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 Quoth Ravant (talk | contribs) at 02:24, 13 January 2020 (→Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020: new section). 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

Template:Vital article



Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2019

Request to add a "further reading" resource in the "neutral" section for new website [1]. Written by scientists, provides primary source materials and direct quotation of those materials without any additional editorializing, including making full-text linked when possible.~~

References

  1. ^ Science about pornography from actual scientists. Retrieved 2019-04-14.
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to [1], the blog seems legit (belonging to mainstream scientists). Yup, it redirects there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hope I'm doing this right, but I think the review by Tgeorgescu is a "second" useful to show consensus by consensus? SecondaryEd2020 (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow further comments for one week and if nobody opposes inclusion, I shall add it to the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing request until the consensus is made (after the week as suggested above) -- Dane talk 03:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@WanderingWanda: Here it was discussed. These scientists are against the idea of porn addiction, but not exactly a porn advocacy group. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, see also the discussion below. WanderingWanda (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know what I've said there. Just because it isn't a WP:MEDRS, it does not mean it's bunk. Few of the sources listed there are MEDRS, if any. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2019

In the Study and analysis section, suggest adding reference to website with list of supporting science. Source lists exclusively primary sources, and is written by a collection of PhDs. As: Several studies conclude the liberalization of porn in society may be associated with decreased rape and sexual violence rates "Real Your Brain On Porn". 2019. Sciencearousal (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we don't use WP:BLOGS, especially for WP:MEDRS content. This being said, there are high-quality sources which make the same point, so we could copy/paste those sources from another article. ... oh, my bad, those sources are already cited. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for stuff like "decreased rape and sexual violence rates." Rape and other sexual violence are social topics, but they are also medical topics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Better to cite the studies directly (or reviews of said studies) than a random website. NiciVampireHeart 23:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions for upgrade

Mostly notes to myself, I suppose.

  • Production and distribution by region could mostly be folded into Economics just above it.
  • And half of what remains slots into Technology, again above.
  • Significant portions of History of erotic depictions and History of erotic photography really belong in this article, seeing as how they explicitly go on about pornography rather than anything "erotic."

Later, perhaps.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If adding material from other articles to this article, editors need to be careful not to unnecessarily expand or bloat this article, or take away material from the other articles that should be covered in those other articles as well. Wikipedia:Content forking#Related articles is clear. We have spin-off articles/sub articles for a valid reason, as made clear by WP:SIZE, WP:Spinoff, and WP:Split. We employ WP:Summary style when a topic has its own article for more in-depth material. And as is clear by the "History of erotic depictions" article, the modern concept of pornography cannot be accurately applied to ancient texts and a lot of other historical erotic depictions. So editors need to be careful about characterizing certain things as pornography. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2019

Change "Votive Plagues" to "Votive Plaques" 2601:49:C201:6540:C1FA:A1E1:5128:3DE7 (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

Change the bracket insertion for the quote by Henry Brod, move its position and slightly reword it. Also, remove the redundant [Brod] insertion, as there already exists a signal phrase for the author in the preceding sentence.

From: "I [Brod] would argue that sex seems overrated [to men is] because..."

To: "I would argue that [to men] sex seems overrated because..." Quoth Ravant (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pornography&oldid=935520703"