Talk:Pornography

Semi Protected Edit Request on 30th of August 2021
Pornography

Change the text from:

Pornography (often shortened to porn) is the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal.[1] Pornography may be presented in a variety of media,…

To:

Pornography (often shortened to porn) is the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal.[1] A distinction could be drawn between erotic art and hard pornography.[ref] Pornography may be presented in a variety of media,

[ref] Lancet 11 June 1241/2 (1977), https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/148012?redirectedFrom=Pornography#eid

Etymology

Change the text from:

…As early as 1864, Webster's Dictionary defined the word bluntly as "a licentious painting".[21], The more inclusive word erotica, sometimes used as a synonym...

to:

…As early as 1864, Webster's Dictionary defined the word bluntly as "a licentious painting"[21], and the Oxford English Dictionary definition is from obscene painting (1842), description of obscene matters, obscene publication (1977 or earlier).[ref] The more inclusive word erotica when not demoted to pornography by censors, is used as a synonym…

[ref] OED, 2021, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/148012?redirectedFrom=Pornography#eid

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2023
Change what is being publicized as legal, because it's not legal in the America's. Research the topic further beyond disenfranchised infiltrators. It is federally illegal via 18 us code 1465. "Pornstars" are descendant of globally known kidnap/abduction victims or infiltrators attempting to usurp. It's been listed repeatedly as legal and it is not legal. 173.80.13.48 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Porn is not legal in the US and as a whole is described as sexual entertainment. The reference is the keyword "production" in 18 us code 1465. Pornography is not a political cartoon nor is it an admiration of a healthy physically fit form. Pornography is not an artistic comparison of the human body to vegetation found in nature. Pornography is not legal by any means. It, definition, is obscene.
 * 18 U.S. Code § 1465 - Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Change "Pornography is legal in the Us" to "Pornography is illegal in the US" referencing 18 US Code 1465. It IS obscene as indicated by its specific quality of lacking any value other than its usage and description of sexual entertainment. It is LITERALLY disinformation to say "Pornography is legal [in the United states]" 173.80.7.142 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That would need to be supported by a reliable, secondary source. Your (mis)interpretation of the US Code is not a usable source on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What dictionary should be used as a teritary source?
 * "...obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph recording, electrical transcription or other article capable of producing sound or any other matter of indecent or immoral character, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
 * "The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely accepted as the most complete record of the English language ever assembled." -https://library.harvard.edu/services-tools/oxford-english-dictionary#:~:text=The%20Oxford%20English%20Dictionary%20(OED,OED%20is%20a%20historical%20dictionary.
 * Oxford dictionary via google
 * Obscene: (of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency.
 * "obscene jokes"
 * Similar: pornographic
 * Lewd: crude and offensive in a sexual way.
 * "she began to gyrate to the music and sing a lewd song" 173.80.7.142 (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Lascivious:
 * (of a person, manner, or gesture) feeling or revealing an overt and often offensive sexual desire.
 * "he gave her a lascivious wink"
 * Similar:
 * lecherous
 * lewd
 * It is extremely clear...it's better to say illegal but not enforced rather than to blatantly claim that its legal...because that is BLATANT disinformation. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your opinion does not matter. My opinion does not matter, either. You need very strong WP:RS in order to add your claim to the article. WP:OR won't do. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is literally the US code itself via Cornell along with Oxford definitions. What more do you actually feel like you need? There are other pages describing laws in other countries listed as illegal but not enforced, what is the actual problem? Which do you feel is an opinion? The definition to the words themselves or the "shall be [fined and/or imprisoned] section? It's literally not an opinion.
 * As early as June 28th, 1955:
 * https://www.govinfo.gov/link/statute/69/183
 * 18 U.S. Code § 2256 2. A. (v)lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person;
 * I can literally keep listing references... 173.80.7.142 (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Lascivious is legitimately used as an adjective to describe the [display]. None of this is an opinion. Its not "original research" either; I didnt reference myself. I referenced cornell, oxford, govinfo.gov, and now justice.gov
 * https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity
 * The examples literally include the words "erotic" and "lascivious". Ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse. Along with the criteria of lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
 * The definition wikipedia uses to describe it "...for sexual satisfaction" 173.80.7.142 (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Additional references, from wikipedia itself Pornography in the Us..."the U.S. Customs and Border Protection prohibits the importation of any pornographic material (19 U.S.C. § 1305a "Immoral articles; importation prohibited").[62]
 * And the source itself is the US code via Cornell: "...or any obscene.."
 * If I'm (mis)interpreting an entire US code that uses the same word(s) then how is that article truthful?
 * That is a clear contradiction. One of them is clearly domestic the other is foreign import surrounding the same exact topic...theres honestly nothing misinterpreted. This totals to approximately 6 references now. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Concocting your own original research or original synthesis (WP:SYNTH) is prohibited by website policy. So you still have a no, next week it will still be a no, next month still a no, and next year still a no. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You said a newspaper article...as a secondary source...but not official US codes, multiple .gov websites, pdfs, and an official dictionary? The Miller test, which is repeatedly referred to, isn't even enough in YOUR opinion good enough to edit it to say "legal but regulated"?.
 * 19 U.S.C. § 1305a "Immoral articles; importation prohibited" is good enough for the sentence via Wikipedia that the "importation of pornography is banned" despite the fact that the word "obscene" is what is used in the referenced US code..yet the same word "obscene" along with "lewd" and "lascivious" is what is used in 18 us code 1465.
 * Here's another definition: Prurient, the word used in the Miller test: having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters.
 * Pornography
 * Oxford languages definition: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.
 * Wikipedia's definition contains "explicitly for sexual arousal"
 * Explain how my claim fits original research when i didnt reference myself.
 * Explain how my claims fits the description of synthesis when I literally used the explicitly stated definitions, the explicitly stated synonyms, and the SAME exact word that is explicitly stated in another US code that is utilized for the sentence "[The importation of pornography is banned]" via Wikipedia's own article, Pornography in the US 173.80.7.142 (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CIR. You're interpreting the law on your own, which is inherently unreliable (banned by website policy). WP:CITE a legal treatise from Harvard or Yale, not older than 20 year. Which has to make precisely that point explicitly. I.e. we don't want your own interpretation of the legal treatise. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The importation of pornographic material is banned" via 19 us code 1305a utilizing the word "obscene" according to wikipedias article Pornography in the US. Therefore via 18 us code 1465 Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution; pornography is also illegal utilizing the words "obscene", "lewd", and "lascivious". If you think it's legal, the Miller test clearly gives restrictions.
 * "Federal statutes ban obscenity..." via wikipedias article US obscenity law. It's literally the same word buddy.
 * Obscene material covers work that “depict[s] or describe[s] sexual conduct.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obscene
 * Im LITERALLY using definitions. That is inherently NOT my own interpretation. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think I'm interpreting on my own when I'm even listing wikipedias own words? You're asking for Harvard or Yale, what's wrong with Cornell? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cornell is okay, too. But it has to be the interpretation of a full professor instead of your own interpretation of law based upon English language dictionaries. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I directly quoted sources...where in anything ive posted do you see my opinion or interpretation? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I havent added my own words nor conclusions to anything regarding sources and references. Its copy and paste buddy. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Pornography–"porn" or "porno" for short–is material that depicts nudity or sexual acts for the purpose of sexual stimulation. However, the presence of nudity or sexual acts in piece of media does not necessarily make that media pornographic
 * https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pornography
 * Obscene material covers work that “depict[s] or describe[s] sexual conduct.”
 * https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obscene
 * "...the U.S. Customs and Border Protection prohibits the importation of any pornographic material (19 U.S.C. § 1305a "Immoral articles; importation prohibited")."
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_States
 * "or any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing, or other representation, figure, or image on or of paper or other material, or any cast, instrument, or other article which is obscene or immoral,..."
 * 19 us code 1305a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1305
 * "for the purpose of sale or distribution of any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph recording, electrical transcription or..."
 * 18 us code 1465
 * https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1465
 * United States vs Kilbride
 * They distributed sexually explicit ads among other things...1465 is even one of the charges, they were convicted, they appealed, they lost AGAIN. (I had the link directly to the PDF but for some reason Wikipedia has uscourts.gov blacklisted...embarrassing..but its not even needed)
 * "The defendants were appealing convictions on 8 counts from the District Court of Arizona for distributing pornographic spam via email."
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Kilbride
 * Are you telling me all of this is my own (mis)interpretation and conclusions? Copy and paste ALL day...its BANNED...PROHIBITED...ILLEGAL...Do you want me to find MORE court cases? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Stop citing dictionaries, even dictionaries of law. And Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, see WP:CIRCULAR. WP:CITE a full professor of law making explicitly that point or be gone from this talk page. We are absolutely not interested in your own syllogisms/deductions. Do you mean that in the past 20 years no full professor made such point? What do you think it holds for law professors, omertà? Omertà for law professors is such a ridiculous claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How can you a adamently argue it? United States vs Kilbride. They got CONVICTED on 18 us code 1465(among others). They distributed pornographic ads. They appealed specifically on 18 us code 1465(among others), THEY LOST.
 * It's not a deduction nor transitional properties being utilized. It's a legitimate court case. What are you even talking about omerta? I am providing you with exact, copy and paste, no thinking is even required, no deductive reasoning is even needed. I. Provided. An. Entire. Court. Appeal. Do you want the pdf? This is becoming ridiculously asinine. The fact that there ARE convictions on it proves to suggest or blatantly state that its legal is ENTIRELY disinformation.
 * Wikipedia was the REFERENCE...the SOURCE was the conviction, lost appeal, along WITH the us code. Can you actually read? No one said anything about omerta. Are you suggesting wikipedia is ran by mafia and thats why theres such blatant contradiction despite there being severl court cases that BLATANTLY prove that pornography is illegal? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That case was about email spam, i.e. sending porn to people who did not want porn. Apples and oranges. Analyzing court documents in order to draw your own conclusions is still prohibited as WP:OR.
 * That case shows that obscenity is illegal. But it does not show that porn is illegal. Do you understand the difference? If a customer wants to watch a lesbian orgy, they cannot claim it violates their own obscenity standard, since it is the customer themself who wanted to access such product. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Porn IS obscenity by definition, synonym, AND court case. That was an absurd analogy that IGNORED the fact the US law DEFINED pornography and gave criteria of whether or not something was pornographic, see previously listed definition cited on cornell. Furthermore if a glass smack addict wants glass and smack that doesnt make it legal to distribute glass and smack to them just because they wanted it. Why? Because drug laws federally outlaw it by what it is.
 * "it is well-established that "there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent." United States v. Bagnell, 679 F.2d 826, 830 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1047 (1983); United States v. Peraino, 645 F.2d 548, 551 (6th Cir. 1981)."
 * Us v Thomas
 * https://casetext.com/case/us-v-thomas-333
 * EXPLICITLY stated. It's compounded from a total of 3 additional court cases, why are you even arguing at this point? These are convictions ON 18 us code 1465. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact remains, we cannot use case text, legal dictionaries, or direct cites to laws (or any combination there of) on Wikipedia, because combining sources in this way is textbook WP:SYN. You're arguing the wrong things and you will not get the article changed this way. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I provided multiple sources that all said the SAME thing. I didn't combine them to draw a conclusion. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats a lie. Wikipedia is full of "direct cites to laws", it also blatantly states several nations laws. Wikipedia does refer to cases as well. Wp:synth says dont combine sources to imply a conclusion that isnt explicitly stated. So someone isnt reading my cited exact quotes. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This talk page is not meant for renegotiating WP:PAGs. You have to make your case at Wikipedia talk:No original research. If you're victorious there, we'll accept it.
 * So, if you seek to change basic website policy, you are free to try to do that. But here is not the place for doing it.
 * And there is a big difference between quoting "law A says B" and interpreting the law on yourself. Uncontroversial verbatim meaning of a law could be accepted, playing law professor can't. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Buddy I cited direct quotes. You keep insisting that its my interpretation, why are you listing a direct quote as my interpretation? I directly gave you uncontraversal sources with the quotes from those sources where it is explicity stated by word. To pretend that I didn't, is fundamentally flaud.. stop making insulting accusations 173.80.7.142 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no accusation involved. It is just a statement of fact: your proposed edits are banned by basic website policy. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your analogy suggests that as long as someone creates new slang for something outlawed that its legal until the slang term is included in a statute. I.e. I want 4 tons of sticky icky good good crypti-chroni-conalite with 5 magazines of smut and 15 tons of grouper. Porn IS obscenity. See Us vs Thomas in previously listed source 173.80.7.142 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, for Wikipedia purposes that is banned from our articles as WP:OR. Take it or leave it, it is part of the package. You're wasting our time with claptrap. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dude...that is PROOF you're not reading the sources. ITS RIGHT HERE:
 * Section 1465 is an obscenity statute, and federal obscenity laws, by virtue of their inherent nexus to interstate and foreign commerce, generally involve acts in more than one jurisdiction or state. Furthermore, it is well-established that "there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent." United States v. Bagnell, 679 F.2d 826, 830 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1047 (1983); United States v. Peraino, 645 F.2d 548, 551 (6th Cir. 1981). Thus, the question of venue has become one of legislative intent. Bagnell, 679 F.2d at 830.
 * US V Thomas https://casetext.com/case/us-v-thomas-333
 * The statute is being discussed AND pornography is explicitly stated! 173.80.7.142 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're still wasting our time with claptrap. 1 (one) citation from a full professor would be enough for entering that information in our article. One law professor. Are we asking too much from you?
 * It is none of our business to interpret the law of the land. Full professors have to do that for us. That's how Wikipedia works.
 * If you girlfriend exposes her genitals to you, what you're going to do: sue her for violating your obscenity standard? tgeorgescu (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How feebleminded do you have to be to feel you think you need a random law professor's quote when I went further up the metaphorical hierarchy and gave you a judge and a court case discussing the statute and explicitly stating the word pornography itself along with the website for you to read it yourself. Your "girlfriend" analogies are equally irrelevant and worthless. The discussion is pornography. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're wasting our time with more claptrap. Your proposed edits are unacceptable because by design, that's not how Wikipedia works. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources."
 * The sources "us v kilbride" and "us vs thomas" either implied or explicity stated the words themselves. Again, heres the quote: "there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent." 173.80.7.142 (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Individual court cases are not usable sources for this purpose, as has been repeatedly explained. Even if they were, that does not support what you're trying to add to the article. MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have to comply with Wikipedia's sourcing standards and policies, not your own idea of what the 'metaphorical hierarchy' is. Also, see WP:NPA. If you keep up the personal attacks you can expect that this discussion will be closed and/or your IP address blocked. MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He's labeled my sources claptrap a couple times. Refused to the sources, then proceeded to blatantly insult my intelligence by referencing a hypothetical situation involving a girlfriend revealing herself when the discussion is pornography. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what another person might or might not have done, or how insulted you might feel, making personal attacks in response is not acceptable. MrOllie (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources themselves aren't claptrap. The way you use them is. You simply cannot understand how Wikipedia works and you are unable to comply with our WP:RULES, see WP:CIR.
 * And the point of the example with the girlfriend is: difference between in public and in private. Suppose she is sexting you, so it's formally porn. But since it is done in private, it does not violate public obscenity standards (since there is no public). Same applies for porn: if you didn't ask for porn, it's in public; if you did ask for porn, it's in private. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As has been said repeatedly before, you really need a reliable, secondary source to back up this claim. Such a source would be a (reliable) newspaper article stating – not arguing, but stating – such, or strong evidence of a successful recent prosecution on those grounds. Without such a source, your argument does not hold up to the standards of an Encyclopaedia. Frankly, your persistence on this matter despite repeated explanations of why the answer is 'no' may constitute disruptive editing, which could result in an editing ban. I would also like to remind you that edit requests are specifically for edits that are uncontroversial or have already received consensus, not for arguing about your personal interpretation of a law. If you really wish to take this further, there are other avenues for dispute resolution; edit requests are not such. I highly doubt, however, that further attempts will be successful, so my polite suggestion would be to reconsider if this is worth your time. See also: WP:STICK -- Irltoad (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No one has negated any source that ive supplied. Another wikipedia article also agrees. No one has explained how ny sources fit "original research" or "synthesis" either, especially when whats being used are the same exact words that are written...Did you actually even look at my sources? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The "explanations" do not fit the criteria as I, by fact, copied and pasted sources which have yet to be negated. I have even referred to another wikipedia page United states vs Kilbride. They were charged, convicted, appealed, lost the appeal...SPECIFICALLY referrencing 18 us code 1465. "[They] distributed pornographic images" 173.80.7.142 (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "it is well-established that "there is no constitutional impediment to the government's power to prosecute pornography dealers in any district into which the material is sent."" United States v. Bagnell, 679 F.2d 826, 830 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1047 (1983); United States v. Peraino, 645 F.2d 548, 551 (6th Cir. 1981).
 * https://casetext.com/case/us-v-thomas-333
 * It is EXPLICITLY stated.
 * What better source than ACTUAL COURT CASES? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're in the wrong place: that's not how Wikipedia works. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A court case conviction on the matter itself PROVES that its illegal in the US. Ive provided a couple of cases/appeals. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have no authority to decide that for us. Our house, our rules. Full professors have such authority, you don't.
 * Full professors may establish the validity of claims for Wikipedia. Courts verdicts can't. Why? Because these are the WP:RULES decided by the Wikipedia Community. You don't play football according to the rules of handball. Different game, different rules. If you don't obey the rules of the game, your goals get discarded. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're being very insulting, dismissive, contradictory, condescending, random, and making irrelevant analogies. Where is your warning? I am not a dog and this isn't a game. Ive actually been adhering to the rules, you however have not. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Negate my US v Thomas quote and source. You honestly cannot pretend as if thats not explicitly stated along with the conviction on the violation of 18 1465. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you dont or cant negate those sources im GOING to use it in my next formal change x to y request...youve literally negated nothing but were simply dismissive while clearly not reading the sources...they are explicitly stated, there is nothing implied. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wittgenstein had a theory about language games. Wikipedia is such a language game. WP:MMORPG.
 * That I violate WP:RULES it's just your pro domo sua opinion. It's not an objective statement about my edits, it's just your subjective opinion. Since I have edited Wikipedia for more than 20 years, I'm supposed to know what WP:OR does mean in practice.
 * If you seek a solution, I advise you to ask WP:DR. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Use whatever you like, but no change request will succeed until you accept and follow Wikipedia's policies. MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh i am and i have, you ignoring them doesnt change them either. Merit to you for attempting to negate Us vs Kilbride. However, the words porn and pornography are explicity stated followed by convictions and lost appeals specifically for them violating 18 us code 1465. That is not a personal analysis nor a (mis)interpretation. I ask again that you negate the US v Thomas quote and source.
 * No, it's not a game and you sourced a "humorous essay" that "isn't meant to be taken seriously. Youve neglected to inform how my sources are "original research" when they all explicitly state the legalities of pornography and refer to obscenity and explicitly say either the words porn, pornography dealers, or pornography itself...therefore by the criteria of WP:OR, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Again, it is stated by the sources. You were wrong in US vs Kilbride as both the "government" and the "defendants" explicitly use the words porn or pornography as an adjective followed by the convictions and lost appeals to 18 us code 1465. Its EXPLICITLY stated. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As stated before, court verdicts aren't valid WP:RS for WP:V claims here at Wikipedia. I did not invent this rule, all editors have to obey it.
 * If you want to see an article which cites court verdicts, see Romanian Constitutional Bar. But, remember: no relevant claim is based upon WP:PRIMARY sources alone. All relevant claims are sourced to WP:SECONDARY sources, as required by WP:OR and WP:BLP. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And I know that some people claim that obscenity laws have never been abolished in the US. But at the same time there are Supreme Court decisions which canceled some obscenity laws. So, the situation is at best murky, so we can't let you posit your pet legal theory as the unvarnished truth. All we can do is use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, but for that we need a citation from a full professor endorsing that POV. That after so much bickering you couldn't find a single law professor who endorses your theory, it's fatal for your claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Im contributing to a discussion on the legalities of pornography using sources that explicitly state the words themselves, youre being dismissive and insulting by using adjectives of influence a humorous essay in an attempt to discredit the quoted sources. So if i say thats its a mediocre, half-hearted, and ignorant response to supply a hypothetical situation of a girlfriend revealing herself and referring to obscenity laws...when the topic is pornography, not debatable indecent exposure but the producing and distribution of sexual acts for the purpose of sexual stimulation therefore making it an irrelevant and worthless as a reply...is that a personal attack? Because me directly citing quotes that are literally the same format as other articles has been a "pet legal theory"...a pet...a domesticated beast that can no longer survive in the wild without a debatable parasitic or symbiotic relationship with humans...and claptrap...illogical nonsense that is also referenced as stupid...But if i say youve given quite a few index card replies with claptrap references is that a personal attack? Obey is a word of beasts..Adherence is for humans...youve used an analogy for stupid, obey, and then pet in between something that "isnt meant to be taken seriously"...Heres an idea...contribute to the discussion without a colorful adjective and explain how you think my citing of US v Thomas fits original research. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that you don't understand WP:OR means that you don't understand WP:OR, which means WP:CIR. I'm tired of giving you explanations. I advise you to seek WP:DR. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that you don't understand WP:OR means that you don't understand WP:OR, which means WP:CIR. I'm tired of giving you explanations. I advise you to seek WP:DR. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality
— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2024
51.155.137.124 (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)