Talk:Effects of pornography on young people

Comments

Hi! I just moved this article from my draft space. Hoping to receive feedback to further improve it. Also, would anyone know how to fix the formatting of my references? The reference links seem to go beyond the reference borders and overlap other references. Csan6227 (talk)

You can use a template to format references. These templates can be found at Wikipedia:Citation templates. ... discospinster _talk 02:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I'm just going to edit a few more things to this article. I just need to reword some sentences. Also, would it be okay for me to keep the copyright details in the photos because it is a requirement in a class I am taking. We will be graded based on our wikipedia articles and they are requiring us to state copy right details in the pictures we include, same goes for the navigation box :) Csan6227 (talk)

The copyright information does not go into the article itself, it goes in the image description page. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Credits for the guideline. You can let your instructor know this. Also FYI material in the public domain or CC0 is not under copyright at all. ... discospinster _talk 13:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh okay! Thank you so much for the information and help :) Csan6227 (talk)

Csan6227 and Discospinster, I just saw this article via this edit. The article needs all kinds of work, and that includes adhering to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I added a review article indexed for MEDLINE (gold standard according to WP:MEDRS), which basically says we know nothing about it, just speculating about this topic, due to a lack of empirical studies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that I do not say that harmful to minors would be a false claim. In order to affirm that, I would need to have evidence against it, and this is exactly the point: there is no evidence for or against it, due to a lack of research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

So, the claim that watching pornography would be harmful to minors is not scientific, since science posits facts and theories based upon evidence. That pretense could belong to the ethics of some religion (i.e. non-science), but when stated as if it were scientific, it amounts to pseudoscience.

And there is an ethical reason why such research is lacking: research ethics committees will never authorize such empirical research. So, it is likely that we will never know.

The only way to know is scientific research, and such research is not allowed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

To all who disagree with my statements above: show me your WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Fringe hate group

See https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/american-college-pediatricians . Wikipedia does not WP:SOAP for such hate groups. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Tagging the article

Hi, The Other Karma, as you see my approach is: don't delete stuff I don't like, but instead supplement it with the mainstream academic view. If you think that the mainstream academic view is something else than I have explained at #Comments, WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES. Do mind that WP:MEDRS is binding for medical claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Tgeorgescu, I have, more or less, already done that with the corresponding article in german. I also currently work, at a review of the article and a proposing remake, based on the german article. That does mostly not suffer the problems that the english one has. But that still will take several months, also because as im also currently working on another article. You can also undo my last change, I don't mind, I was just interested to see what happens. I hope that we can improve the article together, I am not interested in quarrels, but in compromise solutions from my side. : ) The Other Karma (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@The Other Karma: I'm not here to quarrel. Do you have a WP:MEDRS-compliant source (both systematic review and indexed for MEDLINE) which breaks my narrative of "low correlation and causality cannot be shown"? Do mind that higher quality WP:RS are allowed, such as medical or psychological treatises endorsed by AMA or APA. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No, that claim is also in the german article "Research is based on finding correlations, which makes it only possible to make causal assumptions (a correlation does not imply causality)." I dont know if that also applies to qualitative research. The Other Karma (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@The Other Karma: The mantra I have learned at the University of Amsterdam is "qualitative research is exploratory, not confirmatory". tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't know that. I learned from someone else who was at the university that qualitative and quantitative are more of a flavor, since you can approach any research question with either method. The Other Karma (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@The Other Karma: The reason is that it is very hard to perform qualitative research upon large samples. Programs like ChatGPT could throw a monkey wrench into that mantra, but I'm afraid ChatGPT is still not seen as reliable. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Systematic review fixes that, Change my Mind. ChatGPT will probably never be reliable. The Other Karma (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@The Other Karma: The idea is that due to the low samples, qualitative research may suggest causality, but it cannot show causality. Again, it is not impossible to perform qualitative analysis upon large samples, it is just very hard. Hint: sex research does not get enough money to pay for it. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@The Other Karma: My concern here is: is there any evidence that watching pornography is harmful for children/teenagers? And the answer seems to be: no, there isn't any direct/conclusive evidence to that extent. So, I'm not interested in arguing about the details. And Zillman's paramount conclusion is that pornography makes teenagers become liberals. In all honesty, that's all he managed to show: teenagers exposed to pornography become liberals. For Bible-thumping parents, that must be terrible news. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Mass Media and Society

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmk21, Flamenquera, Bec1970 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Wikistudent100, Jtm20dc, Haleymackinnon, Jld20eo, Alabamagold, Kateburnstine.

— Assignment last updated by Iamclandestined (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Naive stance

Children who have been frequently exposed to explicit sexual content are more likely to engage in the behaviors and practices they observe. They are also more likely to express sexually coercive behaviors such as those depicted in pornographic material. Using pornography has also been associated with frequent sexting.

What the above ignores is that the large majority of teens (especially boys) use pornography. So, its stance is naive. Perhaps it was true in the 1900s, but it is no longer true. Pornography use has gone mainstream, so it is much easier to conclude that teens who never used pornography are mentally impaired, rather than its opposite. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The claim is made up..., look into the source. I'll delete it, when i get to that part, according to WP:V. The Other Karma (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup, some people who edit Wikipedia are pathological liars. They should be booted from this website. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Oops. I meant "Perhaps it was true in the 1990s". tgeorgescu (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sociologist

Gail Dines is a sociologist. She is not qualified to discuss about brains (medically or psychologically). I'm not qualified to produce WP:OR about the brain, and neither is she. She should not be trusted, because she isn't an expert in brains. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Flame baiting

@Flamenquera: Are you doing serious scholarship or just flame baiting? tgeorgescu (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks more like fairly typical student editing to me - the result of not being adequately informed of how Wikipedia works, and the difference between an essay (which can be used to advance an argument) and an article in an encyclopaedia (which shouldn't). The Wiki Education crowd seem not to understand the consequences of letting new students loose on controversial subjects. They inevitably get reverted, which looks bad, though more often than not it is the teaching (or lack of it) that is at fault. The whole process is cockeyed, when you have teachers who don't understand Wikipedia (or don't know how to teach it) trying to instruct students on how to edit articles on subjects neither have any knowledge of. Take a look at this page, [1] where students from Flamenquera's course are being told to contribute 'images and media files' to an article, before going on to 'rewrite the lead section' etc. Absolutely no consideration as to whether images etc are appropriate (in this article they almost certainly aren't) whether the lede needs rewriting, and whether assigning a student to do so without prior discussion with other article contributors is even remotely appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Can only agree, I feel bad that the edits have been reset, especially because I can see the good intentions, and because they are graded for it. The Other Karma (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Flamenquera: @Bec1970: @Cmk21: By the way, I can help you with the article so that not everything is deleted and you are less likely to be banned! You just have to contact me, then I can show you how you can contribute something useful, I still have things in storage. The Other Karma (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I can see absolutely nothing in Flamenquera's editing history that would justify a ban. And if anyone has suggestions regarding useful contributions to this article, they should be made here, where we can all see them and discuss their merits. Asking for participants in WikiEd projects to act as proxies is inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, i just know from experience that not meaningful edits can lead to a ban. I'm not asking for participants in WikiEd projects to act as proxies? The Other Karma (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your experience of editing the English-language Wikipedia seems rather limited. [2] I'd leave handing out advice to people who have a better understanding of how we work around here. Which doesn't include banning them for doing things they have been told to do by supervisors from WikiEd programs, even if said supervisors are getting things entirely wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding, my goal is not to ban them, I just wanted to help them??? Im sorry that i wanted to be nice. ._. The Other Karma (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyone wanting help regarding possible content for this article should be asking here. Anyone who has suggestions for new content should do so here. We have article talk pages for a reason. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Adolescent sexuality in the United States?

Should the category "Adolescent sexuality in the United States" be removed because the article is written from a global point of view, or should all the other countries (Canada, UK, Afrika, Asia,...) also be included? The Other Karma (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that the parent category - Adolescent sexuality - is already included, there doesn't seem much point in including them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits.

In my opinion, the recent substantive edits to this article made by contributor The Other Karma, while clearly well-intentioned, are not an improvement, and are clearly indicative of writing by someone with an insufficient grasp of the English language. See eg the lede:

As of now:

The effects of pornography on young people refers to the impact of pornography on adolescents. It wasn't until 1973, particularly with the advent of internet accessibility, that the consumption of pornography by adolescents became a subject of rigorous scientific inquiry. But the precise classification of pornography remains a subject of ongoing debate. For teenagers, it has become a normal part of their lives due to easy accessibility and integration into their social circles. Discussing their experiences with pornography can be challenging for adolescents, as it's often seen as non-normative by society, which can lead to feelings of conflict, guilt, and shame.

Adolescents turn to pornography for learning amplified by insufficient sex education, arousal, mating motivations, coping mechanisms, alleviating boredom, entertainment, and to explore their sexual and gender identities. However, they may also encounter content that disturbs them. Without adequate support, they learn to navigate disconcerting material, developing the skills to seek out content that affirms their sexuality while avoiding that which causes discomfort. Without alternative narratives, they think it leads to harmful attitudes about women, sex, LGBTQ people, and people of color and unrealistic expectations. The use of pornography by adolescents is associated with certain sexual attitudes and behaviors, but causal relationships remain unclear. It is imperative to recognize that adolescents are not passive "fools" or "victims". The typical adolescent consumer of pornography is typically male, in advanced stages of puberty, sensation-seeking, and often grapples with weak or disrupted family relationships.

Version of 20th September: [3]

Sexual themes have become prominent in the media, print advertisements, television, video games and other child-friendly mediums. Children are more likely to come across sexually explicit material online intentionally or unintentionally. The large quantity of explicit sexual content online increases the likelihood of young people to experience early sexual debuts or to have sexual experiences at a young age. Young people who frequently engage with explicit sexual content, that exhibits violent and objectifying themes, are more likely to imitate risky and violent sexual practices and to be more accepting of sexual objectification in society. They are also more likely to perceive other people's values and worth solely based on sex appeal.

Explicit sexual material, particularly pornography, impacts young people's wellbeing, sexual practices, attitudes and social relationships. The exposure to explicit sexual content has been associated with addiction, poor self-esteem, devalued intimacy, objectification, increasing divorce rates and engagement in unprotected sex. The use of pornography has also been associated with discovering one's own sexuality, reducing repressed feelings about sex and sexuality, being more open-minded to how others express their sexualities and being more open-minded to diverse forms of sex.

Either way, knowledge about this topic is tentative, due to a lack of empirical studies. There is no evidence that watching pornography would be harmful to minors. Instead, there are many unfounded claims, suppositions, and speculations. Obstacles to performing such research are insurmountable, thus it could possibly never be known.

Similar poor writing can be seen elsewhere, and in my opinion it might be wise to revert to an earlier version. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I am not a native speaker, so I'm in not the best position to judge this. All I care for is that the scientific consensus is properly rendered.

Otherwise, it is true that until Victorian times, sexually themed objects and drawings were not shunned as "pornography", but considered a normal part of life (i.e. the concept of pornography is a Victorian invention). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain your opinion? The old text, had major problems, as you can see with the issues. The new text doesn't, can also post an full review of the old one. Which shows that of the 95 cliams 53 could not be verified and 42 claims could be verified, 7 claims were not about young people, and 4 claims were not about pornography. 55 claims needed MEDRS, and 20 sources were MEDRS adequate.

Btw. for your revert, what i said is written in the source:
With the advent of book printing and the associated possibility of distributing printed matter on a larger scale, the "authorities" saw the need to take action against pornographic writings. An illustrative example of this is a example is a patent issued by Charles VI in 1715, according to which the reason for the punishability of such such activities is that "such depictions are likely to incite innocent youth of both sexes sex to evil and seduced also almost every manly annoyed, and therefore God Almighty, when We as reigning sovereign and sovereign prince out of Christian zeal would not did not endeavor to put a stop to it, he could easily be justly angered, and impose severe punishments. "

Note that an computer translated, of the sentence from 300 years ago, may not properly translated.

Here is an link, to the claim in the underlying source:
https://books.google.at/books?id=iKDZ8ViL6dcC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q=mannigfaltige%20unschuldige&f=false The Other Karma (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of what the source you cited says. It does not support a claim that the effects of pornography had been of political importance since 1715. Not least because this is an article about a topic of international concern, but also because the source doesn't even assert that Charles IV took action as a result of new-found 'political importance' in his realm. The 1715 claim is absurdly specific, and indicative of the broader problems I describe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain your claims? Why doesn't say the source that it hadn't been a topic since 1715?

It does support that the effects of pornography had been of political importance since 1715.
Exactly here, what I just wrote: such depictions are likely to incite innocent youth of both sexes sex to evil and seduced also almost every manly annoyed, and therefore God Almighty,
The effect is that, according to Charles IV: pornographic writings incite and seduce the youth to evil, that almost every
male is annoyed, right up to God Almighty, and that this would incur God's wrath?

The same is written underneath: There was therefore the fear of incurring God's wrath and judgment if one were to
not take action against this form of fornication.

Why is the 1715 claim is absurdly specific?
And what problems you only claim, but don't substantiate?
Are you aware that reverting back to the old text means to create an WP:Hoax which is not allowed?
If you can explain to me why something doesn't fit, I can improve it! The Other Karma (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. You are making a general statement about political importance (whatever that means) originating in 1715, based on a specific source that merely says that Charles IV enacted legislation on the subject at that date. The source says nothing about 'political importance' anywhere else, and nor does it state that it began at that date anywhere. As for WP:HOAX, this is the first suggestion of hoax material being present in the article I have seem. Could you please explain what exactly you are referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Ahhh, now I understand, thank you a lot for telling me. A misunderstanding in the way how my claim can be understood, I didn't see that, I'm sorry.

While I understood it as, "it has be of political importantance, since 1715 at least somewhere."

You understood it as,"it had been of political importantance, since 1715 everywere."

I'll purpose less misunderstandable claim at a later time.

When you see other things that can be misunderstood, please tell me, that I can write them better!

For the Hoax information, I didn't say, that political importantance originated from there nor that political importantance began there, it's just the earlyest consideration I'm aware of.

For your pruposal, at least the first four claims in your proposal, to go back are made up. The first one is even not about young people or pornography. The Other Karma (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Your level of competence in the English language is too low to be able to write an article on this topic for English Wikipedia. This is a difficult and controversial subject, and not something that someone who writes sentences like "I'll purpose less misunderstandable claim at a later time" should be attempting. There are clear communication problems here in this thread, and it is totally unrealistic to expect people to have to post multiple replies to explain every single point, only for it to go off on further tangents that need more explanation. I honestly think you would be better off contributing to a Wikipedia project in your native language, as trying to continue in this manner is likely to end in frustration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I would like to make it clear that I do not consider the manner in which the issues raised above have subsequently been dealt with to be in any way adequate. The inclusion, for no obvious reason, of a huge section of material entitled 'History of the public debate in Austria' grossly unbalances the article, and said section displays the same poor writing right from the very first sentence; Protecting the youth from fornicating content in Austria goes back to the 17th century... What exactly that is supposed to mean would be anyone's guess. I note that similar concerns relating to poor language skills have been raised in by User:Mathglot in comments made today. [4][5]AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Plead no contradiction

@The Other Karma: The article as it is now does not contradict the information you deleted at [6]. What you fail to see is that both can peacefully coexist inside the same article. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, my thought in making the change was that the article is written more efficiently.
May I ask why you want the information back?
It is difficult for me to understand why the current version is not better, and isnt fine for you.

Is it a solution for you if I re-add the information without the fringe theories, and duplicate claims?
The fringe theories (which contradict my article and are not MEDRS compliant), are:
The UK children's commissioner initiated a meta-study conducted by researchers at Middlesex University which concluded that pornography is linked to unrealistic attitudes about sex, beliefs that women are sex objects, more frequent thoughts about sex, and found that children and young people who view pornography tend to hold less progressive gender role attitudes.
and
Although some literature exists on traditional forms of media (e.g., television, radio, magazines), the empirical research that examines the impact on children of exposure to non-violent sexual material is extremely limited. The Other Karma (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Other Karma: It has to be qualified: for the first claim, the lead researcher stated she found correlation, but could not show causation. For the second claim, it is a bit of an old study, but it is a book from the National Academy of Sciences. Anyway, as a compromise solution, I could drop the two claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess then we have an solution. :) The Other Karma (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Clarification Needed

@Arjayay thank you for reporting that, this sentence: "it's characterized as on itself reduced, from other life contexts solved" needs clarification, could you please elucidate your conclusion that I can provide an solution? The Other Karma (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry The Other Karma, I have no idea what you meant when you added it in [7] this edit. If I had a clue. I would have edited it. - Arjayay (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I assume that you mean that you don't understand what the sentence is supposed to say. It is written in the previous sentence. "Global legal definitions of pornography have evolved over time in different countries." This is the Austrian legal definition of pornography. I did my best in translating. The Other Karma (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand that it is supposed to be the Austrian definition, but its meaning has got lost in translation. I see German is your main language, I don't know whether you translated it yourself, or used some software? Perhaps it is worth trying some different software? - Arjayay (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahh now I understand the problem, I looked at the definition in German again, but it should be translated correctly. The German original can be found in the source on page 24: "auf sich selbst reduzierte und von anderen Lebenszusammenhängen gelöste, anreißerisch verzerrte Darstellungen von Unzuchtsakten", I assume that the concept of a representation reduced to itself, detached from other contexts of life, needs an explanation. This means that a person is represented as an object. I would therefore suggest as a solution that I link this part: "on itself reduced, from other life contexts solved", to sex object. Does this solution suit you? @Arjayay The Other Karma (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No, The Other Karma, you are proposing to keep a totally meaningless phrase. We need it rephrased into comprehensible English, so it can be understood by our readers. Moreover, I don't think that "sex object", which is what you are proposing to link it to, is what it means.
One of the posts above, states "Your level of competence in the English language is too low to be able to write an article on this topic for English Wikipedia." Having put the German through some translation software, it comes up with almost exactly the same meaningless phrase as you used, so I assume that is how you "translated" it?
As I have already stated " I have no idea what you meant when you added it .... If I had a clue. I would have edited it." - Arjayay (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say, "self-contained depictions of sexual acts, distorted in a graphic manner, and devoid of any external context of relationships in life". Mathglot (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot - at least I understand that. Tampering with translations of legal definitions can create problems, but "self-contained" and "external" seem extraneous. Is it still a fair/reasonable translation without these? - Arjayay (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the proposal is adequate for the definition, as it only captures some concepts of the definition.
The legal definition is made up of several parts:

• the first part: auf sich selbst reduzierte und von anderen Lebenszusammenhängen gelöste, refers to being self-contained devoid of any external context of relationships in life.
• the second part anreißerisch verzerrte to referring according to Oxford Languages to being Intrusive, cheap advertising; dubious.
• the last part Unzuchtsakten referring according to Duden to behavior that violates the moral and ethical norm to satisfy the sexual urge. An word which also has this meaning in English according to Oxford Languages would be obscene.

Build on Mathglot I would propose that translation: obscene depictions of sexual acts devoid of any context of life, who are depicted in an intrusive, cheap and dubious manner.
Is this translation an understandable translation for you @Arjayay?

Fyi. When I added the text, my aim was to give an overview of the definitions used for pornography. I have only used the social science and legal definitions, as I assume that only these are relevant and related to the topic. When i translate text i usually use Deepl, for translation suggestions, with myself for translation supervision, and dict.cc as dictionary. The Other Karma (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Arjayay. In brief, no. Translation, as I think you know from other language pairs you deal with, is an art, and de ⟶ en sometimes takes plenty of artfuless. I'm not anywhere close to a competent legal translator from German, but "self-contained" and "external" are not extraneous, and do correspond to stuff in the original, although of course not word for word, and you won't find those translations in a dictionary, as there are idiomatic expressions involved. There are numerous alternate possibilities for each part of the sentence, and when you multiply it all out, probably hundreds of different possible results, but imho this flowed the best and best rendered the intent. We could probably write pages and pages about this one sentence (let's not, though!) but for starters, there is "auf sich selbst reduzierte", lit. 'on itself itself reduced', which is nonsense, but if you want to take a baby steps towards the meaning, think, "to itself reduced" ⟶ "limited to itself" ⟶ "self-contained". I could go through the same procedure with external, but suffice it to say that it stems ultimately from andere (normally, 'other') but 'other' doesn't fit here, and in the end the whole thing needs to sound like English. This is a long-winded way of saying that you can't drop either word. So much goes into the translation of a single sentence, and sometimes it feels like a combination of art, science, and witchcraft, but don't ask me in what proportions. This is probably way more than you ever wanted to hear about two words from the translation of a single sentence, but all of that is really involved, and lots more that I haven't mentioned. If you translate, you know what I'm talking about. Mathglot (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The Other Karma, I'm sorry, but you should stop offering English translations, as you simply don't have the native English competence^[de] for it. Sorry if that sounds harsh, and I welcome your analyses of what the German is referring to, and the best help you can give in this discussion is to provide descriptions or synonymous renderings or paraphrases in the German language of what the original means. Your translations, I'm sorry to say, are not helpful here, and obscure the meaning, and hinder the path to an ultimate solution. That said, I do not agree with your analysis of anreißerisch verzerrte Darstellungen, but there's a limit to how far one should go in discussing word-by-word translation of a single sentence, and I feel we're getting close to it. Mathglot (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I looked at DeepL's translation for it, and it sucks donkey balls. Mathglot (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot. I have been WP:BOLD and replaced the incomprehensible machine translation with your version. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that I questioned The Other Karma's capabilities with regard to translation some time ago. I do not in any way consider the situation improved, and like Mathglot, I am of the opinion that this article needs to be edited by someone with greater competence in the English language. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Misuse of a source.

This article cites a single article, Adolescents and Pornography: A Review of 20 Years of Research [8] extensively, and uses it to make a large number of generalisations about the article subject matter. This is clearly improper, given that the article in question goes into considerable detail to note the biases consequent to the limited research available:

In addition to the more specific shortcomings in the current literature on adolescents and pornography, there are four general biases in large parts of the research ). First, research suffers from a cultural bias. More than two-thirds of the articles we reviewed came from Europe, North America, or Australia. Moreover, 63% of the articles originated in only a handful of countries (i.e., the Netherlands, the United States, Sweden, Hong Kong/China, and Belgium). Although five of the articles we reviewed dealt with African countries, we do not have the same knowledge about Africa as we have about Europe, Northern America, and some Asian countries, notably Hong Kong/China and Taiwan. We still know nothing about adolescents and pornography in Central and South America, several Asian countries, Russia, and the Middle East (except Israel).

I note also that a similar issue may arise with other sources used. The first two in particular seem to be used for similar generalisations, and given that they are similarly literature reviews, must surely suffer from the bias noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, AndyTheGrump. The article has been nominated by its creator for a good article review. This seems a waste of the reviewers time, as the article clearly has multiple problems which need addressing. I don't know whether it is proper to, or even how to, remove a GA review once nominated, but if this can be done, I believe it should be done. - Arjayay (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it was seeing this frankly absurd nomination which led me to revisit this article. It is substantially worse than it was when I commented on it two months ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, the article mentions all the limitations of the research reported in this review. The example mentioned is in the article: "Most studies come from affluent countries like the Netherlands and Sweden, making it challenging to generalize the findings to more sexually conservative nations." I have used this source a lot as it is very useful and up to date. The limitations mentioned in this review are also mentioned in other reviews. With the review, I was aiming at exactly what you are doing right now, showing me more perspectives on how the article can be improved. You seem to be bothered by something in the article, I'm curious to know what it is.

Please explain your claims in discussions: Foster constructive and effective dialogue by elucidating your perspectives in a comprehensible way during discussions, and provide examples how something can be improved. The Other Karma (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Does this need splitting and merging?

Came here as, like AndyTheGrump and Arjayay, I thought this was an... interesting nomination. This article has not far from two thousand words of prose on the history of pornography legislation in Austria, which seems insane. Should the section be cut and become Pornography in Austria?  Frzzl  talk; contribs  18:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Should it be cut? Yes. Should it become Pornography in Austria? No. Not until it has been verified and substantively rewritten by someone more competent in the English language. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've had that thought too, I'm not sure yet what the best solution is as these topics overlap. As I mentioned earlier, this was intended as a start for a global view, but it is way beyond my ability to summarize the legal history of about 200 countries over the last 300 years. Extrapolated, based on the source used for Austria, it would be about 30,000 sources for all the 200 countries. The Other Karma (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You’re going into far too much detail. Especially for a more general article like this, you need to be using Wikipedia:Summary style. The section on Austria is a very detailed account of the history in one country, but it’s better off as it’s own article. This article, in a Laws section, should broadly look at the subject over time: if the law in Austria was the first to ban pornography for the youth, mention it. More generally, mention that the vast majority of countries ban it for people under their age of consent, and how this has changed. Link to Pornography laws by region as the main article.

For help, take a look at something like Language - it doesn’t list every language ever. Similarily, this article shouldn’t give indepth history of all legislation about pornography and young people.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  08:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this helpful feedback, I hadn't thought of it like that before! I'll give it some thought and see what I can do. Is it okay for you if I contact you if I have any questions about your feedback, e.g. for your opinion on suggestions from me on how to solve this problem? The Other Karma (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem what so ever, feel free to stick stuff on my talk page :D  Frzzl  talk; contribs  21:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

What about the effects on participants?

The article seems to be mostly about the effects (or non-effects) of pornography on its younger viewers. What about the effects on young people of participating in pornography? Surely they are far greater? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

By "young people" in this context, do you mean underage minors who cannot legally consent, or young adults who can? Cullen328 (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Whoever falls into the scope of the article. I would presume that the definition used in the article straddles the age of consent in most jurisdictions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Iiuc, I think the core issue in this question is consumers of pornography vs. participants in pornography (actors). Just for a bit of background: the title of the original German article, de:Pornografiekonsum von Jugendlichen makes it clear that that article is strictly about consumers, but for better or worse, the title of the English article was rendered as the broader "Effects of pornography on young people". That explains why, in its current state, the content only covers consumers, as it is largely a translation of the German one. At this point, we need to decide whether to expand the article to match the title (Phil's question) or WP:MOVE the article to match the content. Mathglot (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

How to improve it

The Other Karma, you asked above how to improve it. Here are some thoughts about that.

I would start by eliminating section § Predictors from the article, or rename the article. The title of this article is "Effects of pornography on young people", and the meaning of the word effect is a result or outcome of a cause, that is, something that comes after. A predictor is something that comes before, and thus imho doesn't fit the topic of this article and therefore should not be included here. Alternatively, if you propose a change of title (a WP:MOVE, in wiki jargon) to "Young people and pornography" (or vice-versa), then "Predictors" would fit the topic and could remain. Mathglot (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Next, I would eliminate section § History of the public debate in Austria because there doesn't appear to be anything there that has to do with the article title. Which is not to say it couldn't be used in the appropriate article, just not in this one, as long as it carries the current title. Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. The section is not entirely eliminated, but cut back to a core paragraph in newly renamed section "By country", subsection "Austria". This is a reasonable amount to have in an article about a worldwide topic that may eventually contain brief reviews of the situation in other countries. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

That will leave the current section 6, § Effects of pornography, which, per MOS:NOBACKREF shouldn't be there at all, since the topic of the whole article is that, so the HW section heading "Effects of pornography" could be dropped, and all that H3 headers currently under it, could be promoted to H2. Mathglot (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I am planning to cull these sections in a few days, unless there are objections or comments to the contrary. Mathglot (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for announcing the change earlier. I would also like to apologize to you again for upsetting you in the ANI discussion, that was not my intention. I would also like to thank you for your feedback and the time you invested. bows down to show gratitude😔

I would like to take a critical look at your last suggestion. Which is because only renaming the article is the only appropriate solution according to the rules. Since the current title is made up by the first author (Csan6227). My thought in inserting the other parts of the article was to underline that the article should be renamed. I would like to note that deleting the content would upset me, as it would be disrespectful of my effort. (see my user page)

I also wanted to tell you that I was already preparing the name change, but just haven't published it yet. Basically, I was also planning to wait a little longer with the suggestion so that the article would be calm. If it made you happy, i would already propose the name change next weekend, would that be fine to you?

The name change would take care of the first and last feedback from you, and the feedback from Phil Bridger, which i think would make you both happier. Regarding the second aspect you noted. I don't quite understand, the whole section is just about how they have been trying to protect young people from the effects of pornography (e.g. Protection from God's wrath, Protection from Obscenity) for the last 300 years. A topic that also appears in current newspapers, e.g. age verification on pornographic websites to protect young people from the effects of pornography.
Could you please explain your conclusion to me? The Other Karma (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Point by point:

• You're welcome.
• To clarify an assumption you made: I was not upset at the ANI discussion and I have no idea what could have induced you to think so. Nothing you said was in the least bit upsetting, and thus there is no need to apologize. (That said, reaching out to someone when you think you have upset them is a characteristic of a WP:CIVIL and collaborative attitude, and that is to be commended.)
• I strongly suggest you discuss any name change you are planning in a new section here on the Talk page before formally creating a page move request. The last thing you need now, is more drama. I don't have time now to look at specific name alternatives; perhaps later. However, you don't need to time a name change proposal (what we call a WP:MOVE) based on any consideration about me, but thanks for asking.
• Whether deleting the content would upset you or not plays no role at all in whether the content gets kept or deleted. Rather, the WP:CONSENSUS of interested editors applying Wikipedia policies and guidelines will determine that. Sometimes feelings may get ruffled in the bargain, but experienced editors take such consensus results that are not to their liking with equanimity and move on to the next thing.
• Regarding the whole section: the main policy reasons it should be deleted or vastly cut back are WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:DUEWEIGHT. The problem is not that the material is untrue, or unverifiable, but that it is WP:UNDUE and unencyclopedic. Try this Gedankenexperiment: imagine an airplane hangar filled with tables laden with every book, every journal article, every newspaper article, every web page, every document ever written about the effects of pornography on young people. Over in these aisles on the left, are sections of tables for all 208 countries in the world, and the effects in those countries; some, like the US, Germany, UK, would have multiple tables full, with tables for subregions and individual cities and towns. Over there in the middle, are aisles are organized by theme, with social effects, effects on relationships, drug use, crime, education, career success, family life, divorce rates, and so on. On the right, more stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere. Of this total, what percentage would you say would be about the effects in Austria? And of that, how much would be about specific bills in the legislature? And of those, how big a pile would be about the debate in the Austrian legislature about those bills? So now, take the size of that last pile as a ratio of the total size of documents in the hangar: how much is it? About 0.000001, would you say? If so, then if the article is well-written and attempts to cover the whole topic in a neutral and proportionate way, then a discussion of the debates in the Austrian parliament should take up about one millionth of the article. If it takes up more than that, it would violate policy. You can read about WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but for starters, think of all the debates printed in the U.S. Congressional Record or the French Journal officiel: all verifiable, all citable, and very little of which belongs at Wikipedia.

I hope this helps answer your questions. All of the above being said, if you really want to improve the article, you might think about that airplane hangar full of stuff, and how this article contains almost nothing corresponding to entire aisles full of tables of documents. How about a new top-level section to be named, "==By country==" with subsections for the U.S., U.K., Germany, Australia, and so on? That would improve the article a lot, and all the stuff on debates in the Austrian parliament would shrink to a microdot, if it remained at all. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I should probably note here that the 'predictors' section of the article suffers greatly from an issue I commented on earlier: namely the article making generalisations about pornography use etc, based on extensive citations to sources which make it entirely clear that the limited data available (from studies which have only ever been performed in a few countries) cannot support such generalisations. See my post above [9] for a specific example. Regardless of article titles, or of article scope, we can't include content which misrepresents sources in such a manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I addressed the § Predictors section at the very top of this discussion; I would simply remove it as off-topic, unless there is a page move that would broaden the topic to include it. I think the topic is very clearly notable, so I wouldn't delete it, but I'm not opposed in principle to reducing the article to a stub, if that is what conditions and policy support. From there, it could be built back up in an appropriate way. I guess I'm talking about WP:TNT, and I think that might be worth considering, as possibly easier than just pruning and pruning and pruning, only to end up with a two-paragraph article. Maybe just big bang, and restart from scratch. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. for the record: The Other Karma's partial block was just converted to an indef, so he can no longer respond here. Despite other factors, that is unfortunate in one way, as it would have been good to hear and consider whatever points he may have expressed, regardless whether I or others agree with them or not. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Review needed after cut and reorg

@Phil Bridger, Tgeorgescu, AndyTheGrump, and Arjayay: Please have a look at the latest version; I'm looking for review or feedback from concerned editors at this article. A week has passed, and I've made the edits I proposed above starting with two large cuts. This was followed by a reorganization of the section structure and section names, as well as moving content around. Other than the two initial cuts and chopping the first paragraph of the lead, I removed little else.

Other edits involved moving stuff around with a goal of rationalizing the overall section structure and leave a comprehensible structure that would be a good jumping-off point for further improvement. There is no doubt lots of bloat that still needs attention, the lead needs a rewrite, and there is still plenty of poor syntax and translated-sounding text; none of my edits dealt with this comment of Andy's, so the whole article still needs copyediting. Hope you like it, and have at it! Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations Mathglot, you have changed a total mess into a logical article. I wonder if there is still an over-emphasis on Austria, but I suspect that, in time, it will be balanced by additions about other countries. As for the lead, I think the opening sentence is too long a list, but don't know which I would cut, while the last sentence includes "often grapples with weak or disrupted family relationships" but I don't see that mentioned/referenced in the bodytext (I'm sure you will point me straight to it). Well done again - Arjayay (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead is rubbish, and I toyed with removing it entirely, and adding {{Lead missing}} instead, which might be an improvement. But to most experienced editors, a leadless article is a rather shocking look, and feels like a big hole or something, so I didn't. My attitude is just glaze over it and pretend it's {{Lorem ipsum}}, until someone rewrites it.

Also, although the ToC looks a lot prettier, if you do a deep dive you'll see that most of the bloat and other nonsense (except for two big cuts) is still there; it's just better organized bloat and nonsense. So there's still plenty to do. P.S., thanks for the kind word. Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Impact on Adolescent Girls

Adolescent girls do not consume pornography to the degree Adolescent boys might. However they suffer dissatisfaction with their bodies and suicide rates among Adolescent girls have increased. Has there been any studies to correlate this with pornography being so accessible to Adolescents? Drocj (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Drocj: See WP:OR: Wikipedians are not called to produce original research. Such information, if true, would have to be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources.

The mantra one learns in the medical school: correlation does not imply causation. As Franklin Veaux stated on Quora, For example, death by drowning strongly correlates with sales of ice cream sandwiches. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, Drocj asked about studies, so is presumably not interested in original research, and secondly, that mantra isn't learnt only in medical school: it should be drummed into everyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, wise guys? And I suppose now you're gonna tell me that Jupiter's distance from the sun has nothing to do with the number of secretaries in Alaska? Hah! Read it, and weep, doubters. Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

My question was regarding accessibility of porn to adolescents, not porn itself. I don't know if accessibility of porn is in a totally different category but let's not kid ourselves: porn is more easy for children and adolescents to come across now versus anytime in human history. It's probably a lot more normalized now. Yet because it's not an issue that causes no immediate harm nor is a matter of life or death, I think adults have ignored it. I don't think that is acceptable morally nor something that can legally be studied anyways. In the 2000's middle schoolers were watching porn, I was one of them. I doubt that has ceased, in fact I think kids being so inundated with porn is why young adults oppose sex scenes in movies to a large degree, they want boundaries. Drocj (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Harmful to Minors
2. Not in Front of the Children
3. results of empirical research are tentative and did not establish any causal claims that pornography is harmful to youth
4. its demographics are not a secret, see e.g. Oldenhof et. al., cited in our article
5. "porn is forbidden to minors" is an ethical prescription, not a scientific fact pertaining to psychiatry. The psychiatrists will say it is the task of the lawgiver to decide such matters, since science has nothing to say about it. Psychiatry cannot say whether it is harmful or non-harmful, so psychiatry is neutral about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

As for the association between the frequency of watching pornography during the last year, a U-shaped pattern was observed in one of the surveys concerning boys, with an increased risk for poor mental health for both low frequent watchers (never or once/twice a year) and high frequent watchers (weekly or daily) compared to more moderate watchers (some time each month). This U-shaped relationship was also found with regard to the intensity of internet use and adolescent health (depressive scores) in a Swiss study with 7211 adolescents aged 16–20 years [50]. This suggests that high-consumers and low-consumers of the internet and online pornography both differ from mainstream consumers in terms of health.

Overall, these findings suggest that watching pornography when growing up (lifetime) or in late adolescence (last year) may have a limited impact on poor mental health. These results are similar to findings by Kohut & Štulhofer and Štulhofer, Tafo and Kohut [26, 27], who found that watching pornography in middle to late adolescence did not contribute to adverse psychological well-being measured by self-esteem and anxiety/depression.

— [10]

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, when porn researchers noticed that in the past access to pornography was highly correlated with being deviant youth, that was true then. Since porn access has become easy for every Western teenager, that is no longer the case now. Porn access is no longer correlated with being deviant youth. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability issues, and the way forward

I've recently made a couple of edits to the article to remove or fix misreading of the sources, or assertions made that simply don't hold up. As it happens, both involve misreadings of Peter & Valkenburg (2016); this was first introduced in this edit by (now indeffed) editor The Other Karma, ironically containing the edit summary "Third Cleanup: removed not verifiable content/Not MEDRES Compliant, Removed Content not related to adolescents..." whereas what really appears to have happened, was removal of sourced content and introduction of non-verifiable content. (I'm also concerned about source Peterson, Silver, Bell, & Guinosso (2023) as well, which has 23 citations to it.) I have not assessed content cited to either one in detail for verifiability.) I only found this fortuitously, when looking for who introduced the unverifiable info I deleted in this edit, and it turned out to be the indeffed editor who has had a litany of problems at this article, and in general. Given the large amount of changes to the article by this editor, it makes me very nervous about the current state of the rest of it.

Given the poor state of the article structurally and topic-wise as detailed previously here, here, and here, I question whether the best road to improvement is going through the whole article bit by bit and checking verifiability of everything, or whether it would be easier to blow it all up and start over, retaining the lead sentence (or not; actually it needs to be rewritten, too) and all the references in a Further-reading section, and then build it back up from scratch. I'm kind of leaning to the latter approach, but would like feedback first. If you see stuff worth saving, please point them out; if you have a better approach, please share. Adding @AndyTheGrump, Tgeorgescu, Phil Bridger, and Arjayay:.

In my opinion, a decent, well verified stub of a couple of paragraphs that introduces the main points and hints at a structure going forward, would be an improvement over the current situation. Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot: The statement about the positive statements from Peter and Valkenburg was mine. Perhaps it was a not too subtle rendering of their views, anyway, that's what I understood for their paper: they claim some effects, but at the same time conclude that those effects are not proven. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We might be talking about different things; the text I was referring to was added here, and that one was by TOK. In any case, that's a minor nit imho compared to the overall picture. How do you think we should proceed wrt the whole article? Should we blow it up, or try to proceed from here, and if the latter, how? Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. I will let others chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)