Talk:Pornhub

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arson[edit]

Mentioning arson seems relevant, since there are a lot of threats against it from the extreme right. So, it's at least a working hypothesis that the arson was due to opposition to PornHub. The arson endangered third-parties, so it is at least an attempt at (involuntary) homicide (a reasonable person could foresee that people might die because of that arson). tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to the articles that I looked at it was only suspected arson,[1][2] so while it remains unknown, is there any point hypotheising? Even if it was arson, it would seem better suited to just Feras Antoon's personal page unless sources suggested the involvment of the extreme right or pressure against pornhub.. Unless there is a verifiable link between the house burning down and opposition to pornhub or it's CEO, any insinuations of such seem irrelevant. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Montreal mansion of Pornhub owner destroyed in criminal fire". CBC. 26 April 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
  2. ^ Jain, Akshita (27 April 2021). "Pornhub CEO's mansion goes up in flames in suspected arson". Independent. Retrieved 2 October 2021.
@Tgeorgescu: I plan on removing the sentence unless you have anything to add to the discussion. Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that we should only mention this on the Antoon article. — Bilorv (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pabsoluterince and Bilorv: Written in the press: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022/01/xxx-files-who-torched-the-pornhub-palace tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usable for a few topics, as a very detailed source, but the arson will still belong at Antoon's article. — Bilorv (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bilorv, per my previous comment. Pabsoluterince (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration[edit]

I have restored content, with the source Der Spiegel not mentioning verbatim Pornhub, but giving a general overview of the threats arising from the radicalized manosphere. So it renders the Vice article at least plausible. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article from Der Spiegel does not mention PornHub or the controversy surrounding them, and only very briefly mentions pornography (or specifically, anti-pornography) at all. Using it to reinforce the point made in Vice's article is a non-sequitur. I have read most of the article from Vice and they do provide examples and sources, but I believe it should be paraphrased in a less inflammatory manner, and with attribution. --DannyC55 (Talk) 20:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyC55: I also object to Vice (which is not widely considered a reliable source): WP:RSP only affirms there is no consensus upon the reliability of Vice; it has not been deprecated as WP:RS, as it happened to many other sources (Daily Mail, Russia Today, etc.).
Let me be very clear: if the Wikipedia Community deprecates Vice, I will abide by that decision. AFAIK it did not happen yet.
What does Der Spiegel say? That the anti-porn forums are teeming with psychically unstable young radicals. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a hasty description. I am aware that there are many editors who do consider Vice to be a reliable source as there are many who don't, and WP:RS claims that such sources are "marginally reliable" and should be used depending on the context. The way I see it, using such a source to support controversial claims without attribution is not appropriate. Samantha Cole's (the author) analysis on the extremist groups targeting PornHub and their narrative should be re-paraphrased and properly attributed to Vice. As for Der Spiegel, again, their article does not mention PornHub and only broadly talks about misogyny on the internet. Using to it to make Vice's assessment more "plausible" is a non-sequitur and possibly original research. --DannyC55 (Talk) 21:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyC55: Verbatim quote from Burnett 2021 (peer-reviewed): "Unsurprisingly, Alt-Righters more frequently advocate for extreme forms of violence against pornographers, such as shooting them (e.g., @nmm20c, 16 November 2018)."
You see, it is not secret that Alt-Right aims to kill the pornographers, including porn stars. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's neither here nor there. That Burnett 2021 excerpt (as well as the Der Spiegel piece) should be used in an article about the alt-right, incels or anti-porn extremists in general, not in an article about PornHub. If the article by Der Spiegel or that study you just cited explicitly mentioned PornHub and talked about the alleged violent threats and misinformation campaigns brought against the website's staff following their exposed involvement in sex trafficking and rape pornography, it would be a fitting source to use. But it doesn't. Sources should not be used to validate a claim made by editors (or by unrelated sources), no matter how reliable or pertinent they are. That falls under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --DannyC55 (Talk) 21:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyC55: Friend, the verbatim quote is about pornographers in general. Are Porhub pornographers? Definitely! So it is also about Pornhub.
Since it is about the reliability of Vice, I have reported it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vice on Pornhub. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting tiresome. I will say for the last time: If the sources do not mention Pornhub specifically, but something else that is simply broadly in the same context, it should not be in the article for Pornhub. WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." I have changed my mind in regards to including Vice as a source and that paragraph can stay, but the resulting amalgamation of multiple unrelated sources to "bolster" that statement is unacceptable. I will find a way to fix that in the article myself, and let other users see if it is fit. --DannyC55 (Talk) 23:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyC55: This matter is under scrutiny at WP:RSN. Please have patience and allow the community to speak. Also, I have offered a verbatim quote as a verbatim quote. It is only cited for what it really says. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: My gripe is no longer with Vice as a source so that RfC can be considered moot for all I care. In the meantime, I have reworded that paragraph in a way I deem more concise and less wordy. How about that? --DannyC55 (Talk) 23:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyC55: Nope, Exodus Cry did not issue death threats. They are not that dumb! tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I worded as "individuals tied to" and also included "disseminated disinformation" as one of their actions. --DannyC55 (Talk) 23:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyC55: I don't think Exodus Cry would agree. It is potentially libelous. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Vice article certainly had no qualms about associating them with the violent threats and campaign against PornHub. That paragraph is merely paraphrasing it. Since you think it's such an issue, I will add attribution to Vice. --DannyC55 (Talk) 00:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyC55: Oh, man: neo-Nazis seek to associate themselves with Exodus Cry; Exodus Cry does not seek to associate itself with the neo-Nazis; Cole's article does not claim otherwise. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This could've been fixed by simply removing the mention of Exodus Cry altogether. Also, like an editor in the RS notice board said, BLP guidelines generally don't apply to political groups. How about this: "In the wake of these controversies Vice has reported that individuals tied to far-right and Christian fundamentalist groups, which claim to be anti-trafficking and anti-pornography actvists, have disseminated disinformation and made death threats towards Pornhub's staff and sex workers" --DannyC55 (Talk) 00:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyC55: We WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV when the facts are uncertain. This does not seem to be the case. Wait for the solution from WP:RSN. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

URL[edit]

27/05/2023 14:30 Why is the sites url listed as pornhub.org? Is it not pornhub.com? 2A01:C23:C0E2:2200:61B4:2FA2:552C:F7D6 (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but the .com website is blacklisted on Wikipedia. -- AxG / ✉  15:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to type the same thing. 63.131.219.7 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus due to minimal participation since 15 September 2023. But I have proceed with merge and redirect by change of mind after noticing the "Popular Culture" section in Pornhub is short. Following "Be Bold", other oppose participants can revert my edit and restart the discussion. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge: Pornhub Community intro into Pornhub.

The references are low-quality sources with little in-depth information about the jingle, such as its history of composition or analysis beyond its length and instrumentation. It's hard to see what such information could exist. Even among those publications that are sometimes reliable, the articles here are very poor. For instance, several embed TikTok videos as their "sources"; others take a viral video at face value for the claim that a student was "expelled" or use an anonymous tweet to contest this claim. The Vice coverage is passing.

This could at best be a paragraph (and at worst a sentence) in the article Pornhub. — Bilorv (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. "The reference are low quality sources."
  • NZ Herald is listed in RSP as generally reliable with consensus, covering the talent show stunt involving the Pornhub jingle.
  • The source covering the jingle in detail, Mel Magazine, explicitly states that they have editorial oversight (https://melmagazine.com/about).
  • Finally, the insider source which covers the TikTok trend is generally reliable in RSP (see Insider (culture)).
All of the topics of this article: the jingle's background, the talent show stunt and the TikTok trend, are covered by RS. It would be absurd to move the consensus goalposts just for this discussion.
Finally, what nom. is describing of sources embedding TikTok videos is literally the definition of secondary sources. They use TikTok (a primary source) and their own editorial judgement to write a magazine article (a secondary source). Sources with embedded TikToks or Tweets ubiquitous even on living subject articles (YouTubers), who have stricter sourcing standards. The LP policy exists so that you can't include everything from a source. Multiple sources consensus is needed to include something like the guy being expelled. It isn't even currently on Pornhub Community intro, so this is a non-issue.
बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate, per above comment. Also, it is better formatted on a separate page. People searching for "Pornhub music" or "Pornhub jingle" would want to land on its own article, not on a single sentence in the Pornhub page. The Pornhub jingle is clearly a standalone topic from Pornhub. One is a sound, while the other is a website. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Pornhub jingle is clearly a standalone topic from Pornhub" - no, the former only exists because of the latter. It doesn't need its own article. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the former only exists because of the latter. It doesn't need its own article"
Golden Arches exists because of McDonalds and countless other similar example. Please point to a policy that says "A exists because of B, so A does not need an article". In fact, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging says to not merge if:
  • 3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short.
There is no overlapping source between Pornhub and Pornhub Community intro so both count as discrete subjects. There is multiple RS in Pornhub Community intro, so it meets notability guideline. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Not sufficiently notable on its own for a standalone article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Not sufficiently notable. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In late reply to the two above: disagree since 3+ RSP sources make it presumed notable.
    Bizarre concerns about WP:RSP sources which would requires discussion in reliable sources board first of course since it would violate multiple yearly rounds of RFCs consensus. So overall no real argument against presumed notability. The rest is just going in circles about how Pornhub song is related to Pornhub therefore merge. (the same can be said about all related topics which have separate articles). बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. The sourcing clearly shows that this qualifies for WP:GNG in its own right, and given that the length of the content here already exceeds what would be reasonable to include in the main article, I don't see a case for WP:NOPAGE either. I'm not really sure what thr motivation for proposing this merge is, the page doesn't seem to be doing any harm and has useful encyclopedic content.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources do you have in mind, Amakuru? — Bilorv (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support trimmed merge per proposal.  // Timothy :: talk  04:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

new owner[edit]

Meet Pornhub's new owner: Ethical Capital Partners 2A02:8109:1040:29C0:55B1:5FAC:288E:98C (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link[edit]

Why does the link labeled "official website" link to the terms of service and not the main page? --2001:871:22B:8159:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The internal blacklist covers many Pornhub-related links for obvious reasons. — Bilorv (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pornhub&oldid=1212965874"