Wikipedia talk:Pornography

message: The project page Wikipedia:Pornography is designed to track some related issues which some people regard as pornography.  It is not designed to create policy.  
My personal view is that the "No Censorship, Ever" attitude of some editors will damage Wikipedia, and that a more considered approach is necessary.  I would be more than happy with a policy something like: "Wikipedia is not a Pornography Gallery" with debates revolving around whether certain images were pornography and whether the damage they could cause to the encyclopedia exceeded the benefit they might bring.  I personally have relatively few problems with "clinical" pictures but I am concerned about images which might appear on "adult" sites, whether "hard" or "soft". But that will not reach consensus yet, so the debate has to revolve around individual items. --Audiovideo 22:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Besides, if we had absolutely "NO censorship, EVER" then we could just put whatever the heck we want on Wikipedia, and it would turn into a directory of random information, essentially just a miniature Internet. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a random information dump, and it's also not a porn mag. 170.215.83.212 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why have this page?

message: "A proposal to delete a parallel page to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse without photographs of torture, naked and dead bodies and technically kept with the same text as the original article did not reach a clear consensus so the parallel article remains. The last debate was at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored)."
:The parallel page seems to be gone now, so this should be updated, I think? Esquizombi 09:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please update as needed. On Wikipedia, if you know what needs doing then do it! Cheers. WAS 4.250 16:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't sure the parallel page wasn't moved somewhere else under a different name, or why the page had a protection notice on it.  But I found the other AfDs so I added them - but maybe someone could make it a little clearer. Esquizombi 01:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: update?

message: Would anyone from this project care to weigh in on the content discussion at Talk:Matt Sanchez?  Your input would be appreciated.  Aleta (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Matt Sanchez]]

message: I know I am an anonymous editor so my opinion does not count for much, but I believe that Wikipedia should NOT contain photographic images of the genitalia of animals of any kind (especially humans). I believe that for certain articles, artistic representations may be needed, but only artistic representations. Certain pages should not get hits because people are aroused by them. I also believe that there should be clear warnings on pages where sexually explicit text and/or art is used and no explicit text/art should be visible when a page is first loaded in an 800x600 resolution. I know this may be hard to implement currently, but I believe it is a step Wikipedia must take at some point. --24.17.53.211 (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise IP(24.17.53.211) made this remark two years ago, however I think 2 mins or 2 years is totally irrelevant when a remark is valid, as I think this is. If this is not already listed under What wikipedia is not, would I be the only one to wonder why? We know wikipedia is not a lot of things, but they are still worth including in this section. In my view this should be included, with careful clarification and qualification it would most likely help settle a lot of content disputes. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

text: So, no illustrations on shoe or panty hose, because someone might get aroused by them? Any respectable educational source needs honest photographs of human and non-human genitalia. It's horribly prudish to hide educational photographs of human genitalia and force users to search porn sites or deal with cryptic diagrams to try and get the information they need.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia should NOT be a porn site 

message: Would someone with a better sense of what makes things notable in this area please review these edits?  My spider sense is tingling.  Between all the prior AfD's on categories and articles this editor has made, and the burst of BLP page creation and editing to existing pages, I think I smell an off wiki effort to promote the careers of a big group of pornographic actors and actresses.  I'm going to post an inquiry on the editor's talk page, but I'd appreciate it if someone else took a look, to see if I'm over-reacting.  Thanks. David in DC (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising campaign? 

message: In a few seconds I'm going to scrap the entire section "Jimbo Wales on obscenity".
In 2010 Jimbo went on a spree deleting images he found objectionable, deleting images that were actively in use in articles, battling other editors over the issue, and ultimately the community ended up revoking most of Jimbo's founder-flag powers. Citing Jimbo as a porn guide isn't good idea. The community's current position on "obscenity" rather more inclusionist than Jimbo's position. The current autofellatio image is substantially identical to the version where Jimbo said "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline". Alsee (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Wales on obscenity 

message: There is a user at the Teahouse who wants to know if it is appropriate to post a link to a non-pornographic documentary that is hosted on a pornographic site (PornHub). What's the protocol for this? Should a disclaimer be added?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenryuu (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Externally linking to sites with pornographic content