Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography

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

Wikipedia's sexual agenda[edit]

The likely accidentally mistaken use of the moralistic term pornography instead of erotica is something this site needs to clean up. Pornography is certainly a useful word but it is a subset of erotica. The blithe assumption that erotica is pornographic (related to prostitution/immorality) is something the 19th-century inventor of the term would probably be happy with but it's not a trap this site needs to stay in.

Here is the Oxford dictionary definition of pornography. "Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement. Origin — Mid 19th century: from Greek pornographos ‘writing about prostitutes’, from pornē ‘prostitute’ + graphein ‘write’." It doesn't matter how commonly misused the term pornography is or how popular the moral judgment that erotica is pornographic is. Those are moral agenda non-neutral things that Wikipedia needs to do its utmost to avoid pushing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.2.200 (talkcontribs) 22:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the POV template. It really only belongs on articles. I have no objection to "WikiProject Erotica", if others are motivated to change the project name.
If you find "pornography" in an article, and the word "erotica" is genuinely more appropriate, then you can just make the edit changing it. If anyone disagrees with the edit then you can discuss it. (If the text is supported by a citation, and that source is using the word "pornography", then it's likely that the article should keep using the same term that the source uses.) Alsee (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree. I wouldn't mind either way if the project name changed, but would object to any wholesale change of pornography to erotica in articles. They have different implications and should be used distinctly. To my mind, erotica implies content that tries at once to be both sexually stimulating and artistic, whereas pornography is about stimulation only. I'm sure other people think of one category as being a subfield of another, but I expect there are different views about which is the subfield, some seeing pornography as erotica without artistic intent and others seeing erotica as pornography with artistic intent. I can't see a reason to privilege one view over the other and don't see either term as especially moralising. Mortee (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The artistic argument is a trap. Art cannot be defined. It is a subjective stance. Anything can be art. It only requires that a person take an artistic stance toward the thing. Oscar Wilde and others analyzed this in detail. Duchamp put a urinal in a museum. To avoid the "artistic" trap just realize that erotica is the broad term that encompasses anything erotic. Pornography, by contrast, is a subset of erotica that involves moral judgments and/or issues relating to prostitution. It is not at all necessary to wade into the muck of trying to define art. However, one can certainly discuss the way some define erotica and pornography in terms of that argument. It is not, though, an objective all-encompassing view of the topic. Objectively, erotica is simply anything produced by people that is erotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.12.216 (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"I can't see a reason to privilege one view over the other and don't see either term as especially moralising." 1) Pornography, not erotica, is a term rooted in prostitution. That alone is reason enough to see it as a subset term. Erotica carries no such implication. 2) Trying to inject the arbitrary individualistic issue of the defining of artistic value into this discussion automatically creates hierarchies of moral judgement — A is "artistic"; B is "less artistic; C is "trashy". Oh? To who and whom? 3) It is a fact known to linguists that languages have very low tolerance for total redundancy. There is a reason why both erotica and pornography exist in our language. It is not because they are equivalent terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.12.216 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
These two statements also contradict your point about not replacing the incorrect term with the accurate one: "They have different implications and should be used distinctly. ... "I can't see a reason to privilege one view over the other" Which one is it? They're different but they're equivalent (the same)? If your first sentence I quoted is correct then the incorrect term must be replaced by the correct one in any relevant case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.12.216 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The bottom line here is that your argumentation results in all erotica being subsumed by pornography. It creates hierarchic moral judgements and superimposes them on the entire subject. It turns the term erotica into "pornography striving, and failing" to be art (because art is pure and erotica will always be pornographic to some degree, thus tainted) — condemning all erotica as pornography. This is what happens when the erotic is inextricably tied to prostitution, a specific subset of erotic endeavor and consideration. Again, I will wager that the 19th-century inventor of term would be pleased with this view but it is hardly objective. Erotica, once again, is the broad category of anything created by humans that is erotic. Pornography can't be the same thing. Language has no use for total redundancy and pushes examples of redundancy into non-use (archaic words). You yourself said the two terms have different implications. Well, by subsuming erotica into pornography, by turning the superset into the subset, that is a grand moral judgment. It is exactly the moral agenda that makes the current state of this "pornography portal" non-objective. Erotica the term, by contrast, carries no moral judgement whatsoever. It merely tells the reader that the subject is erotic in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.12.216 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
All I said was that we should use both words in articles, whichever what best describes the content involved. Somehow you take me to imply a "grand moral judgement" and to be "condemning all erotica as pornography", wanting to "subsume erotica into pornography". Not true. They're both useful terms, neither judgemental, despite etymology. (Besides, why should prostitution automatically imply immorality? Can't we describe prostitution neutrally either?)
All I would object to is any rule that erotic/pornographic content be described as erotica. That would limit our ability to describe things concisely. As I said, I have no strong objection to changing the name of the project (if that's your suggestion - you seemed to have a broader rule in mind.)
Annoyed as I am by your suggestion that I'm contradicting myself, which I'm not, I am particularly irritated by you suggesting that I'm moralising or creating "hierarchical moral judgements". That's exactly what I'm not doing. I'm saying that pornography and erotica can both be used without attaching some idea that pornography must be wrong, which is not my view at all. This project page involves precisely those people who try to improve Wikipedia's coverage of erotica-related subjects. Starting off by baselessly accusing them of having a "sexual agenda" was a sure-fire way to annoy people. Could you perhaps clarify exactly what you're suggesting in a form that we could have a !vote on? That would help us avoid this essay-battle. Mortee (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple changes in dot com websites[edit]

Re: [1]

There have been a number of these by various single purpose accounts. Thoughts?


Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Findings of discussion at IRC (quoted with permission) regarding an attempt to change www.christymack.com to www.christymackporn.com:

"...has the look of some sort of content aggregation site. It links to pornactress.net which in turn leads to naughtyamerica.com, with various payment options..."

"...if I had to guess, I'd guess that www.christymackporn.com and this whole naughtyamerica.com operation is pirating the content from www.christymack.com and getting rich quick..."

"...looking further into Naughty America, they do look to be a reasonably legitimate business, I wonder if some of the sites which link to Naughty America are run by affiliates and they're earning money by pushing traffic towards Naughty America..."

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Transgendrer or Transsexual porn[edit]

I have started a debate whether Transgender pornography should be redirected to Transsexual pornography anyone opinions for or aganist go to Talk:Transsexual pornography. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Spam alert[edit]

Please be on the lookout for the addition of "porn" to official websites for porn actress articles. This is happening now by sock accounts and IPs.

Example:

www.bonnierotten.com --> www.bonnierottenporn.com [2]

Also, please remove the addition of www.pornactress.net/ on sight.

Thank you.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I reverted a bunch of these coming out of 185.17.26.0/24. This address range has a history of adding spam links to non-porn articles too. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Are the people notable?[edit]

Deauxma, Sara Jay, Peta Jensen, Kendra Sunderland, Nina Elle, Summer Brielle and Sarina Valentina notable? Especially Sarina as she has been nominated for the following awards:

  • 2010 Transgender Erotica Awards nominee— “Best Web Girl of the Year”
  • 2011 Tranny Awards winner — “Best Single Model”
  • 2011 Tranny Awards nominee — “Best Sex Scene”— America’s Next Top Tranny 14 (with Tiffany Starr) and One Night Stand (with Brian Bonds)
  • 2011 Tranny Awards nominee — “Best Hardcore Performer”
  • 2011 Transgender Erotica Awards winner — “Best Solo Model”, “Best Web Girl of the Year”
  • 2012 Tranny Awards winner — “Best Single Model”
  • 2012 NightMoves Awards nominee — “Best Transsexual Performer”
  • 2012 Transgender Erotica Awards winner — “Best Solo Model”, “Best Web Girl of the Year”
  • 2012 Tranny Awards nominee — “Best Single Model”
  • 2012 Tranny Awards nominee — “Best Single Website”
  • 2013 NightMoves Awards nominee — “Best Transsexual Performer”
  • 2013 The Fanny Awards nominee — “Transsexual Performer of the Year”
  • 2013 AVN Awards nominee — “Transsexual Performer of the Year”
  • 2013 AVN Awards nominee — “Best Transsexual Scene”— Forbidden Lovers (with Robert Christian)
  • 2013 Tranny Awards nominee — “Best Web Girl of the Year”
  • 2013 Transgender Erotica Awards winner — “Best Web Girl of the Year”
  • 2014 Tranny Awards winner — “Best Web Girl of the Year”
  • 2014 AVN Awards nominee — “Transsexual Performer of the Year”
  • 2014 The Fanny Awards nominee — “Transsexual Performer of the Year” -Dwanyewest (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As a general answer without going case-by-case: probably not. Nominations no longer count towards PORNBIO notability and editor consensus on what constitutes a "well-known" industry award has tightened considerably. Awards like Urban X (Sara Jay) and niche categories of better-known awards (Deauxma) don't meet that standard. I'm not familiar enough with the Transgender Erotica Awards to make an instant assessment, but I would be skeptical. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

What bout Alexis Fawx she has received three nominations from XBIZ, including MILF Performer of the Year and Girl/Girl Performer of the Year. She also picked up another nomination for Best Supporting Actress for her role in "The Preacher's Daughter" (Wicked). The film also received a nomination for Best Feature. Also she had 2 AVN nominations including MILF Performer of the Year. She also received a nomination for Best Supporting Actress for her role as wife and mother in "The Preacher's Daughter" (Wicked). Dwanyewest (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

In a word no, unless you have real sources that clearly pass the gng, Spartaz Humbug! 17:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

So the nominations don't mean shit Spartaz unless they have sources or the nominations themselves aren't noteworthy and Sara Jay AVN hall of fame doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO and the Tranny Awards count for nothing for Sarina Valentina? Dwanyewest (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously otherwise nominations would not have been removed from Pornbio, or the awards are significant and well known. Essentially any blp should be able to pass the gng. If they don't, well they won't survive afd. Spartaz Humbug! 19:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Despite my comment above, Sara Jay now passes the letter of WP:PORNBIO with the AVN Hall of Fame induction, however such performers are getting redirected to the hall of fame lists if they don't have enough reliably sourced content. In the case of deleted articles, a certain editor insists they should go through deletion review before coming back. Unless the performer can pass GNG, recreating an article is going to be a battle. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
For the record, • Gene93k, my position has been not that all deleted articles must go through DRV (although salted articles generally should), but that deleted articles should not be restored by administrative fiat. The relevant part of the comment I think you're referring to is "reinstatement on request would not be appropriate. Because this was an AFD deletion, the article is ineligible for WP:REFUND, and endrunning the established processes should not be encouraged".[3] Otherwise you're on target. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)