Talk:Richard Desmond

Proposal to change section heading from "Pornography" to "Adult Content"

I'd like to revisit the change made last month to rename the section heading from 'pornography' to 'adult content'. I understand the concern that 'adult content' can seem euphemistic, but I believe it is a more accurate label in this context.

Richard Desmond's business interests in this area included a variety of adult-oriented publications and media, not all of which would strictly be classified as pornography by either industry standards or legal definitions. For example, some of the content (e.g. magazines) might be more appropriately categorised under a broader term like adult content.

I'm not proposing removing the word 'pornography' from the article entirely, just adjusting the heading to reflect the broader and more accurate scope of his adult media businesses. Happy to hear others' views. MacFleet76 (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Given the history I am extremely sceptical of new users who want to remove the pornography term. 'Adult' is just a euphemism for 'porn' and unless there are reliable sources telling us that there is a difference, we should just leave it how it is. SmartSE (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again, SmartSE. I genuinely appreciate the scrutiny, especially on a BLP and a sensitive topic like this. I’m still relatively new to editing in more contested topic areas, so I want to be considerate in how I raise concerns and propose changes.

I understand the hesitation about replacing or downgrading "pornography" as a descriptor given the history on the page, and I’m not suggesting we remove that language where it’s clearly supported by sources. But I do want to flag two separate concerns I think are worth considering, based on policy and sourcing:

Source-based terminology

I’ve come across multiple reputable media sources - including The Guardian, The BBC, and City A.M coverage - that describe Desmond’s relevant business holdings as "adult magazine titles", "adult entertainment network", “adult media” or “adult television channels.” These sources don’t avoid the term "pornography" where it applies, but they do frequently use broader terms as well, suggesting that using "adult" reflects the language used in mainstream reporting.

Structure and undue weight

As it stands, the current structure (a standalone section titled “Pornography”) raises concerns related to WP:CRITICISM. Although the current section contains factual content, its framing (by topic and title) essentially functions as a controversy section, setting it apart from the more neutrally titled sections covering Desmond’s other business ventures. This risks giving undue weight to one area of his career and frames the subject in a negative light. As a potential solution we could consider removing the standalone section altogether and instead blending the adult media content into the main body of the article which is what the policy states.

I’m not trying to push an agenda just aiming to make sure the article reflects policy on balance and neutrality, and aligns with how reliable sources themselves describe this part of his business.

Happy to keep discussing. MacFleet76 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no dispute that some sources using "adult" instead of "porn", but cherry picking some examples isn't enough - WP:NPOV means representing the sources in proportion to the coverage. As the sources linked previously and in the current article show, many highly reliable sources call him a pornographer and not a producer of adult content. Last December The Telegraph were calling him a "former porn baron" and writing "someone whose fortune has been made at least partly on the back of what is euphemistically called the adult entertainment industry". As WP:EUPHEMISM explains, we call a spade a spade.

Citing WP:CRITICISM is ridiculous - there's nothing critical about the current content, it is just documenting that part of his life. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again for the response, SmartSE

I understand the concern about euphemistic language and agree that we shouldn't dilute clear descriptions when the sourcing supports them. But I want to clarify that my point wasn’t to "cherry-pick" softer terms or deny that some sources call Desmond a pornographer. Due to the contentious nature of the edit, I spent some time reviewing a broad range of reliable sources about his former business interests before I initially made the edit. I found the following:

• The majority of coverage refers to RD’s former businesses as either ‘adult’ or  ‘adult’ and ‘pornography’.
• Only one article post-2010 refers exclusively to Desmond’s former business interests using the term “porn”
• In at least three cases, the term “porn” appears only in the headline, while the article body uses “adult” language – which may reflect editorial choices meant for attention-grabbing rather than precise classification.

This suggests that in mainstream reporting, “adult” is a commonly accepted and broader descriptor, not just a euphemism. It's frequently used to describe the broader range of Desmond’s media ventures, including adult magazines and television channels, which aren't always strictly labelled pornography by reliable sources.

Given this, I’d still propose that we change the section heading from “Pornography” to “Adult content”, as this more accurately reflects both the scope of his business interests and the language used in reliable sourcing. The term pornography would still be used in the article text where supported, but the heading would be broader and more in line with how mainstream sources describe the subject matter.

I appreciate that there’s a long history to this discussion, and I respect the caution involved — especially in a BLP. That said, given the balanced but varied sourcing, I’d welcome thoughts from other editors on whether this would be a more neutral and source-accurate framing, in line with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. MacFleet76 (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

rfc

Should the section heading “Pornography” in this article be changed to “Adult content,” reflecting the terminology used in the majority of reliable sources (which often alternate between “pornography” and “adult”), while retaining “pornography” in the article text where supported? MacFleet76 (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

How come you have not linked to these sources so that others can evaluate your analysis? Meanwhile, "adult" is most definitely a euphemism and this point may well override any analysis of sources. SmartSE (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Smartse, please see my source analysis linked below:

Sources

Richard Desmond in legal battle with Wikipedia over term ‘pornographer’- The Guardian, November 2021 - referred to as Adult

Richard Desmond: the former porn baron caught in a Tory scandal - The Guardian, Jun 2020 -  referred to as Porn

Porn-no more for Richard Desmond as he sells adult entertainment network Portland TV for less than £1m - City AM, April 2016 - only uses porn in headline. Adult in content

Express Newspapers owner Richard Desmond gives up porn - Press Gazette, April 2016 - only uses porn in headline. Adult in content

Richard Desmond: ‘I hate to admit this, but I’ve never actually hit anyone’ - The Guardian, Jun 2015 - Alternates between Adult and Porn

‘I invented Brand Beckham’: Richard Desmond takes on BBC, Sky and Channel 4 - The Independent, Sept 2013 -  Alternates between Adult and Porn

Richard Desmond: Never afraid to Express himself - The Guardian, Aug 2010 -  referred to as Porn

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five for £103.5m  - The Guardian, Jul 2010 - referred to as Porn

Richard Desmond-owned TV firms fined by Ofcom - The Guardian, May 2009 - referred to as Adult

UK publisher Desmond mulls adult entertainment float - Reuters, Feb 2007 -  Alternates between Adult and Porn

Desmond on print, proprietors and pornography – and why it’s all OK! - The Guardian, Jan 2006 - only uses porn in headline. Adult in content

Desmond moved by money, not morals - The Guardian, March 2004 -  referred to as Porn

Desmond’s good enough for me, says Blair - The Guardian, May 2002 -  referred to as Porn

Blair insists on Desmond’s respectability - The Guardian, May 2002 -  referred to as Porn

More crumpet, Prime Minister? Why Tony Blair is having tea with a pornographer The Independent, Jun 2002 -  Alternates between Adult and Porn MacFleet76 (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for Comment for Changing Section Heading

I propose renaming the section header from “Pornography” to “Adult media”. This terminology is more neutral and accurately reflects the scope of the section, which covers adult publications and adult television channels—not just pornography.

For context, in reviewing a broad range of reliable sources, including The Guardian, The Independent, Reuters, and City A.M., I found that the majority of coverage refers to Desmond’s former businesses as either “adult” or a combination of “adult” and “pornography.” Only one article published post-2010 uses “porn” exclusively. In at least three cases, “porn” appears only in the headline, while the body of the article consistently uses “adult” terminology, which I interpret as editorial choices for attention rather than strict categorisation.

Based on this research, I believe that “adult” is a commonly accepted and broader descriptor in mainstream reporting, not merely a euphemism.

The current term “Pornography” carries negative connotations and may inadvertently frame the subject in a pejorative way, which risks violating WP:NPOV (neutral point of view). Using “Adult media” avoids these implications and provides a broader, more balanced descriptor that reflects the actual content.

Additionally, framing the section under “Pornography” could be seen as giving undue weight to a single aspect of adult entertainment, raising WP:DUE concerns. It also risks falling afoul of WP:CSECTION, since labeling a section with a term that implies criticism rather than neutrally describing its contents may constitute a non-neutral section title.

“Adult media” is therefore preferable to both “Pornography” and “Adult content,” as it is descriptive, inclusive of the different types of adult-oriented material covered in the section, and consistent with Wikipedia’s policy requirements for neutrality and due representation.

Should the section heading “Pornography” in this article be changed to “Adult content,” reflecting the terminology used in the majority of reliable sources (which often alternate between “pornography” and “adult”), while retaining “pornography” in the article text where supported?

Please indicate clearly whether you support or oppose the change. MacFleet76 (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep "pornography" (Summoned by bot) per smartse. we dont need a WP:EUPHEMISM. Call it what it is and move on. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose The analysis of sources provided so far does not provide justification to replace a clear and straightforward term with a euphemism. As I have already explained above, MacFleet76's interpretation of what NPOV means is incorrect. The suggestion that this section falls afoul of WP:CRIT is patently absurd. SmartSE (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment To anyone arriving here, you should be aware that the subject has long-protested against being associated with the term "pornography" - see the coverage at the end of the section and the archives - and has a long history of trying to influence this article. Despite MacFleet76 stating that they are not being paid to edit here, that seems hard to believe, since this is the only topic that they have paid any in-depth attention to in their time editing. SmartSE (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This has been discussed repeatedly ad nauseum. The activity of MacFleet76 bears too many of the indicators of paid editing, and their denial is not plausible. Edwardx (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
• Summoned by a bot. 'Adult media' is incredibly vague and euphemistic. Geophysical Research Letters would qualify for that category (in all my time in schools, I've never seen a child reading it). Pornography is neutral, accurate and natural language. Oppose this proposed change. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who took the time to weigh in here. Consensus is to retain the current structure which I respect. I will be closing the rfc. Just to note, I've been editing in good faith and don't have any outside involvement here. I raised the proposal only because I thought it might improve the article in light of sourcing, but accept that consensus is against the change. MacFleet76 (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• 'Comment (here from RfC/ALL) No comment on the substance of the actual content/change being discussed, but the way the RfC was worded seems to have failed RFCBRIEF. If the RfC was to proceed, my suggestion would be to narrow it down to a simple sentence or two ('Should we change X to Y?') and add the commentary into your vote, since it seems to have also missed the mark on RFCNEUTRAL.

Awshort (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• • Weak Oppose I am usually inclined to show restraint and especially in LABELs and for BLP to somewhat respect the wishes of the person. But Globe and Mail and others do use the word pornography and the WP precedent in articles on various British porn stars is freely using the word and not treating it like a BLPCRIME so I'm instead leaning towards the principle of keeping status quo and say this fails WP:ONUS so stick to the way it is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Per SmartSE. Lectonar (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support change to "Adult media" as it is more neutral and complies with WP:DUE. Pornography generally refers to more hardcore porn than softcore.Darkm777 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  In agreement Xkeylimepie (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose -- this request is not well motivated and seems to reflect the personal preference of the editor who proposed it. The sources we have on this topic provide more support for use of the existing term. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Pornography is a charged term, If we are going for NPOV, Adult Movie more likely fits. Xkeylimepie (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Status quo is fine. Also I agree that this RFC question fails on both WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:RFCNEUTRAL. I'd support a procedural close based on the poorly worded RFC question. Nemov (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - per SmartSE. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)