# Talk:Purah

Why does this article include so much talk about porn made of this character? This seems entirely irrelevant and vulgar considering she's no more sexualized in the game than any other woman, and Wikipedia does not include this kind of information for other female video game characters.  Benjaminaventi (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Benjaminaventi: Because a large part of the discussion about the character, and thus the notability, are people reacting to the character in a sexual manner. And it does include "this kind of information" for several other characters, to the point there's articles like Overwatch and pornography, even though the game itself is not pornographic.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
What exactly constitutes "a large part of the discussion about the character"? If I search "Purah" signed out of google, there's nothing related to her pornographic material. If I then filter by news articles, nothing except some about her being redesigned (no mention of porn).  I fail to see how this information stands up to Wikipedia's standards.  Benjaminaventi (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Because it was actively discussed in multiple third party reliable sources as cited here. It's the same manner as what we saw with Lady Dimitrescu. And despite your claims, the reception is not "heavily talking about porn" but people's reactions to the character in regards to perceived sex appeal. There's even discussion on how the Zelda series is being looked at by adults through the scope of reactions to Purah. So yes, there is encyclopedic merit to discussing this in the grand scheme of a series running this long.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the article should completely cut all discussion of sexual appeal, I think that the amount of discussion is far too in depth, to the point it overtakes the majority of the article. Most of the sources cited in the Critical Reception secrion discuss her sex appeal and repeat the same sentiments over and over. I think that section and its corresponding paragraph in the introduction should be condensed. Please review the "Reception" section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games Benjaminaventi (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
They are not "repeating the same sentiments", they're making distinct points and discussing different aspects. It's also the most notable aspect of the character in terms of reception. Just because you don't like it doesn't change that, and given how you led off this discussion I feel that's skewing your view on the matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Dude, it's just creepy that you're this invested in sexualizing a character from a nintendo game. It's inappropriate since CHILDREN will read the article. 2606:9400:AA9F:FB97:4DF9:32EA:87BB:265E (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of making distinct points, the notion that the pornography of the character is their most notable point in terms of reception is entirely unfounded. Even if it was, it would not constitute an important enough aspect to take up more than half the article. There is also entirely no reason to link to articles about pornhub or include images of third party NSFW merchandise. 178.119.2.44 (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Content included in the article is only included if it is covered in reliable, secondary sources. You have yet to propose an argument for removing content re: Pornhub that uses any guidelines or policies. What you're asking for is for us to censor the article in violation of WP:NPOV. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
It's not calling for censorship. Its calling for decency in regards to not mention sexual content of a nintendo character. A character that children are prone to look up on here. 2606:9400:AA9F:FB97:4DF9:32EA:87BB:265E (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you're calling to censor. Ease up with the "Think of the children" nonsense and familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies. If this is that troubling for you, don't look at Gardevoir.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
You just described censorship. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
@2606:9400:AA9F:FB97:4DF9:32EA:87BB:265E: Inherently sexual content is allowed on Wikipedia and is especially perfectly fine when it's sourced properly, which it is in this case. Calling for the removal of content that does not break the guidelines because in your opinion it isn't "decency" is censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. Also, lay off the personal attacks. Content added from a neutral perspective does not reflect the opinions of the contributors. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Nothing about Purah is inherently sexual. Rule34 applies, there is porn of literally any character or concept you can imagine on the internet. Should every Wikipedia article include these porn references? I can rule 34 George Washington Carver spit roasting a jar of peanut butter, does that mean it get included in his Wiki? 2601:19B:4100:EA10:A134:948D:6BA5:25BD (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@2601:19B:4100:EA10:A134:948D:6BA5:25BD: I am not doubting that nearly every major video game character has had pornography derived from them all. Mentioning an instance of that would only be applicable if there was significant coverage from one or more independent, reliable sources regarding that specific character and its relevance to pornography, which is exactly the case for Purah. So yes, explicit content depicting "George Washington Carver spit roasting a jar of peanut butter" can be mentioned on the article for George Washington Carver Wikipedia if it is sufficiently documented by credible third-party sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia definitely includes this kind of information for other video game characters:
Gardevoir § As a sex symbol
Lady Dimitrescu § Promotion and reception
Lara Croft § Sex symbol
Link (The Legend of Zelda) § Critical reception
Tifa Lockhart § As a sex symbol
Bayonetta (character) § Critical reception
Leon S. Kennedy § Reception
Quiet (Metal Gear) § Merchandise and reception
Kitana § Reception
Yuna (Final Fantasy) § Reception
Lulu (Final Fantasy) § Promotion and reception
Kasumi (Dead or Alive) § Critical reception
Miranda Lawson § Reception
Aya Brea § Sex symbol
Chloe Frazer § Reception
Widowmaker (Overwatch) § Promotion and reception
Tali'Zorah § Reception
Cammy § Sex appeal
Overwatch and pornography
Pokémon and pornography
I don't know what to tell you except that you're just outright wrong and Kung Fu Man is completely correct. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Most of those are characters from mature and teen rated games. 148.137.224.157 (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not censor based on a perceived target audience. Your argument makes no sense in the context of longstanding, fundamental Wikipedia policy. Clearly a wide variety of outlets have quite substantially covered the overt sexualization of this character in pop culture (warranting its inclusion), and the mildly sexual image is relevant to that. Please read WP:DISC. If you find other articles about this character from reliable, independent sources covering her in substantial detail that don't revolve around this sexualization, then you can write about those in the 'Critical reception' section as well to provide WP:DUE weight to those aspects of her reception. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Putting WP:CENSOR aside, I would hardly call this a "mildly" sexual image. Given that it's copyrighted, I don't think it meets any valid non-free use criterion and have nominated it at WP:FFD. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Just popping back in to say I think the article is in a better state now. Looks much cleaner, thanks.  Benjaminaventi (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I notice that all of the other ones that are listed as "similar" by User:TheTechnician27 are not explicitly "people started looking her up way more on PornHub", except for the ones that are specifically about pornography, nor are any of them contained in the initial biography.
This is not important information about the character. This is not even tangentially relevant information about the character. "Character in popular media who was previously depicted as a child has more people interested in pornography of them now that they are an adult" is not important information to the, and that is essentially what User:TheTechnician27 and User:Kung Fu Man are arguing with their insistence that this is relevant. Splitpunched (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Pretty sure any of the discussion regarding pornography is regarding their Tears of the Kingdom design, and talks about them in that context...maybe you should relax a good bit before mischaracterizing discussions because there is a lot to unpack there...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Relevant vs. non-relevant is a question answered only through the use of reliable sources, which have been provided. I also don't really get why you're bringing up her BotW role. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
That's not a mischaracterization of what's being argued.
"People looked up more porn of a character when they had an adult form rather than merely a child form" isn't that notable to me, but explicitly stating "Purah was often sexualized by the latter, with searches on PornHub for content related to the character seeing a large uptick after the game's release" is not important enough to be in the opening part of the article.
Reading over it again - the stuff in critical reception makes me roll my eyes, but whatever. I have no problem with it being buried in the article. I think it being put that explicitly in the opening part of the article is super duper weird and unnecessary - characters who are *way* more notable in terms of pornography aren't just listed with a "HEY, PEOPLE LOVE LOOKING AT PORN OF THEM" right up front. Splitpunched (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
The fan reaction to her as an adult was the crux of the discussion around her, which did include the pornography aspect. I'm not sure what your problem is.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Let me make sure I understand this correctly:
You think "Purah was often sexualized by the latter, with searches on PornHub for content related to the character seeing a large uptick after the game's release." is important enough information about the character that it needs to be in the opening section of her article, despite this not being true of any other character who is known for being prominently sexualized.
Yes or no? Splitpunched (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)