Talk:Revenge porn/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Other revenge websites (non-porn)
I added this because it didn't seem worthy of it's own article, but it was rapidly deleted without discussion. It refers to websites that publish defamatory or embarrassing material (true or untrue), mugshots, etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revenge_porn&diff=591196933&oldid=591124853 What do other editors think? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because the topic is "revenge porn," rather than revenge websites, mugshot sites aren't a good fit here. Revenge porn didn't have its own article until October 2013 because there was not enough information to compile an entire article about it. That has clearly changed. Several states are considering mugshot legislation - it may be worth tracking and creating another article about that topic as more media coverage is available. -- Amphiggins (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- If the emphasis were on "revenge", then I'd say maybe. But the emphasis of this article is "porn used a vengeful manner". Interesting idea for an article though. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Problems with the article
While there is much information here, my sense is the article does not do an adequate job of really covering this topic, with the chief defect being that it is all about laws, and legislation, with minimal coverage on the sociological and cultural aspects about this subject. Questions a likely reader would ask include: who does revenge porn? how prevalent is it? how does it relate to other types of harassment on the web? what strategies can people use to protect themselves from it? how can people fight it if they're a victim? how effective is law enforcement? Right now, the article focuses mainly on laws and sometimes impending legislation, which can be helpful, but I think the article should be expanded. I have an issue with the definition of revenge porn in the lede sentence; specifically, the current definition Revenge porn is sexually explicit media that is publicly shared online without the consent of the pictured individual neglects to mention the whole aspect of revenge; for example, supposed there is a nude photo of a woman; it is posted on the Internet without her consent, but it does not have her name on it or any other identifying information, so nobody would know that it was her unless possibly a friend or family member came across the image on the Internet. Technically, that would qualify as revenge porn although I don't think it really qualifies as revenge porn because there was no deliberate intent to harm, no revenge aspect. So I think there should be more discussion about what, exactly, constitutes revenge porn, as well as expansion of the non-legal aspects of this phenomenon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the areas for improvement, but we are limited by the sources we have available. Some of the existing ones delve into that kind of subject matter, but not terribly well and little of it is clinical or research base. Its mostly opinion which we cannot present as fact. The article's purpose is not to explain every possible scenario, so I'm not sure your example is appropriate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 02:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but when there's an excellent secondary source such as The Economist with an article focused on revenge porn, points made by The Economist got reverted for supposed POV reasons which are not clear to me. The article suggested that it was often difficult for victims to fight revenge porn by legal means; that it often happens after a relationship sours; that it was usually difficult to prove the identity of the perpetrators and punish them; that it often is accompanied by extortion. The current article emphasizes the worldwide nature of the problem, which is good, but still my sense is the article is still focused on the legal side of revenge porn, when there is much more to this subject. In addition, there are instances of primary sources being used like this one, which can be okay to confirm secondary sources, but when used by themselves, there is the risk of original research. Right now, in its present form, the article might better be titled Revenge porn (legislation) or something to that effect.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to additions like this. Just stick to the facts and use neutral wording/paraphasing and you should be OK. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- It may be worth adding a separate subheading for "Sociological Effects" or something of that nature. When I started the article, the only resources WERE legislation-related - that's something that has since changed, and I hope that the article develops to reflect those changes as well. --Levendowski (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Have you found anything? Please post links, I'm happy to read the articles and paraphrase or summarize whatever you've found. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)
18:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Have you found anything? Please post links, I'm happy to read the articles and paraphrase or summarize whatever you've found. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)
- It may be worth adding a separate subheading for "Sociological Effects" or something of that nature. When I started the article, the only resources WERE legislation-related - that's something that has since changed, and I hope that the article develops to reflect those changes as well. --Levendowski (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Intent
Hey Levendowski, isn't the intent post pictures or video to cause public embarrassment (or something similar) an important aspect of "revenge" part of revenge porn? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Scalhotrod. Intent is vital; it is what the sources say it is, specifically; don't see how intent can not be mentioned. General problem with this article: too much of a legal orientation; needs depth.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion about intent goes back to whether "revenge porn" is even an appropriate term for this kind of conduct - a lot of experts, advocates and victims prefer the term "non-consensual pornography," because not every uploader or distributor has the same motive. However, "revenge porn" is the name that has caught on for all kinds of conduct. I'm not at all opposed to incorporating intent language into the definition, but I'm conscientious of the fact that many strongly disagree. --Levendowski (Talk) 13:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, that's a fair assessment. Lets include both sides of this coin. I just created a redirect at Non-consensual pornography. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Regardless of the history and background of the term, the term now is revenge porn. Perhaps it is a loaded term, particularly the word revenge; nevertheless, to have an article which does not include intent in the definition seems inaccurate. My general problem with the article, still, is that it is too much oriented to the legal and legislative aspects when mostly I see it as a sociological and cultural phenomenon, in which there are few if any legal remedies (although there are efforts underway to change this). It makes sense to me that this phenomenon occurs in stages, over time -- photos confidentially revealed to an intimate partner (consensually) are later (mis)used if the relationship sours, and I do not think the article addresses this either. The article in the Economist included facets of this phenomenon which we do not cover. It would be good if this subject was studied by academics but it probably is too soon. I wonder if situations which happened years ago, such as aspiring unknown women movie actors, who had nude photos taken of themselves to make $$, and later the women became famous and found the photos being used as blackmail -- wonder if that constituted revenge porn although it probably was not called that, although I see similarities (although this may be my WP:OR). Last, maybe there should be two separate articles -- revenge porn, and non-consensual pornography, since there may be substantial differences in meaning and usage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose separate articles since they would clearly be a WP:CONTENTFORK, we all agree that the subjects are related. We should just expand the article to include all facets of the phenomenon. If we end up moving it to another more appropriate name, so be it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- The Economist piece primarily focused on one of the many facets of "revenge porn": sexually explicit images posted public online by former intimate partners. However, the hacking allegations against Hunter Moore, oft called the "King of Revenge Porn," don't involve that intent discussed above. Indeed, many revenge porn images (perhaps even the bare majority) are obtained through malicious hacking and posted to revenge porn websites with no specific intent against the victim at all. Discussing the intent aspect may be useful elsewhere in the article, but I still feel that it is not a good fit for the most basic definition of the phenomenon.--Levendowski (Talk) 19:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am trying to get your sense of revenge porn. The best I can determine is you are considering a wider phenomenon -- explicit photos posted online without consent -- as what the article is about. My problem is the name of the article has the word "revenge" in it, and maybe that colors everything -- that is, maybe the choice of the term 'revenge porn' is unfortunate -- regardless we're stuck with it. Please understand that it is hard for me to make sense of the concept of "revenge porn" without some kind of intent. That's what revenge is about -- striking back, retaliation, deliberately so (although I am a determinist at heart so the whole idea of 'deliberate' is illusory to me, but that is a different subject). Consider several definitions in the media, such as this one: revenge porn — the unconsented-to public distribution of nude photos or videos, usually by a significant other (often male) who intends to humiliate or harass their ex-partner (often female). That one uses the word "intent". Yet this definition doesn't mention intent but it gets at the changing nature (ie initial photos may be consensual, but later they're not): compromising photos, often put up by exes after a breakup, without the subject’s consent. Still, the whole idea of a spurned intimate partner acting deliberately is in this one: 'Revenge porn’ is the posting of nude or sexually explicit photographs or videos of people online without their consent, even if the photograph itself was taken with consent. A spurned spouse, girlfriend or boyfriend may get revenge by uploading photographs to websites, many of which are set up specifically for these kinds of photos or videos. The victim’s name, address and links to social media profiles are often included with the images, and some websites charge a fee to have the materials removed. Or this definition: revenge porn – a chilling new internet phenomenon in which jilted lovers upload explicit intimate photos and videos of their ex-partners for the world to see. What's clear is the whole idea of "revenge" is woven into these understandings, and it seems difficult to consider an article about this subject without mentioning intent, deliberate action, retaliatory postings, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- There should be a discussion of intent after the blanket definition, but revenge porn does not require any intent. Even the NCLS definition you reference - 'Revenge porn’ is the posting of nude or sexually explicit photographs or videos of people online without their consent, even if the photograph itself was taken with consent - does not include an intent requirement. It certainly discuss motivations afterwards, but intent is not part of the core definition. While the Mirror article is interesting, it is not of the same caliber of the extensive academic research in the space, which agrees that intent may be factor - though by no means a requirement - for revenge porn. I recognize that the term is something of a misnomer, and while some advocates and academics in the space prefer non-consensual pornography, that is not the term by which the phenomenon is best known. Levendowski (Talk) 11:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Let's agree to disagree. My sense is you're looking at this issue solely through a legal lens, when the subject is much broader, and that the article, in its current form, is rather focused on the legal aspects to the detriment of what is happening in the larger cyber culture. Is there some compromise position which would work for you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- My suggestion - keep the definition and discuss the intent afterwards - is a compromise. To your issue with the legal-focus: the current definition is at odds with some legal definitions because a lack of intent is responsive to the broader cyber cultural issues of revenge porn, particularly hacking that lacks intent to humiliate or embarrass. Levendowski (Talk) (Talk) 12:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Let's agree to disagree. My sense is you're looking at this issue solely through a legal lens, when the subject is much broader, and that the article, in its current form, is rather focused on the legal aspects to the detriment of what is happening in the larger cyber culture. Is there some compromise position which would work for you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- There should be a discussion of intent after the blanket definition, but revenge porn does not require any intent. Even the NCLS definition you reference - 'Revenge porn’ is the posting of nude or sexually explicit photographs or videos of people online without their consent, even if the photograph itself was taken with consent - does not include an intent requirement. It certainly discuss motivations afterwards, but intent is not part of the core definition. While the Mirror article is interesting, it is not of the same caliber of the extensive academic research in the space, which agrees that intent may be factor - though by no means a requirement - for revenge porn. I recognize that the term is something of a misnomer, and while some advocates and academics in the space prefer non-consensual pornography, that is not the term by which the phenomenon is best known. Levendowski (Talk) 11:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am trying to get your sense of revenge porn. The best I can determine is you are considering a wider phenomenon -- explicit photos posted online without consent -- as what the article is about. My problem is the name of the article has the word "revenge" in it, and maybe that colors everything -- that is, maybe the choice of the term 'revenge porn' is unfortunate -- regardless we're stuck with it. Please understand that it is hard for me to make sense of the concept of "revenge porn" without some kind of intent. That's what revenge is about -- striking back, retaliation, deliberately so (although I am a determinist at heart so the whole idea of 'deliberate' is illusory to me, but that is a different subject). Consider several definitions in the media, such as this one: revenge porn — the unconsented-to public distribution of nude photos or videos, usually by a significant other (often male) who intends to humiliate or harass their ex-partner (often female). That one uses the word "intent". Yet this definition doesn't mention intent but it gets at the changing nature (ie initial photos may be consensual, but later they're not): compromising photos, often put up by exes after a breakup, without the subject’s consent. Still, the whole idea of a spurned intimate partner acting deliberately is in this one: 'Revenge porn’ is the posting of nude or sexually explicit photographs or videos of people online without their consent, even if the photograph itself was taken with consent. A spurned spouse, girlfriend or boyfriend may get revenge by uploading photographs to websites, many of which are set up specifically for these kinds of photos or videos. The victim’s name, address and links to social media profiles are often included with the images, and some websites charge a fee to have the materials removed. Or this definition: revenge porn – a chilling new internet phenomenon in which jilted lovers upload explicit intimate photos and videos of their ex-partners for the world to see. What's clear is the whole idea of "revenge" is woven into these understandings, and it seems difficult to consider an article about this subject without mentioning intent, deliberate action, retaliatory postings, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The Economist piece primarily focused on one of the many facets of "revenge porn": sexually explicit images posted public online by former intimate partners. However, the hacking allegations against Hunter Moore, oft called the "King of Revenge Porn," don't involve that intent discussed above. Indeed, many revenge porn images (perhaps even the bare majority) are obtained through malicious hacking and posted to revenge porn websites with no specific intent against the victim at all. Discussing the intent aspect may be useful elsewhere in the article, but I still feel that it is not a good fit for the most basic definition of the phenomenon.--Levendowski (Talk) 19:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose separate articles since they would clearly be a WP:CONTENTFORK, we all agree that the subjects are related. We should just expand the article to include all facets of the phenomenon. If we end up moving it to another more appropriate name, so be it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)
- Regardless of the history and background of the term, the term now is revenge porn. Perhaps it is a loaded term, particularly the word revenge; nevertheless, to have an article which does not include intent in the definition seems inaccurate. My general problem with the article, still, is that it is too much oriented to the legal and legislative aspects when mostly I see it as a sociological and cultural phenomenon, in which there are few if any legal remedies (although there are efforts underway to change this). It makes sense to me that this phenomenon occurs in stages, over time -- photos confidentially revealed to an intimate partner (consensually) are later (mis)used if the relationship sours, and I do not think the article addresses this either. The article in the Economist included facets of this phenomenon which we do not cover. It would be good if this subject was studied by academics but it probably is too soon. I wonder if situations which happened years ago, such as aspiring unknown women movie actors, who had nude photos taken of themselves to make $$, and later the women became famous and found the photos being used as blackmail -- wonder if that constituted revenge porn although it probably was not called that, although I see similarities (although this may be my WP:OR). Last, maybe there should be two separate articles -- revenge porn, and non-consensual pornography, since there may be substantial differences in meaning and usage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, that's a fair assessment. Lets include both sides of this coin. I just created a redirect at Non-consensual pornography. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)
- The discussion about intent goes back to whether "revenge porn" is even an appropriate term for this kind of conduct - a lot of experts, advocates and victims prefer the term "non-consensual pornography," because not every uploader or distributor has the same motive. However, "revenge porn" is the name that has caught on for all kinds of conduct. I'm not at all opposed to incorporating intent language into the definition, but I'm conscientious of the fact that many strongly disagree. --Levendowski (Talk) 13:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Folks, we're all limited by the sources we have at hand. There's no need to argue over the focus of the article if we don't have enough citable material. There is clearly an "intent" behind some forms of "revenge porn" and that element should be mentioned in the article. To what extent, I'm not sure, but suppressing it is WP:UNDUE. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- What if in the lede paragraph we had a sentence or two to the effect that in a strict legal sense, revenge porn does not involve intent, but in terms of what the term has come to mean in the popular culture, it usually involves intent. Would that be suitable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've revised the article. The current definition encompasses the non-legal and popular understanding of revenge porn, immediately followed by a discussion of intent and the distinctions between ex-lovers and hackers. Levendowski (Talk) (Talk) 00:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is a step in the right direction but still my primary problems with the article continue. Would you consider splitting it into two articles -- one focused on the cultural phenomenon, one focused on the legal aspects?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Creating a WP:CONTENTFORK is not a compromise. There is no reason that this article can't have sections to explain each facet. In fact, that is the kind of thing that makes for a better article. The Lead can then reflect this since its a summary of the article. Lets work on the sections then update the Lead, OK? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure why the WP:CONTENTFORK is not a possibility; it is one way to deal with edit conflicts. But separate sections can be a possibility; I don't know much about the legal aspects, but as I wrote before on this talk page, I think the legal part is only one aspect to this phenomenon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Creating a WP:CONTENTFORK is not a compromise. There is no reason that this article can't have sections to explain each facet. In fact, that is the kind of thing that makes for a better article. The Lead can then reflect this since its a summary of the article. Lets work on the sections then update the Lead, OK? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is a step in the right direction but still my primary problems with the article continue. Would you consider splitting it into two articles -- one focused on the cultural phenomenon, one focused on the legal aspects?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've revised the article. The current definition encompasses the non-legal and popular understanding of revenge porn, immediately followed by a discussion of intent and the distinctions between ex-lovers and hackers. Levendowski (Talk) (Talk) 00:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Saw this in the news
FYI ACLU action in Arizona regarding revenge porn from NBC News.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Sextortion report in BBC
FYI a related issue, scammers lure men across world into "intimate conversations" with pre-recorded videos of beautiful women, record the conversations and then blackmail the victims by threatening to post the videos of the "intimate conversation" online. Not sure if this is 'revenge porn' or not but it seems to be in the same category of stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this article, but I would take a look at the Sex and the law and Extortion articles to see if could be mentioned. Then again, if its a worldwide (or multi-national) phenomenon, then maybe its worthy of its own article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Article in news
"Revenge Porn" Site Was Immoral But Not Illegal: Defense report in NBC San Diego Jan 2015.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Another article in news.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
report in news
FYI Revenge porner sentenced.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Google to remove revenge porn
Story here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- I had made a brief edit citing Slate at the end of "Background" a couple of hours before. It's not clear to me whether Google agreed to requests to remove links to revenge porn before now. I believe they began to in Europe after the Google Spain "right to be forgotten" decision. Whether in the US and before then in Europe I'm curious. c1cada (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Revenge porn is pornography?
I notice the pornography nav box in the article. Revenge porn is a kind of pornography alongside "feminist pornography" and (so-called) "child pornography". I think not. "Child pornography" is probably a term we can't now avoid, despite the best efforts of some of us to call child abuse what it is. Revenge porn doesn't deserve the same fate. I noticed an editor, who ought to know better, using the term "revenge pornography" as well.
Views? Unless I hear support I shall remove the box in a few days time (if not already removed). c1cada (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think it should stay. While it is a form of abuse, I don't see how revenge pornography is not also a form of pornography. Can you make a better case for why it is not? / edg ☺ ☭ 18:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, a Google search on exact terms give about 22,000 hits for "revenge pornography" against about 4,000,000 for "revenge porn". That suggests to me a clear tendency by the general public not to regard revenge porn as just "pornography". Go to a porn videos streaming site and you won't find "revenge" in the catalogue of genres offered up. The objection to categorizing revenge porn as a form of pornography is the same as for the much criticized term "child pornography", that it effectively legitimizes abuse. Adolescents today, well guarded and advised against sexual predators, are astonished to discover that as little as 15 years ago search engines such as Google were linking to child pornography sites and those sites were by no means all hosted in emerging nations with inadequate laws (for example Network Solutions were hosting such sites in the US). Part of the problem there, at least, was the focus on the pornography and freedom of expression issues (the latter invariably cited by the site owners along with various US Supreme Court decisions as to what constituted child pornography), rather than the child abuse it implied.
- Actually "revenge pornography" has less of a claim to be pornography than "child pornography". There's no such thing as pornographic images of revenge. Rather the term makes it clear it's about an act of revenge. The nav box in this article should be about on-line abuse, not pornography. c1cada (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- For better or worse, although I regard it as fairly abhorrent, WP:RSes do clearly define it as a form of pornography. Thus, our article should generally describe it as pornography. However there's certainly no requirement that because RSes describe it as a form of porn, we use a porn navbox. I would support any more appropriate navbox. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Kev. Yes, I fear that's right looking at the sources last night. I notice there's already a redirect from non-consensual pornography and following Wake (excellent source if that was you who cited) I'll presently do one for "nonconsensual pornography" and then WP:BOLD at the nav box so that's what seen. I hope that's acceptable. There is a [[Template:Abuse]] box, but I don't get the impression it's maintained and it long ago reached its max 22 listed abuses. For myself I'll give it a miss, but anyone who wants to resurrect it (that wouldn't necessarily be corpse abuse ho-ho) welcome to from me. c1cada (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Added: Actually I see you've already replaced by the "sexual abuse" nav box. Support that. Cheers and thanks. c1cada (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry about the conflict, I just figured there had to be a better fit and went looking after my post - to find something quite quickly. And yeah, I've been incorporating a lot of Wake in to the article as I have the time Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Added: Actually I see you've already replaced by the "sexual abuse" nav box. Support that. Cheers and thanks. c1cada (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Rearranged by country
It doesn't look ideal currently, but in hopes of eventually having a much more global article, I've redone the country section in alpha order (and explicit order.) There are a couple entries that represent pre-existing content (namely "The European Union, generally," and the "Arab World") that I'm not satisfied with, but didn't want to outright delete, but figured would do until we found another way to integrate the content in to the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- European Union content at present OK as far it goes I think. I'll edit on implications of Google Spain (right to be forgotten) and European Court of Human Rights case law at a later date (towards end of July) if no contributions forthcoming meantime. Bit busy right now and I need to read in there. c1cada (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- I merged some of the individual countries into continents. Otherwise, we would end up with dozens of tiny subsections, which MOS:BODY advises against. KateWishing (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks. It's a valid MOS point (whoa me agreeing with the MOS!,) and one I sometimes overlook. I'll be adding content here and there as I have time, mostly initially using Wake just because it's a really good source not currently used much in the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Conflating two concepts
I share some of the concerns expressed in the "problems with the article" and "intent" sections above. I see these concepts:
- Revenge porn is posting sexually explicit images online with intent to get revenge or cause harm
- (some other term) is the loss of privacy or consequences of being exposed online in any case, whether consensual or not, regardless of whether it is legal or ethical
Perhaps "identified exposure" would be a term to describe the concept? I do not want to coin a WP:NEOLOGISM, but people are talking about a concept and there is no article for it nor do I know where to find literature on the concept.
When I think of "revenge", I think of malicious intent. But the harm does not come from the intent; it comes from both the exposure and having the exposure connected to a person's identity. People are not harmed by identification, and not harmed by sexually explicit images when no one can determine who is featured in the images, so the two have to be paired for "revenge porn" to happen.
The reason why I want the other term is because exposure can happen in other ways. It might not even be sexually explicit - exposure can mean capturing anything personal, like a private expression of grief like crying, but there is something similar in being exposed while in private whether it is nudity or anything else not for the public. Also, people who consent to be exposed, such as porn actors, may incur costs as a consequence. "Revenge porn" seems to not be a term to apply to porn stars, and yet they also experience life changes that a victim of revenge porn may experience, and yet they agreed to the arrangement. For that reason, "non-consensual" is not a characteristic of the concept I wanted to capture.
I was examining this in the context of the article on privacy. I wanted to find a term for the invasion of privacy which happens when something taboo to show in public is revealed about a person. That could be nudity, using the toilet, crying in a time of personal mourning, someone being photographed before they have had coffee in the morning, or just sharing any unflattering depiction of a person. I feel like this article is a close concept but I am not sure what the root concept is, or where I can read more. Any ideas? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: - I assume this was just some syntactical ambiguity, but to be clear, porn stars can absolutely be victims of revenge porn. Choosing to be a porn star, even professionally, does not equal automatic consent to anything. If I was dating a pornstar, but released private images of the two of us with the intent of harming her reputation (many porn stars refuse to perform acts professionally that they perform in their private lives for instance,) the fact that she was a porn star wouldn't make it not a case of revenge porn. Even if they were images within what they normally performed professionally, if harm was intended, it'd still easily fit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Kevin Gorman I agree with you for the case you describe, but that is not what I was addressing. In your example you are still talking about the negative consequences of non-consensual distribution of porn. I am talking about negative consequences of media which the performer provides for the purpose of distribution. This means the featured consensual recorded performance of the actor, that perhaps they later come to regret. This article seems to group that kind of risk of harm with revenge porn, and in my opinion, there should be a distinction between what is consensual and what is non-consensual. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- I figured that was what you meant, but just wanted to clarify it, since people who choose to perform sex work are often incorrectly assumed to have revoked their concept to consent to sexual activity, when even an act a prostitute commits can be consensusal vs nonconsensual. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Kevin Gorman I agree with you for the case you describe, but that is not what I was addressing. In your example you are still talking about the negative consequences of non-consensual distribution of porn. I am talking about negative consequences of media which the performer provides for the purpose of distribution. This means the featured consensual recorded performance of the actor, that perhaps they later come to regret. This article seems to group that kind of risk of harm with revenge porn, and in my opinion, there should be a distinction between what is consensual and what is non-consensual. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Astute analysis. I think you are on to something here Bluerasberry. I have been writing a novel and one of the issues in it is this whole notion of public-private space and how it relates to freedom. My thinking kind of goes like this. In the public space, what we do, wear, say, how we act and so forth is rather constrained by group norms; that such and such behavior is permissible while some other behavior is not; and the line between what is considered permissible and what is not is not always clearly defined, a blurry line, changing with the times, as it were. In the private space, we have MUCH more freedom to do what we want, when we are alone, and for this space to exist we have to have a shield around it, such as the walls of our apartment, or our personal files on the Internet password-protected, perhaps. It can get tricky when our private world includes our personal self plus another, or a few others, or some subset of the general population. Like, if a couple does something in private, it is somewhat public to both of them, but private to the wider world. It is freeing when people know that this private space will remain private, since they know they can do behaviors which are beyond the bounds of normal public respectability, but things which they want to do, such as have sex with whoever they want. And it is a good thing in general for people to know that they have this privacy, that is, it equates in a real sense to long term freedom. Now how does this tie in with revenge porn: it is when information which was presumed private and presumed to have stayed private is posted publicly. It is a form of violence. If people have a right that their private-information about sexual matters or nudity is going to stay private, then broadcasting or publishing this information -- with the identification component that you rightly focus on -- with intent to cause revenge or harm or debase a person's reputation -- then this is revenge porn. You make a good point in that if nudity or sexually explicit photos are published without identifying the particular person in them, so that they are essentially anonymous, then this is not as serious of a matter, although one can argue that sooner or later, the persons depicted might be recognized in some public context where it could hurt their reputation. I somewhat agree that a new term is needed, somehow, not sure how to go about it, but in further reading and researching, it may be revealed that such a term appears.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Tomwsulcer I see things as you do. I will post here if I find sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey Folks, if I might add my "2 cents" here. Lets keep in mind that this is a global phenomenon or issue. Granted, the U.S. has received a fair amount of coverage, but its not the focal point like it is, for example, with the actual porn industry. Also when when we discuss aspects like "privacy" or "right to privacy", there are clear distinctions between U.S. law and the laws of other countries. Since this is a global article, it should reflect this. This article has previously has problems with geocentricity. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Peono numbering
Hey C1cada - thanks for your recent work on the article, I appreciate it. Pretty much to satisfy my sole curiousity, can you give a little background about what peono numbering is? I don't get it offhand a a reference. Ignoring that: the reason I put the online reaction section in, is because I suspect people will continue to update the article with info about the reactions of particular websites to revenge porn/their individual policies. I didn't want to delete that wholesale without discussion, but also felt that (especially when this article is appropriately expanded) it should not form a significant part of the 'background' section. Hence the new online reaction section - which can likely be discarded eventually - as a place to shephard information about site policy reactions currently. Eventually I suspect such reactions will be worth their own - much smaller section - but for now I suspect the section will keep expanding. Given that expectation... I'd rather avoid keeping it just in the background section. (Similarly, I feel the nuptial section needs to be incorporated elsewhere, and a lot of the US law stuff condensed.)
In structuring this so far, I'm basically combining "what I think sections would like like if the article was nice and fleshed out" with "where are sections necessary to hold content that should eventually be greatly trimmed or incorporated in to other parts of the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Kev. Likewise thanks for your contributions. Was that a typo I did on "Peano numbering" and yes, it looks as if I'm guilty of some sort of nologism (i.e not a neologism). I meant subparagraph numbering 1.1.1 style. I always thought that was called "Peano numbering", but it seems I'm wrong searching Google. As a matter of interest what would that be called?
- Hah - it's called "Peano paragraphing", sort of. I use it to program the tree functions I use the world is not really ready for yet.
- Anyway the point about the remark was that you were indenting quite deeply your section headings day before yesterday. I think after the third indent or so it becomes a bit intrusive and unhelpful. But don't let me bully you out of it if that's what you think is needed. As for "Online reactions" I don't think that's a very usual or necessarily good way of expressing the equivalent of "Implications for websites" (whatever), but I can't think of a better heading. Is a sub-heading really necessary there? Can't see it is really.
- Added: Hmhh ... looking at it again I see you're right about the need for a heading after that paragraph about legislation being slow to emerge. Perhaps that paragraph better as a lead paragraph for the "Legislation" section? c1cada (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Although another paragraph should probably be included later on with similar content, I feel that something about legislation being slow to emerge probably belongs in the background section to. I don't really like the extra subheading for websites, but I think it's useful for now, because people are likely to continue to add info about new website policies, and I'd rather have it in a subheading that makes it distinct from the general background section until we figure out what we want to do with it. I'm a big not fan of the super-indented US stuff, but that's a result of the article having written before being organized by area. Before those sections are combined (and many of them likely should be,) the super deep headings probably sadly need to stay. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Added: Hmhh ... looking at it again I see you're right about the need for a heading after that paragraph about legislation being slow to emerge. Perhaps that paragraph better as a lead paragraph for the "Legislation" section? c1cada (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure how the article will develop. Just let it grow I say and fork out the bits that become excessive. c1cada (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Half-assed inclusive nod
an act whereby the perpetrator satisfies his anger and frustration for a broken relationship through publicizing false, sexually provocative portrayal of his / her victim, by misusing the information that he may have known naturally and that he may have stored in his personal computer, or may have been conveyed to his electronic device by the victim herself, or may have been stored in the device with the consent of the victim herself; and which may essentially have been done to publicly defame the victim
Never once is it suggested the victim is not a woman, thought the perp. himself or herself gets one inclusive nod. — MaxEnt 23:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 23 May 2017
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Revenge porn → Revenge pornography – “Revenge pornography” is formal, whilst “revenge porn” is informal. Why is the article about pornography titled “Pornography,” not “Porn,” when this article is titled “Revenge porn”?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 00:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, that is, Keep revenge porn as is. My sense is that for Wikipedia naming conventions as per WP:MOS that we should use the term that is most used commonly, to refer to the subject. My sense is the most used term is Revenge porn not Revenge pornography, but when talking about pornography in general, it is simply pornography, with porn being an abbreviation. It is simply common usage, how it's happened to be called over time. If one can demonstrate that the term revenge pornography is more common than revenge porn, I could be persuaded to change my mind here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Isn’t “revenge porn” merely an abbreviation of “revenge pornography”? ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 01:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Of course. But the shorter term is what is used in common parlance. If you google "Revenge porn" (in quotes) you'll get 446,000 hits; googling "Revenge pornography" gets only 56,000 hits. It's just how it is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- By your logic, Pornography should be moved to Porn, because on Google, “porn” gets two billion results, whilst “pornography” gets only 84.4 million.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 03:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)- It is not about 'logic' but about usage. Wikipedia's Commonname policy (see below) suggests we use the term which is commonly used. For reasons I don't understand, and can't explain, most people talk about it as "revenge porn" -- they don't say "revenge pornography" -- why this is, I can not say -- maybe there are too many syllables? With the latter case, "porn" versus "pornography" -- again I can not say, maybe the latter term is preferred because the word "porn", by itself, does not convey enough information, or may be confused with similar sounding words such as corn or torn maybe? The idea behind the Commonname policy is not to confuse readers, to mirror, as best we can, what is actually said or typed in everyday usage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- The reason we don't consider "porn" alone the WP:COMMONNAME is because we are interested not in the most common name in general, but the name which is most common in English language reliable sources. Broadsheet newspapers seem to use "porn" and "pornography" with about equal frequency (at least, that is my impression from a brief sample of articles from the Guardian) though their news stories use "pornography" more and their opinion pieces use "porn" more; scholarly articles use "pornography" fairly universally, as far as I can see: searching google scholar for "porn" simply returns articles written by scholars with the surname "Porn" for me (though searching for "revenge pornography" without quotes, gives lots of hits for articles which use "revenge porn", and include the word "pornography" when talking about porn generally. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- It is not about 'logic' but about usage. Wikipedia's Commonname policy (see below) suggests we use the term which is commonly used. For reasons I don't understand, and can't explain, most people talk about it as "revenge porn" -- they don't say "revenge pornography" -- why this is, I can not say -- maybe there are too many syllables? With the latter case, "porn" versus "pornography" -- again I can not say, maybe the latter term is preferred because the word "porn", by itself, does not convey enough information, or may be confused with similar sounding words such as corn or torn maybe? The idea behind the Commonname policy is not to confuse readers, to mirror, as best we can, what is actually said or typed in everyday usage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- By your logic, Pornography should be moved to Porn, because on Google, “porn” gets two billion results, whilst “pornography” gets only 84.4 million.
- Of course. But the shorter term is what is used in common parlance. If you google "Revenge porn" (in quotes) you'll get 446,000 hits; googling "Revenge pornography" gets only 56,000 hits. It's just how it is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Isn’t “revenge porn” merely an abbreviation of “revenge pornography”? ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 01:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, WP:COMMONNAME by a wide margin. bd2412 T 03:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME and my comment above Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME.
| site | "revenge porn" | "revenge pornography" |
| theguardian.com | 442 ghits | 149 ghits |
| bbc.co.uk | 192 ghits | 45 ghits |
| nytimes.com | 99 ghits | 16 ghits |
| jstor.org | 42 hits | 6 hits |
| scholar.google.com | 1460 ghits | 234 ghits |
- The table to the right shows some usage in reliable sources. (The hits are clickable links, so you can verify the results).
- Note that the news media prefer "revenge porn" by a ratio of between 3:1 (Guardian) and 6:1 (New York Times), but the scholarly source JSTOR prefers the short form by a margin of 7:1. Google Scholar shows a ratio of 6:1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. Revenge porn is overwhelmingly used amongst reliable sources ranging from academic books to newspapers. AusLondonder (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The definition of revenge porn did not match the definition given in the source.
The Wikipedia definition of revenge porn was: "Revenge porn or revenge pornography is the sexually explicit portrayal of one or more people that is distributed without their consent via any medium".
The definition in the law review article cited for the definition is: "Nonconsensual pornography involves the distribution of sexually graphic images of individuals without their consent. This includes images originally obtained without consent (e.g., hidden recordings or recordings of sexual assaults) as well as images originally obtained with consent, usually within the context of a private or confidential relationship (e.g., images consensually given to an intimate partner who later distributes them without consent, popularly referred to as “revenge porn”). Because the term “revenge porn” is used so frequently as shorthand for all forms of nonconsensual pornography, we will use it interchangeably with nonconsensual porn."
It is not at all clear that the distribution of a sexually graphic written description of an individual is legally considered revenge porn. For example, it is not clear that it is illegal for someone to write and distribute a factual, yet sexually graphic, description of sexual activity with another person.
The entire law review article deals with images, NOT all portrayals. So either the definition should be changed (which is what I did) or the cited source should be changed to actually support the previous definition.