Talk:Revenge porn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Peono numbering[edit]

Hey C1cada - thanks for your recent work on the article, I appreciate it. Pretty much to satisfy my sole curiousity, can you give a little background about what peono numbering is? I don't get it offhand a a reference. Ignoring that: the reason I put the online reaction section in, is because I suspect people will continue to update the article with info about the reactions of particular websites to revenge porn/their individual policies. I didn't want to delete that wholesale without discussion, but also felt that (especially when this article is appropriately expanded) it should not form a significant part of the 'background' section. Hence the new online reaction section - which can likely be discarded eventually - as a place to shephard information about site policy reactions currently. Eventually I suspect such reactions will be worth their own - much smaller section - but for now I suspect the section will keep expanding. Given that expectation... I'd rather avoid keeping it just in the background section. (Similarly, I feel the nuptial section needs to be incorporated elsewhere, and a lot of the US law stuff condensed.)

In structuring this so far, I'm basically combining "what I think sections would like like if the article was nice and fleshed out" with "where are sections necessary to hold content that should eventually be greatly trimmed or incorporated in to other parts of the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kev. Likewise thanks for your contributions. Was that a typo I did on "Peano numbering" and yes, it looks as if I'm guilty of some sort of nologism (i.e not a neologism). I meant subparagraph numbering 1.1.1 style. I always thought that was called "Peano numbering", but it seems I'm wrong searching Google. As a matter of interest what would that be called?
Hah - it's called "Peano paragraphing", sort of. I use it to program the tree functions I use the world is not really ready for yet.
Anyway the point about the remark was that you were indenting quite deeply your section headings day before yesterday. I think after the third indent or so it becomes a bit intrusive and unhelpful. But don't let me bully you out of it if that's what you think is needed. As for "Online reactions" I don't think that's a very usual or necessarily good way of expressing the equivalent of "Implications for websites" (whatever), but I can't think of a better heading. Is a sub-heading really necessary there? Can't see it is really.
Added: Hmhh ... looking at it again I see you're right about the need for a heading after that paragraph about legislation being slow to emerge. Perhaps that paragraph better as a lead paragraph for the "Legislation" section? c1cada (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Although another paragraph should probably be included later on with similar content, I feel that something about legislation being slow to emerge probably belongs in the background section to. I don't really like the extra subheading for websites, but I think it's useful for now, because people are likely to continue to add info about new website policies, and I'd rather have it in a subheading that makes it distinct from the general background section until we figure out what we want to do with it. I'm a big not fan of the super-indented US stuff, but that's a result of the article having written before being organized by area. Before those sections are combined (and many of them likely should be,) the super deep headings probably sadly need to stay. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how the article will develop. Just let it grow I say and fork out the bits that become excessive. c1cada (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Half-assed inclusive nod[edit]

an act whereby the perpetrator satisfies his anger and frustration for a broken relationship through publicizing false, sexually provocative portrayal of his / her victim, by misusing the information that he may have known naturally and that he may have stored in his personal computer, or may have been conveyed to his electronic device by the victim herself, or may have been stored in the device with the consent of the victim herself; and which may essentially have been done to publicly defame the victim

Never once is it suggested the victim is not a woman, thought the perp. himself or herself gets one inclusive nod. — MaxEnt 23:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2017[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Revenge pornRevenge pornography – “Revenge pornography” is formal, whilst “revenge porn” is informal. Why is the article about pornography titled “Pornography,” not “Porn,” when this article is titled “Revenge porn”?
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 00:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, that is, Keep revenge porn as is. My sense is that for Wikipedia naming conventions as per WP:MOS that we should use the term that is most used commonly, to refer to the subject. My sense is the most used term is Revenge porn not Revenge pornography, but when talking about pornography in general, it is simply pornography, with porn being an abbreviation. It is simply common usage, how it's happened to be called over time. If one can demonstrate that the term revenge pornography is more common than revenge porn, I could be persuaded to change my mind here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Isn’t “revenge porn” merely an abbreviation of “revenge pornography”? PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 01:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course. But the shorter term is what is used in common parlance. If you google "Revenge porn" (in quotes) you'll get 446,000 hits; googling "Revenge pornography" gets only 56,000 hits. It's just how it is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
By your logic, Pornography should be moved to Porn, because on Google, “porn” gets two billion results, whilst “pornography” gets only 84.4 million.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 03:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not about 'logic' but about usage. Wikipedia's Commonname policy (see below) suggests we use the term which is commonly used. For reasons I don't understand, and can't explain, most people talk about it as "revenge porn" -- they don't say "revenge pornography" -- why this is, I can not say -- maybe there are too many syllables? With the latter case, "porn" versus "pornography" -- again I can not say, maybe the latter term is preferred because the word "porn", by itself, does not convey enough information, or may be confused with similar sounding words such as corn or torn maybe? The idea behind the Commonname policy is not to confuse readers, to mirror, as best we can, what is actually said or typed in everyday usage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The reason we don't consider "porn" alone the WP:COMMONNAME is because we are interested not in the most common name in general, but the name which is most common in English language reliable sources. Broadsheet newspapers seem to use "porn" and "pornography" with about equal frequency (at least, that is my impression from a brief sample of articles from the Guardian) though their news stories use "pornography" more and their opinion pieces use "porn" more; scholarly articles use "pornography" fairly universally, as far as I can see: searching google scholar for "porn" simply returns articles written by scholars with the surname "Porn" for me (though searching for "revenge pornography" without quotes, gives lots of hits for articles which use "revenge porn", and include the word "pornography" when talking about porn generally. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
site "revenge porn" "revenge pornography" 442 ghits 149 ghits 192 ghits 45 ghits 99 ghits 16 ghits 42 hits 6 hits 1460 ghits 234 ghits
The table to the right shows some usage in reliable sources. (The hits are clickable links, so you can verify the results).
Note that the news media prefer "revenge porn" by a ratio of between 3:1 (Guardian) and 6:1 (New York Times), but the scholarly source JSTOR prefers the short form by a margin of 7:1. Google Scholar shows a ratio of 6:1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. Revenge porn is overwhelmingly used amongst reliable sources ranging from academic books to newspapers. AusLondonder (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2017 (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.

The definition of revenge porn did not match the definition given in the source.[edit]

The Wikipedia definition of revenge porn was: "Revenge porn or revenge pornography is the sexually explicit portrayal of one or more people that is distributed without their consent via any medium".

The definition in the law review article cited for the definition is: "Nonconsensual pornography involves the distribution of sexually graphic images of individuals without their consent. This includes images originally obtained without consent (e.g., hidden recordings or recordings of sexual assaults) as well as images originally obtained with consent, usually within the context of a private or confidential relationship (e.g., images consensually given to an intimate partner who later distributes them without consent, popularly referred to as “revenge porn”). Because the term “revenge porn” is used so frequently as shorthand for all forms of nonconsensual pornography, we will use it interchangeably with nonconsensual porn."

It is not at all clear that the distribution of a sexually graphic written description of an individual is legally considered revenge porn. For example, it is not clear that it is illegal for someone to write and distribute a factual, yet sexually graphic, description of sexual activity with another person.

The entire law review article deals with images, NOT all portrayals. So either the definition should be changed (which is what I did) or the cited source should be changed to actually support the previous definition.

--Nick (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)