This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
