent they are. That falls under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --DannyC55 (Talk) 21:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@DannyC55: Friend, the verbatim quote is about pornographers in general. Are Porhub pornographers? Definitely! So it is also about Pornhub.

Since it is about the reliability of Vice, I have reported it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vice on Pornhub. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. I will say for the last time: If the sources do not mention Pornhub specifically, but something else that is simply broadly in the same context, it should not be in the article for Pornhub. WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." I have changed my mind in regards to including Vice as a source and that paragraph can stay, but the resulting amalgamation of multiple unrelated sources to "bolster" that statement is unacceptable. I will find a way to fix that in the article myself, and let other users see if it is fit. --DannyC55 (Talk) 23:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@DannyC55: This matter is under scrutiny at WP:RSN. Please have patience and allow the community to speak. Also, I have offered a verbatim quote as a verbatim quote. It is only cited for what it really says. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: My gripe is no longer with Vice as a source so that RfC can be considered moot for all I care. In the meantime, I have reworded that paragraph in a way I deem more concise and less wordy. How about that? --DannyC55 (Talk) 23:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@DannyC55: Nope, Exodus Cry did not issue death threats. They are not that dumb! tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I worded as "individuals tied to" and also included "disseminated disinformation" as one of their actions. --DannyC55 (Talk) 23:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@DannyC55: I don't think Exodus Cry would agree. It is potentially libelous. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The Vice article certainly had no qualms about associating them with the violent threats and campaign against PornHub. That paragraph is merely paraphrasing it. Since you think it's such an issue, I will add attribution to Vice. --DannyC55 (Talk) 00:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@DannyC55: Oh, man: neo-Nazis seek to associate themselves with Exodus Cry; Exodus Cry does not seek to associate itself with the neo-Nazis; Cole's article does not claim otherwise. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

This could've been fixed by simply removing the mention of Exodus Cry altogether. Also, like an editor in the RS notice board said, BLP guidelines generally don't apply to political groups. How about this: "In the wake of these controversies Vice has reported that individuals tied to far-right and Christian fundamentalist groups, which claim to be anti-trafficking and anti-pornography actvists, have disseminated disinformation and made death threats towards Pornhub's staff and sex workers" --DannyC55 (Talk) 00:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@DannyC55: We WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV when the facts are uncertain. This does not seem to be the case. Wait for the solution from WP:RSN. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)