Talk:Child pornography/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Edit request from Proorganic, 18 September 2011

This article needs a disclaimer at its start, as some readers may find the content extremely distressing. Please add the following text at the top of the article:

"Warning: Some readers may find some of the following text upsetting or disturbing, so please proceed at your own risk."

Or similar text stating that some readers may find the text that follows disturbing, thus allowing people to chose whether to continue to read or not, since without making that choice they may inadvertently read something damaging to themselves.

A number of sources use similar warnings for potentially distressing text. TV for example commonly uses such warnings for distressing images, and increasingly similar warnings are used for potentially distressing text.

I personally read this article in full around 2 months ago, and did not realise before how distressing and upsetting it would be. I would like to have been given the chance to appraise the risk of harm from distress caused by the article before beginning reading it.

As it was it was only after I had read to a certain point that distress was inflicted and I realised how distressing the article was to me, and could be to others.

It is not right that such distressing information is freely available without a warning to people at the start. Text can be just as distressing as distressing images. In this case, the text is certainly as distressing to many people as some images could be.

The proliferation of the Internet and wikipedia means that people increasingly turn to Wikipedia in search of trustworthy, true information. As such, we have a responsibility to deliver information through the site in a sane and humane way. In this case, sanity and humanity entail providing a warning to readers that the information in this article is in the extremities of possibilities in terms of distressing readers, due to the nature of the internet many readers will not have been able to find such distressing text before, and surely will not be expecting how distressing it is.

If we do this now, and the same in similar situations on wikipedia, we can avoid the need for there to be a campaign of information to warn people about the risks of reading articles on wikipedia that may be distressing to them. In other words, we can be sensible and responsible in the publicisation of the information held in this (and similar) articles. Proorganic (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find some of the content of this article distressing, I really am. Unfortunately, this issue has been argued many times before and the overriding consensus has been against the use of disclaimers. I would present the argument here myself, but you might as well read about it all at Wikipedia:No_disclaimers which is a community guideline. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 13:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

False Information Under "Internet Proliferation"

Reading through this article I found the line "The NCMEC estimated in 2003 that 20% of all pornography traded over the Internet was child pornography..." This is such a ridiculous accusation (come on, people, there is a LOT of porn on the internet), I decided to follow up on the sources.

The NCMEC site the source of this line leads to says "Child pornography is illegal. The possession and/or distribution of child pornography is a federal crime. It is estimated that 20% of all pornography on the Internet involves children." Source 4, at the bottom of the page, reads:

Source: “Internet Sex Crimes Against Minors: The Response of Law Enforcement, November 2003. (Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, November 2003) page 3.

Which is a University of New Hampshire report, a copy of which can be found here: www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV70.pdf

The only time the number 20 appears on page 3 is "20% of all arrests... offender used the Internet to initiate a relationship to the victim."

Absolutely nothing on that page, or that I found in the entire report, claims what percentage of internet porn is child porn.

This may be the result of an internet-citation form of the game Telephone, and an authorized Wikipedia editor should trace this claim, verify it and fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.162.75 (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this the same thing that was discussed at /Archive 5#NCMEC Not a Reliable Source? If so then my statement there stands - if it's widely cited, then we need to include it with a mention that it's credibility is not up to much (ideally we should find a reliable source that discredits it to avoid original research problems. However if it's not widely cited then we should just get rid of it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The following link is dead and can be easily replaced,

38.^ Ryan C. W. Hall; Richard C. W. Hall (2007-04). "A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues" (PDF). Mayo Clin Proc 82 (4): 457–471. doi:10.4065/82.4.457. PMID 17418075. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf. Retrieved 2008-05-09. [dead link]

http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf new link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.194.167 (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

BIAS

Is't this article quite biased against child pornography? There are almost no arguments for legal child pornography, or for the ability of children to consent to such. I believe this article is extremely biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.104.112 (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it's written by Americans, who are obsessed with child pornography. In their eyes it's not biased, because child pornography is the biggest sin on earth...it's pointless to try to discuss it with them, it would lead to no effect. --Gadolit (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not just Americans who are against child pornography. And how is it biased, when, as noted in the #NPOV section below, "it's illegal in most, if not all, countries, and it would be hard to find pro-child-porn reliable sources"? The only "child pornography" I know people not to get upset by are the artistic paintings seen in museums. Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Are there studies about the demographics of who the consumers of child pornography are? ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

There is none

As noted above, it's heavily biased against child porn, but that's to be expected given that it's illegal in most, if not all, countries, and it would be hard to find pro-child-porn reliable sources. However, there are subtler issues which could be fixed. The glaring issue which jumps out at me, is the numerous instances in which CP is synonomized with child abuse. I plan on fixing this ASAP; if anyone else sees similar WP:NPOV issues which can be cleared up easily without running into sourcing issues, please fix it. 175.38.207.30 (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh, it's protected. Time for me to get an account I guess. 175.38.207.30 (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Child pornography is equated with child sexual abuse so often in the article because of the reliable sources characterizing it that way. Not to mention, the child pornography that shows children being sexually abused. I haven't come across any non-WP:FRINGE reliable sources stating that child pornography is not some form of abuse. Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Child pornography is clearly often associated with child abuse, but to say that all child pornography is would be very inaccurate. Consider for example nude self-shots, sexting and virtual child pornography. I've therefore deleted a part of the first paragraph, although it's heavily sourced. The sources are mostly quotations from technical books taken out of context, which is unaccceptable.
For example this quotation: "The children portrayed in child pornography are first victimized when their abuse is perpetrated and recorded. They are further victimized each time that record is accessed." The author clearly doesn't talk about all child pornography, but about a specific group of child pornography where abuse occurs. And the rest of the sources are in the same vein. --Clidog (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The lead did not state that all child pornography is child sexual abuse, which means that nothing was taken "out of context." So removing this well-sourced sentence accomplishes what, besides removing reliable and very relevant information? If anything, you should have reworded it if you felt the text was misrepresenting the sources. The information should clearly be restored since it is a frequent aspect of child pornography. Flyer22 (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The lead treats of child pornography in general, and not just some types of it. The quotations were picked in such a way to appear that all child pornography involves abuse of children. --Clidog (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that the lead's "quotations were picked in such a way to appear that all child pornography involves abuse of children." I'm certain that the editor was not thinking that, since, in any case, and as you've read on this talk page, there are no reliable sources stating that "not all child pornography is sexual abuse." And, like I stated, it did/does not state "all." We use the word "people" often in Wikipedia articles, for example, instead of "some people" because "some" is a WP:Weasel word and it goes without saying that we don't mean "all people." But "some" can still be used, especially when clearly attributed (backed by reliable sources), as it is in this case. You could have easily used the word "some." But you instead chose to remove a very well-sourced and relevant piece of information that summarizes an aspect of this article, per WP:LEAD. Flyer22 (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I, too, fail to see how the sentence that was removed indicated that all child pornography is abuse. The sentence "Abuse of the child occurs during the sexual acts which are recorded in the production of child pornography" seems pretty clear what they are and are not talking about. You could have at least proposed a rephrase.Legitimus (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Clidog, are you User:175.38.207.30? I am assuming that you are. In which case complaining that this article is "heavily biased against child porn" is kind of like complaining that the article about the Holocaust "makes it sound like a bad thing" or whatever. It's not a likely ticket to winning friends and influencing people. Flyer22 and Legitmus are entirely correct in pointing out that the abuse occurs during the actions portrayed. However, you're correct in pointing out that drawings (if not taken from life) and so forth are a separate, albeit complicated, issue. We could consider addressing this somewhere else, or we could consider changing the text to something like "Abuse of the child occurs during the sexual acts which are recorded, if the medium involves portrayals by live persons..." or something. (That might be getting into too much detail for placing there, though; this is something that can be discussed. Too, there is the question of social abuse, though. For instance if I go on national TV and proclaim "YA all bitches should be raped cos they love it", am I "abusing women"? After all, I'm not abusing any particular woman, so one could say "no", I suppose. In the same way a statement along the lines of "drawings incontrovertibly do not constitute any form of abuse" as not proven and subject to further research and discussion. We need to go slowly and carefully here Clidog.

Given your earlier "heavily biased against child porn" statement though I'm not inclined to look with much favor on your removal of sourced material, have reverted your changes per WP:BRD, and am placing the onus on you to make your case here first. Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I am NOT the user 175.38.207.30. Secondly, I don't deny that the abuse occurs during the production of some kinds of child pornography. But the lead refers to child pornography in general. And that's the problem. Anyone who reads the first paragraph gets a false impression that all child pornography involves sexual acts and consequently abuse. And drawings are not a separate issue, they're simply a kind of child pornography (Simulated child pornography), which is exactly what the lead deals with.
The solution might be to move the sentence to "Child sexual abuse in production and distribution". --Clidog (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what else to state on the matter, Clidog. As I mentioned, it does not state "all" and we can simply reword the line to take care of your concern. Why don't you propose an alternate wording and see if we can all agree to it? I also mentioned that, per WP:LEAD, this information should be in the lead. It's a frequent aspect of child pornography and is a summary of what is already stated in the Child sexual abuse in production and distribution and Collection by pedophiles sections. Moving it lower would be redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The sentence "Abuse of the child occurs during the sexual acts which are recorded in the production of child porn" quite clearly contextualizes this as the production of CP involving live children - not drawings, not sexting, not virtual pornography. The latter three issues are complicated and should be discussed, should reliable sources exist, in both body and lead. Further details in the lead seems clunky and unnecessary. I support the current version of the lead and do not think that sentence should be removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Reading the opening paragraph, what a mess. It doesn't even make sense to include the bit about abuse, which comes right after the mention of written child pornography, when it apparently assumes all child pornography to be recorded, and implicitly assumes that all child pornography involves an adult and a child. I'm going to rewrite that section at some point unless someone else wants to clear that up Wikiditm (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So, we need 6 quotes to establish that CP involves children?

And 7 to note that sexual acts happen during production (which btw is false if you include literature)? Just wtf! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.132.1 (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the intro: Child porn as defined some country's laws is does not always involve abuse of children

I read the discussion above on the talk page about whether CP always involves the abuse of children as describe in the article. Having gone back and read the intro of the article to see what the complaint was about, I have to agree that the way the intro is written does presents a possible problem. Part of the issue is that there is no one universally accepted definition of what child porn includes. The definition of child porn is defined generally by law but such laws very so different countries define it differently. This means that some countries define it to include material that does not depict the abuse of children as defined by most experts on the sexual abuse. Some countries define it to include even non-sexual nudity of a minor as well as material the do not involve actual children/minors such as virtual child porn, drawings/paintings and text child porn, and adult porn with actresses/actors who merely appear to be minors. There is also the issue that a minor taking photos/video of themselves masturbating can be considered child porn even the the act itself is not considered sex abuse. Finely there is the issue of the fact that since in many countries and even U.S. states, the age of consent is lower then the age to legally appear in porn, child porn involving a 16 or 17 year old would be illegal in a country where the sex act is itself being depicted in perfectly legal. So that leads to the issue I have with the intro. The first sentence ends with "depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child.". That to me seems to exclude virtual porn and that which becomes child porn solely because the actor look like a minor (as is the law in Australia and possibly other countries). So I think we should expand that include virtual children and adults who appear to be minors. The other major issue is when it says "Abuse of the child occurs during the sexual acts which are recorded in the production of child pornography". Like the previously stated on the talk page, I have to agree that it seems to imply that all child porn involves the abuse of children when in fact it does not due to the fact that some countries define child porn to include material that does not involve the abuse of children in it's production. Thus I think the intro needs to clearer so that it does not imply that virtual porn, paintings/drawings/text depicting child porn, or adult porn involving adult actors who simply appear underage, does involve the abuse of children in it's production despite being classified as child porn under some country's laws. --Cab88 (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Rename

Child pornography → Child rape

It seems to me that this page should be renamed. In pornography the models are generally, paid and consenting adults. They are always adults anyway. This is not pornography - these are images of child rape. Any objections, thoughts, my fellow editors? SmokeyTheCat (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Child sexual abuse is already it's own article. This is a specific topic under it. Also your definition is incorrect. The dictionary defines pornography as "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement." The term in no way implies legality, legitimacy, consent or salary. There are many types of illegal pornography, and it would detract from the public understand of this as a specific problem if they were simply lumped in with the crimes they depict.Legitimus (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Legitimus. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay then. I sit corrected. SmokeyTheCat 06:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Child rape is something different, we use common terms as title names and child pornography is a commonly used term, people dont habitually call child pornography child rape♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

taram pararam

Is having taram pararam on hard drive illegal? How would the government know I have on my hard disk anyway? Mrp8196 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Couple of problems with you asking that. First and foremost, Wikipedia is absolutely not an advice column or forum, or any other sort of site where you would ask question seeking an expert opinion. It is an encyclopedia. I can see from your editing history you have a hard time grasping that, so consider this your a warning or I will have to report your account.
Furthermore, it would not be possible to answer your question because it doesn't provide any information required to know such a thing. Possession of child pornography laws vary by country, or even provinces or states within the same country. As does the methods used to enforce those laws. Lastly, I have no idea what taram pararam even is and no I will NOT look it up in google, because I have a feeling it will be something I will at best not be able to "un-see" and worst, outright illegal to even view.Legitimus (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Commentary on Google results for "taram pararam" (for anyone interested): I took the risk of Googling it minutes ago; I Googled it as "Taram pararam on Wikipedia" just to be on the safe side, and what came up is the wording "tram pararam" (in place of "taram pararam") and cartoon pornography. So Mrp8196 likely meant "tram pararam." So far, I looked at the first two page results and it's general cartoon pornography. The only child pornography I saw from these Google results is of cartoon character Bobby Hill with his mother, Peggy Hill. And I probably only saw that because I did not thoroughly examine the matter (meaning each and every link on this subject and the whole site in question). Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
However, simply Googling "taram pararam" shows more cartoon child pornography, among cartoon adult pornography, again spelled as "tram pararam" (or with a hyphen as tram-pararam). Flyer22 (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

there seems to be no edit function for non.wiki.regulars,

though - there should be made a link to this article (probably in the section with the other links to separate operations against articles topic) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_International_child_pornography_investigation

sone pls forward to do so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.142.200.64 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

History?

There appears to be a glaring omission in this article. While many articles have a dedicated history section, this one barely seems to give any historical context at all... --oKtosiTe talk 10:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

One would need some kind of starting point, but I don't know what that would be.Legitimus (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014 changes by Sturunner

User Sturunner has made two changes to this article. The first was to delete the statement that some experts say that use of child porn reduces the risk of offending (“Relation to child molestation and abuse” section), because it’s a “single opinion: unreliable source”. The source was Radio Prague, which looks perfectly respectable to me: there’s even a Wikipedia article on it. While only one expert is named in the article, it does state that many others agree.

In the second change, to the Controversy section, where evidence is presented casting doubt on Westerfield’s conviction for possessing child pornography (CP), Sturunner added that he was convicted of kidnapping/murder. That is correct. But if Sturunner added this non-CP fact to a CP article to make it more likely that the CP conviction was justified, then it should be pointed out that this could have the opposite effect: if the one conviction is dubious, then this casts doubt on the other convictions, especially as the CP was offered as the motive and therefore was the basis of the prosecution case.

I won’t offer an opinion on the second change, but I think the first one should be reverted. While I agree it would be better if a second source were added, Wikipedia does have an obligation to be neutral, and simply removing an opinion with which we don’t agree is too extreme a measure.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I have now reverted the first change, but added an extra source. I would also point out that the main article, Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse, includes a variety of opinions, so this summary shouldn’t be one-sided.
Although I don’t think the non-CP facts of the second change fit neatly into the existing text, I have just added a sentence which links them to the CP.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
TheTruth-2009 (talk · contribs), I changed the order of your wording for the child pornography/child sexual abuse matter, since, from what I have seen of such studies (and I've seen a lot on the matter), experts tend to be on the side of "child pornography increases the risk of child sexual abuse" than on the side that it reduces that risk. And in that case, WP:Due weight (an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy) requires that we give more weight to the majority view and that we don't present the minority view as prominently as the majority view. I'm also not convinced that the sources you added are satisfactory with regard to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). Flyer22 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I’m happy with your tweak.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Japan finally bans CP

Japan banned child porn please fix that link

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/06/18/14/36/japan-finally-bans-child-porn-possession#JOMvcBptstoEcjd3.99

--2602:30A:2C93:83A0:4CEA:1F6E:A01F:D1A0 (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

World map of child pornography laws

This map was removed on the grounds that it was out-of-date. I was disappointed, as I rather like such maps. A less drastic remedy would have been to add the date it was produced, so that readers could see how up-to-date or otherwise it was. A warning could also have been added. It’s like the census data in some articles: they’re only as up-to-date as the date of the census, and that is understood.

And then I looked at the history of that map. It was only added in September 2012, so it’s not that old, and it has been updated a couple of times since then, including as recently as 6 June.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Remarkably OLD data in here, plus no discussion of the value of the industry

For example: 'The NCMEC estimated in 2003 that 20% of all pornography traded over the Internet was child pornography, and that since 1997 the number of child pornography images available on the Internet had increased by 1500%.'

Wow... the internet has suddenly been able to provide this, therefore it's exploded.

What's the baseline? What's happened since?

And, as I say in the title, there's no attempt to scale the problem. Lots of extraordinary claims are made for the size of the industry - $3bn for the Phillipines alone, $20bn world wide, but actually the basis for these is very weak. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. You can edit it and provide up to date stats as well as reliable sources describing the current region and status of child pornography, how well it's grown, society moods towards it, etc. Tutelary (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair answer - I did clean the article up a bit by replacing 'recent' with dates of items. I guess I'm hoping that someone with the enthusiasm to do a rework will have a go at the article - at the moment it's a lot of anecdotes. And I probably came across as too negative; there's a lot of sourcing here, which is a good start. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The edits you made removing "recent," as seen here and here, were good edits per WP:Dated. As for sourcing, I hope that any updating of sources/content is based on WP:Reliable scholarly sources, as found on Google Books or Google Scholar, as opposed to primarily news sources. News sources can be good, but they often misreport or mislead matters (far more so than scholarly sources), and scholarly sources are usually better. Also keep in mind that some of the matters in the article, such as the global production of child pornography, is not something that is easily accessed and is likely to be based on older studies because no newer studies are available or the newer studies were not as widely reported on and it may be WP:Undue weight to mention them. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the legal basis of this being criminal?

Firstly, if you can have sex with children in all 50 US states....why is a pic of it a horrible crime and make the child a victim? Secondly, how is anything that looks like someone having sex is a child, even if an adult or DRAWING, STILL child porn? My wife looks 100% like a child. So if I have a pic of her nude, it's child porn!? WTF? Is a picture of a pizza "child porn" in the USA?184.155.130.147 (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I was very close to reverting your post, per the WP:Child protect policy. And stop playing coy; you know very well that the "sex with children in all 50 US states" matter you are referring to are minors who are post-pubescent or are very close to being post-pubescent. Sex with biological children, as in prepubescents, is not allowed in any of the 50 states. Age of consent matters are complicated, and you know it. And if your "wife looks 100% like a child," as in a prepubescent child and not a teenager, she is a child. Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
And since you apparently didn't get the memo the first time I reverted you months ago (with a followup note), I'm telling you now: Stop posting your "sex with children is not evil" and other pro-child sexual abuse material to this talk page. If you do not, I will have your IP range blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand objecting based on it being spam, but what's wrong with posting about it on non-mainspace pages at all? I'm personally undecided on whether sex with minors in general should be criminalized (you're right; it is complicated), but talk page discussion isn't subject to source or neutrality mandates. Tezero (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Tezero, I have objected to the IP's posts based on his WP:Child protect and WP:Not a forum violations. WP:Spam, which is a different matter entirely, has nothing to do with it. The IP's first post, which I reverted (as noted above), was bad enough; in that post, he stated, in part, "Am i insane or is the society crazy for treating child porn, sex with children like it's worse than murder?"... Well, yes, research has shown that adults having sex with children is often worse than murder for those children. The Child sexual abuse article goes over the devastating effects that often result. Anyone who has dealt with (as in talked about child sexual abuse with) a variety of child sexual abuse victims knows that some of these victims do indeed wish that they were dead; they are suicidal because of the sexual abuse that occurred to them as children. Such devastating cases are usually about prepubescent or early pubescent children, but especially prepubescents. Not a 17-year-old minor, who is an adult in every way except for not being age 18 (the standard age of majority), having been in a sexual relationship with, say, a 22-year-old. The IP, like a of pedophiles and/or child sexual abusers (a matter that I have also seen at Talk:Pedophilia and Talk:Child sexual abuse) is trying to blur the distinction that is usually made in law when it comes to an adult having sex with a prepubescent vs. a non-prepubescent. Many pedophiles and/or child sexual abusers will act like sex with children is perfectly legal, to justify their sexual thoughts and behaviors, when actually, no, it's only a certain group of minors that an adult might be able to have sex with. Prepubescent children are not included in that group whatsoever, in the vast majority of the world, and obviously for good reason. The IP is trying to get us to put child pornography up (or is a WP:Troll), and I suspect he is speaking of prepubescent children (including one or more adults sexually abusing the children), since it's often the case that one cannot distinguish a teenager (at least a mid or late teenager) from an adult (at least an early 20-something adult). A true pedophile certainly has no interest in looking at a naked post-pubescent or jailbait images, unless it's for educational purposes only. Flyer22 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I know you feel strongly about this, Flyer22 (and for the record, I recognize that sexual assault or rape of someone of any age is contemptible and especially traumatic for prepubescents; it's just that consent can be hard to determine - I sure as hell wouldn't want the law telling me I couldn't be with my of-age boyfriend or girlfriend if I genuinely wanted to), but isn't WP:Child protect about keeping younger users safe on Wikipedia by not facilitating underage relationships? I understand that policy - after all, it's against the law and Wikipedia can't promote lawlessness - but has he done that, or just voiced his own opinion that it shouldn't be illegal? Or would I be violating "WP:Record label protect" by saying I think free downloading of music should be legal? Tezero (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Like the lead of WP:Child protect states: "Wikipedia regards the safety of children using the site as a key issue. Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely." That is what WP:Child protect is about, and I don't see how it can be debated that the IP has violated that policy. If you want to defend the IP's right to state what he has, that is your right, but I don't support it and neither does WP:ArbCom. Wikipedia is not the place for him to go on about his belief that sex with children is not worse than murder. There is no WP:Record label protect policy; if there was, I would suggest we follow that as well, unless there is a WP:Ignore all rules reason not to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
And, for the record, there is no consent when it comes to a prepubescent child, an adult and sexual activity (those combinations). If you want to debate me on that, this talk page is not the place for it. Neither is mine, because I will have no such debate on my talk page. Also, I did not report the IP to WP:ArbCom. If I had, you can guarantee that he would be blocked right now, no matter that he is an IP and that the IP address can be assigned to someone else. And since I clearly watch the Child pornography article/talk page, there is no need to ping me to it via WP:Echo. I pinged you to it because I did not know if you were watching it. You happened upon this discussion because you ware watching this article/talk page, or because you saw this post to my user page? Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't realize you watched this; I found this discussion by looking at your userpage. And I'm not interested in debating you; I just thought you might want to know that I'm not exactly advocating full liberalization of child-adult sexual relations. I do, however, want to caution you that the rules about Wikipedia not being a forum apply to you as well - just because you feel strongly that your positions are right does not mean you can use Wikipedia as a forum for them. (The IP feels his are right, too.) Perhaps you haven't, though, in which case it is not yet a problem. Tezero (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at posts above this section on this talk page and at the edit history of the article, it's clear that I watch this article/talk page, which led to my response to the IP above. Those familiar with my user page/talk page know that I am involved with child sexual abuse/pedophilia topics on Wikipedia. Your "I know you feel strongly about this, Flyer22" text also suggests that. As a very experienced Wikipedia editor, I don't need caution about WP:Not a forum. And I would not have brought up that policy to only apply to the IP, but not to myself. This thread that the IP started would not have continued if you had not questioned my objection to the IP's posts (unless, of course, someone else had chimed in). You questioned it; I explained why I object to those posts, and I tied that objection to two Wikipedia policies (I'd already mentioned the WP:Child protect policy when addressing the IP), not just to my knowledge of child sexual abuse and pedophilia topics. I'm done with this discussion, and I will continue to yank pro-pedophile and/or pro-child sexual abuse posts from this talk page as I see fit. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Further question concerning Japan

Just today, Jan. 7, 2014, the BBC ran another story discussing issues involving Japan and CP. There are a number of sections, but Artificially generated or simulated imagery in particular, where some inclusion of this information, in general, should be included. The "lolicon" issue, I would think, would be the apex example for inclusion. My formatting skills are quite atrocious so I'm hesitant to start making significant edits, even though I think they should certainly be made. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30698640 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Organized crime

The organized crime section seemed pretty misleading about the significance of for-profit distribution of CP. That's been fixed a little bit, but there's still probably undue weight given to for-profit distribution. Ferberson (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"Child sexual abuse images"

Does that terminology apply when the images are created by the child without any encouragement from, or involvement by, another person? Ferberson (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the lead. Is there another part you are referring to?Legitimus (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: I was told via email that Ferberson was globally banned over the weekend by WP:WMF; see here. A few other accounts, including User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte (a person that I recently helped catch), were also banned over the weekend by WP:WMF. During that time, I'd recently seen two of Nathan Larson's WP:Sockpuppet accounts pop on my WP:Watchlist because of WP:Administrators taking care of things at the user pages/talk pages of those accounts (see here and here), so I already knew something was going on regarding this matter. I received the aforementioned email about the WP:WMF bans yesterday, but saw it/read it for the first time several minutes ago. I was already suspicious of the Ferberson account for reasons that are obvious to me. Flyer22 (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
And, for the record, the email indicates to me that Ferberson is User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte. Have a careful look at Ferberson's edits to the Child pornography article, such as this edit, and decide if any or all of those edits should be reverted. My initial mindset in this case is a WP:Deny/WP:EVASION one, and WP:Deny should be clearer that it does not only apply to vandals. Ferberson is not an editor anyone should want editing child sexual abuse or child sexuality topics. His edits to sexual topics that don't involve children and teenagers are also often problematic. Flyer22 (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Update: I altered the Ferberson edit that I pointed to in my " 12:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)" comment above. Flyer22 (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

While concerning if true, this appears to have nothing to do with the subject of this article - child pornography. This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please append this following to the "Controversy" section: I have summarised the entire article from Amnesty International Australia Amnesty.org.au I have provided the entire article so as to avoid misrepresentation.

Summary:

"The Government has admitted that detaining children is not an effective deterrent to asylum seekers arriving by boat." "A new inquiry has uncovered shocking evidence of sexual abuse of children in the Nauru detention centre. The inquiry also found that the authorities have failed to protect children or investigate these crimes." "As a 15-year-old detainee on Nauru said to the Australian Human Rights Commission: “I’ve changed a lot, I’m not fun anymore. I’m just thinking about bad stuff now ... I was thinking of becoming a doctor but not any more.”". Source Amnesty International Australia 25 March 2015.

Original:

"107 children are still locked up in Australia's detention centre on Nauru, with more awaiting transfer. They are being denied a childhood.

Please help us get all kids out of detention.

Dear Gordon,

For a child, a year can seem like forever.

Imagine spending that year in a sweltering, cramped and dirty detention centre, at risk of sexual assault.

If you lost a year of your childhood, what would you have missed out on?

Imagine not meeting your best friend; not learning to swim; not enjoying that holiday with your family.

  1. ShareAMemory from your childhood and show the Australian Government what is destroyed when we detain children.

Detaining children causes serious and long-lasting damage. International law considers it an abuse of children’s rights.

A new inquiry has uncovered shocking evidence of sexual abuse of children in the Nauru detention centre. The inquiry also found that the authorities have failed to protect children or investigate these crimes.

The effects of detention can ruin lives.

As a 15-year-old detainee on Nauru said to the Australian Human Rights Commission:

“I’ve changed a lot, I’m not fun anymore. I’m just thinking about bad stuff now ... I was thinking of becoming a doctor but not any more.”

Even the Australian Government agrees: “There is a reasonably solid literature base, which we’re not contesting at all, which associates length of detention with a whole range of adverse health conditions.”

It’s just not right, Gordon.

  1. ShareAMemory and join our campaign to get kids out of detention, once and for all.

The crazy thing is, it doesn’t have to be this way.

The Government has admitted that detaining children is not an effective deterrent to asylum seekers arriving by boat.

In fact, after immense public pressure, they announced last year that all children in detention centres in Australia would be released into the community while their refugee claims were processed.

But not the 107 children detained on Nauru.

For no good reason, these kids are missing out on a childhood, languishing in detention, hidden from sight.

They’re just kids. They deserve a childhood.

Call on the Government to release all kids on Nauru, and their families, into a safe, stable environment.


Yours in hope,

Graeme McGregor Refugee Campaigner Amnesty International Australia @AmnestyGraeme

PS. Every day, Amnesty supporters speak up against injustice -- political prisoners; families fleeing war; men, women and children who have lost everything and need our help.

We act for what is right.

When kids are abused, we need to speak up. We’ve done it before and we can do it again. Join the groundswell of people saying enough is enough and demanding an end to kids in detention, once and for all." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gedium (talk • contribs) 06:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Under the heading "International coordination of law enforcement" in the sentence "A 2008 review of child pornography laws in 187 countries by the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) showed that 93 hadno laws that specifically addressed child pornography." the words "hadno" require a space between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gedium (talk • contribs) 06:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Exploitation link edit request

The "exploits" in the first sentence links to the exploitation of natural resources rather than the exploitation of labour which is where it should link to. Could someone edit it? 81.156.190.75 (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence in introduction

In the second sentence of the first paragraph, it is unclear whether the "or sexual assault of a child" is clarifying the previous "direct involvement" or is another item on a list, this also causes the "(also known as child sexual abuse images[7][8][9])" to be unclear as to whether it refers to the second or to both.81.156.190.75 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Overly broad moral statement in introduction

The third sentence in the introduction reads "Abuse of the child occurs during the sexual acts or lascivious exhibitions of genitals or pubic areas which are recorded in the production of child pornography." but according to the last sentence of paragraph 3 ("Children themselves also sometimes produce child pornography on their own initiative or by the coercion of an adult.") children sometimes make pornography of themselves. Unlike belief in the wrongness of child sexual abuse by others, the belief that a child is abusing themselves when making pornography is NOT universal in the anglosphere and thus, due to poor wording, the sentence is making a moral statement about a matter that is unsettled. (I am unclear on what exactly the guidelines for implied contexts/making normative statements are on wikipedia so I'm assuming we're going by anglosphere-centric morality when defining "abuse")

I can't think of any particularly good way of rephrasing it. Perhaps putting a "normally" in: "Abuse of the child normally occurs during the sexual acts or lascivious exhibitions of genitals or pubic areas which are recorded in the production of child pornography." 81.156.190.75 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent definition in introduction

The fourth sentence mentions that writing is also child pornography, however the cited source of "Definition of 'Child Pornography'". Criminal Code of Canada, Section 163.1. Electronic Frontier Canada. 2004 is clearly using a convenient umbrella definition for the purposes of law writing (including "any written material that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years") that is quite at odds with the use of the term "child pornography" throughout the rest of the article (equivocation plagues this article, this is just a particularly bad example). 81.156.190.75 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement regarding universality of illegality contradicted by source in introduction

Paragraph 4 of the introduction begins "Child pornography is illegal and censored in most jurisdictions in the world." but the table in the cited source of http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/CP_Legislation_Report.pdf contradicts it. It should read "many", not "most".

And with six comments I'm out of steam and wondering why I bothered, it's like trying to dig an Olympic swimming pool with a spade! I could spend days just noting all the problems before even starting on fixes. This article really needs a complete rewrite from some experts in the subject (sociologists, lawyers, historians, psychologists, anthropologists and criminologists preferably). A shame this structure didn't end up getting used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Child_pornography/Archive_3#Suggested_outline_for_improving_article.

81.156.190.75 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Equivocation/unclear meaning of "child"

The first sentence of the article defines child pornography as "pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation" with a link to the Child wiki page. However the linked page of Child has several different definitions (biological, social and legal) and mostly seems to deal with the 1-12 year olds definition(s), which would contradict the inclusion of post-pubescents in the first sentence of paragraph 2.

It is unclear which of the various meanings is intended in the opening definition, however the legal one seems intended judging by paragraph 2 so perhaps the word "minor" might be more appropriate here.

The ambiguity in "child" persists in all the parts of the article that are not implicitly using the legal definition, but that would be far too much work for me to categorize. A brief look at some of the sources indicates that different ones use different definitions, further confusing matters (legal ones generally using minors, research ones generally using pre-pubescent and media/advocacy/charity groups using a mix or with unclear definitions).81.156.190.75 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

We link to child in the lead for a reason -- because what is considered a child and therefore child pornography clearly depends, though it goes without saying that prepubescent children are universally regarded as children. We also note "pubescent" and "post-pubescent" in the lead, in addition to "prepubescent." I don't see your point. We do not need to clarify what we mean by "child" at every or even most instances in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Link to laws page

Also, is there a link to the article entitled "Laws regarding child pornography"? This seems like it would be good. That page is hard to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous8083 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of child pornography according to wikipedia

My changes/comments have arisen from my interest in Australian politics, particularly the article on former politician Bernard Finnigan. I'm certainly no expert when it comes to child pornography but the lead sentence of the child pornography article stated "Child pornography is pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation". Finnigan was found not guilty on one count of attempting to access it, but found guilty on one count of accessing it. Without knowing the specific detail, I felt that the lead sentence could be more accurate, so i've changed it to "Child pornography is often defined as pornography that is created with the intention of sexually exploiting children for sexual stimulation." I certainly find underage and/or non-consensual pornography abhorrent and have no desire to turn this in to a war. But if there's any comments, suggestions, improvements, or flat-out rejection of the change, then please feel free to comment/change as appropriate. Timeshift (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Timeshift, I reverted because regardless of other definitions of child pornography, such as simulated child pornography that may not show an actual child or teenaged minor, it's commonly best for the primary definition to come first. Other definitions can come after that. That's how I usually format a WP:Lead sentence. Furthermore, this article is not simply about the term; so, per the WP:Refers essay, it's best not to have "defined as" wording for the lead sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The wording "often defined as" also begs the question: "What other ways is it defined?". Readers will wonder what "often" is supposed to mean. I'm also not sure how the lead sentence you took issue with conflicts with the Bernard Finnigan case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
My issue is more one of legal question and less toward Finnigan (though he's what brought me here so i'll discuss him and more generally) who was found not guilty of one count of attempting to access child porn, but found guilty of one count of accessing child porn. Who knows what the details were? Dicussion of Finnigan's intent or lack of and the vast list of variables were argued and can be read in this article, and by no means is it exhaustive. I felt that the wording insinuated that anyone else in Finnigan's situation automatically and without question did it for the purpose of sexual stimulation - it is just something we do not know. If he didn't attempt to access, but did access, and is only one count, it could be argued there is reasonable doubt as to what Finnigan's intentions were, nefarious or otherwise. I'm looking at it from a legalistic and even pedantic point of view, though my Year 12 Legal Studies lessons were well over a decade ago. I just feel that the wording "Child pornography is pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation" is somewhat ambiguous and could be better worded/clarified. For all we know, Finnigan could accidentally have come across one page containing such material, or could have been researching the effects of such material before his senses kicked in and closed it down... after all, he's not the brightest. My point is, who knows. Some might see it as "Child pornography is pornography that exploits children with the main intent being sexual stimulation". Some psychiatrists may study it and potentially come across examples, some politicians may research it and potentially come across examples, and potentially in other careers such as police, judges, lawyers, and others, with or without intent, but even with intent in those careers (police gathering and viewing evidence especially), it's highly doubtful there's an element of sexual stimulation. I'm not saying these hypothetical situations are justified or can be condoned but from an purely academic point-of-view it could be argued that viewing the level of availability of content and... ugh... researching child porn "culture"... could be argued as having an academic or research purpose with no interest in sexual stimulation. Lastly, consenting adult pornography is legal but there are cases where some websites have been known to display 16 or 17 year olds but is not disclosed, like underage sex with a 17 year old who claims to be older, though the onus is on the adult - how can they be sure they're acting within the law? My point is that I feel the lead sentence is very black and white. I'm happy to let your revert stand but I would also be interested to hear from views of others. Once more, i'm looking at this from a legal perspective only - I have no interest in the subject matter, apart from the obvious re-statement that underage/non-consensual pornography is abhorrent and do not want to see this discussion turn in to any form of war... but we need not be so black and white either just because we're stepping on egg-shells. Perhaps we/others could come up with a clearer lead sentence that we both find to be an improvement...? I really hope I haven't offended anyone in this long para, i'm sure it's easy to mistakenly do on such a sensitive subject. Timeshift (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Came up with this potential compromise, what do you think? Feel free to revert/discuss again if you wish. Timeshift (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Timeshift (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), it seems to me that you are defining "child pornography" with regard to the intent of the person. Regardless of the intent of the person, however, child pornography is pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation. If a person accidentally comes across it, it is still pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation. And, again, I am more so for going with the primary definition first, which I don't find ambiguous at all; for example, we certainly don't need to list all the types of sexual stimulation in the lead. Furthermore, researching child pornography does not mean that the person is going to come across actual child pornography. In fact, due to the Internet's crackdown on child pornography, it is not something that one easily finds; they have to be actively looking for it, and such searches commonly pertain to Deep web and Dark web matters. No one needs to see actual child pornography to learn about it. Content involving post-pubescent minors is not treated as seriously as content involving prepubescents, and is obviously easier to find on the Internet.
No to your latest change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
First, web coding and other various techniques used by offending websites for keeping child pornography in the dark, I would think, would mean the professions that need to delve deeply in to how they're doing it would have no way of avoiding child pornography material... we can guess (you one way, me the other) but how do you or I know for sure? Surely one would err to the side of having to view them, especially in particular professions like judges, police etc. Second, from the article itself, "Laws regarding child pornography generally include sexual images involving prepubescents, pubescent or post-pubescent minors". So regardless of how seriously it is treated, 17yo child porn'ers are still classed in this article as child pornography. Third, Ok, I can see you've reverted again but again without attempting any form of compromise/consensus. Are you fixed on the exact precise original words used before I came along, or are you open to a compromise, or are you willing to put a level of effort in to providing compromise suggestions? I'm sure we can re-phrase the first sentence to the point where we can find universal agreement... do you agree? Surely one sentence of ten words has an issue if six separate references are needed to justify it. Timeshift (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I am unlikely to compromise, per what I stated above; see my latest reply above. I am unlikely to compromise on the definition that is supported by various WP:Reliable sources. It is not my obligation to attempt a WP:Consensus. The lead sentence is the WP:Consensus version. You are the one coming in challenging the WP:STATUSQUO, despite originally stating that anyone was free to revert you. If you want that lead sentence changed, then I suggest you wait for others watching this talk page to comment, or start a WP:RfC on the matter. And six separate references are not needed to justify that sentence; that is simply an innocent example of WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to see whether or not you were the type of user who embraces the spirit of wiki compromise. Clearly that is not the case. And I looked at your userpage for the first time just now... the content perfectly fits the impression i'm getting. Maybe other users can have their say. But I really don't want this to turn in to a you-vs-me saga. Ideally every user including you and I should aim to find a compromise that everyone is happy with as is the wiki spirit, but clearly you do not believe that is possible. I find that disappointing. I was hoping i'd find constructive users replying. Maybe they will come along, maybe they won't. Maybe i'm in a clear minority, maybe i'm not. But i'm not going to go to an RfC over this, too much time and effort and to be frank - I find RfCs to be a petty utility used by users who want to fight to the death and use every last option available in desperate attempts to get their way. That's not me. Timeshift (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Whatever content you are referring to regarding the current state of my user page or my talk page does not add up to what you are insinuating here, since, if you'd actually paid attention to my user page or talk page, you would have seen User:Flyer22 Reborn/Awards and gifts, which shows that I've collaborated plenty, and you would have seen many supportive comments currently on my talk page. You attacking me here at this article's talk page does not help your case; it does not endear you to me, and certainly not to others. Being open to compromise does not mean "always being open to compromise." I stated that I am unlikely to compromise with you on this matter, not that I wouldn't, and I was very clear about why. You have offered no compelling reason to alter the definition; what you have stated is similar to stating that a guy accessing adult pornography, which is for sexual arousal, without the intention of being sexually aroused means that we should change the definition of pornography in the lead of the Pornography article. I reiterate that "Regardless of the intent of the person, however, child pornography is pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation. If a person accidentally comes across it, it is still pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation. [...] Furthermore, researching child pornography does not mean that the person is going to come across actual child pornography. In fact, due to the Internet's crackdown on child pornography, it is not something that one easily finds; they have to be actively looking for it, and such searches commonly pertain to Deep web and Dark web matters. No one needs to see actual child pornography to learn about it. Content involving post-pubescent minors is not treated as seriously as content involving prepubescents, and is obviously easier to find on the Internet." And your idea of what WP:RfCs are for, as if WP:Dispute resolution is a bad thing, clearly shows that you and I are two completely different types of editors; and I'm thankful that we are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I also see that you added on to your "18:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)" post after my "18:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)" post. For reasons noted at WP:Talk, that is problematic. But either way, I've stated all I need to state regarding your proposals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Child pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Add this to Proliferation

In 2008, law enforcement had traced child pornography trafficking to more than 570,000 U.S. computers identified by serial numbers and Internet protocol addresses. More than 44,970 computers were found to be actively trading child pornography in Canada. http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2122135-child-porn-distribution-called-social-epidemic-/ 88.112.215.140 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse material as a WP:Alternative name in the lead

With this edit, Keshetsven added "or child sexual abuse material" to the lead, stating "Terminology should be updated to conform international jurisprudence." As seen with this link, I reverted, commenting, "Redundant. The lead already states 'child sexual abuse images.' If we want to bold in the first line, rearranging is needed to avoid redundancy." And Keshetsven reverted, replying, "Rearrange as you please but the term should be 'child sexual abuse material' as it is the currently used in jurisprudence all over the world."

Thoughts on whether this term is a significant WP:Alternative name that should be in the lead, and on how we should handle the "child sexual abuse images" terminology in the lead in addition to this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It strikes me more technically accurate, but uncommonly used and also very awkward linguistically, which might be part of the reason it is so uncommon. The sources offered are Interpol and an Australian source, but others show they are not universal. The UN for example has Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography and uses "Child Pornography" extensively [1], as does the European Commission [2].Legitimus (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is the technical accurate terminology being used extensively for some years now. Some countries and law enforcement agencies will take some time to update their terminology on this. The UN and EC sources brought by Legitimus are outdated and not relevant. A UN Convention from 1998 and a UN Protocol from 2000 doesn't demonstrate that the new terminology is not being used in 2016. In the same way the European Commission source, a UK charity project funded by the EC in 2002, is not relevant. In fact, it's quite the opposite, EU law and Europol both use 'child sexual abuse material'. On the Europol website, a search with the old term found 37 results and with the new term found 137 results.
Also, note that I haven't changed the title but I created a new redirect page to this article because some people might be confused about it. --Keshetsven (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Keshetsven (last time pinging you to this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), I'm not seeing that child sexual abuse material is a significant alternative name for this topic. See the WP:Alternative name policy, which is clear that only major alternative names should go in the lead. It also suggests a section specifically for alternative names when there are at least three.
As for the name of this article, "child sexual abuse material" would not be used, per the WP:Common name policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22, please bring evidence to support your point, my edit didn't violate WP:Alternative name in any way.--Keshetsven (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"Child sexual abuse material" doesn't seem more notable than "indecent images of a child" or the variations on "child abuse images" listed in the Terminology section and already mentioned in the lead. I also don't see it used in any actual legislation. KateWishing (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Keshetsven, I don't know what you mean by "evidence to support [my] point." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Well here is some evidence: a Google Ngram. (Google Ngrams, a useful tool IMO, show the prevalence of given phrases in the books that that Google has in its digital database, which I think is most books. AFAIK Ngrams does not differentiate between scholarly, official, and popular works -- it just counts raw numbers.)
Here I made a case-insensitive search on the following terms:
  • child pornography
  • child sexual abuse material
  • indecent images of a child
  • child abuse images
  • child abuse material
As one can see, only "child pornography" and "child abuse images" even appear (the others do not occur at all in any books). "Child abuse material" occurred in one book. "Child pornography" appears in hundreds of books at least (0.00005% of books, or 1 out of every 20,000 books if my math is right), of all books on all subjects published in 2004.
(BTW, IMO even if there were any numbers for "child sexual abuse material" and they were trending upward, we have to consider the weight of existing previous usage -- the total area under the curve for each term, so to speak, would have to be at least considered. There are no numbers and no trend so this doesn't even come into play.)
Based on this, I do not think we should have "child sexual abuse material" in the lede, and especially not bolded in the very first sentence. (If for some reason we must have a second term, "child abuse images" would be it, I guess, subject to further research; but I'm not recommending that either, one reason being that it is overly broad.)
There's whole separate section, "Terminology", at the very top of the article there, right after the lede section. By all means a full-blown discussion of "child sexual abuse material", where it comes from, what it means, who uses it and why, would be useful and enlightening there.
As the rest, I have little use for terms introduced by bureaucratic bodies unless and until the enter general parlance. Bureaucratic bodies introduce terms all the time, and they're mocked often enough. It has little to do with our mission here, which is to explain things. Official names of things should be noted somewhere and they have their place, but no more than their place.
The bottom line is that we not supposed to be promoting new terms to the general public which I think is what we would be doing if we give this term that much prominence. I consider the case to include not totally unreasonable, but not proven. Since the case is not proven it should be removed per WP:BRD. Herostratus (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Not only that, but I'm not 100% certain there could not be a political motive in promoting this term (I'm not accusing any editor here of that, just the people who created the term). It could very well be that this term was created purely in the interest of being more precise. However, the term "child sexual abuse material" does have the effect -- unintended or not -- of distancing the term "pornography" from an insalubrious association, and possibly making it easier to emphasize the difference between simulated child pornography and "child sexual abuse material". Or on the other hand, the goal could be to emphasize the horrificness of the material and the inherent abuse of the subjects. I'll not express an opinion here on whether or not any of these are or are not worthy political goals, but they are political goals. This is a fraught subject and we want to be conservative about promoting anything here. Herostratus (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in on this, Herostratus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
OK. Per WP:BRD and there being no refutation of the Ngram -- it can't really be refuted I guess -- I removed the suggested alternate term from the lede and put it (and its supporting refs) in the Terminology section. I did retain the bolding, as a compromise. Herostratus (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The Google search or what ever is completely useless, it doesn't show anything, as the new term wasn't used in 2004. And I also believe the American editors should stop making Wikipedia so US-centered. ––Keshetsven (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I did a short search on the ec.Europa.eu and curia.europa.eu pages (European Commission, European Court of justice), and came up with zilch conclusive results. If the term is really used in Jurisprudence, iz hasn't spread very far yet. Lectonar (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
No, the Google Ngram is useful. It's not everything but it is data, and in this case IMO useful data. And the bit about "the new term wasn't used in 2004" is important. It takes time for changes in terminology to propagate through the consciousness of the general public. Until those change have propagated to a sufficient degree we stick with the terminology that people actually use. In this encyclopedia we strive, to the extent possible, to present facts. Not what we wish were the facts, or not even what possibly ought to be the facts, but what are the facts. The fact -- perhaps it's an unfortunate fact, I dunno -- is that the term you prefer doesn't rate pride of place as an co-equal alternate term (it does rate a mention, further down). It may be that people are stupid, stubborn, or even bloody-minded in not adopting with greater alacrity a term that has been designed and handed to them by august bodies, but what can I say? People are stupid, stubborn, and bloody-minded sometimes. It's not or job to promote terms, even those devised by wise men and august bodies. Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
To me, in England, the label child pornography is a big misnomer. It's child sexual exploitation (CSE) and images thereof. It's a problematic topic given that press use the label child porn. –– ljhenshall (talk page) 22:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Ljhenshall, but, clearly, it's not just the press that states "child pornography"; the vast majority of the scholarly literature on the topic does as well. But, yes, stating "porn" or "child porn" is more of a media matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Child pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Sex transportation"?

What is "sex transportation"? Referenced in the History section. Icemuon (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Child pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child pornography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Reference No. 12 leads to a non-existing article

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.211.161.167 (talk • contribs)

 Fixed by adding an archive link. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Should this new text be included?

  • I saw a front-page article in today's Daily Telegraph, and from it I was tempted to add the following to section Child pornography#Child sexual abuse in production and distribution:-
    • In April 2018 there was a British newspaper front-page report[1][2] saying that the proportion of pedophilic images found that were made by children (by photographing or filming each other or as selfies) without adults, by imitating adult pornography or nudity that they had found in the internet), was 31% from November 2017 to February 2018, with 40% in December 2017; 349 cases in January 2017 and 1717 in January 2018.
    • But as child pornography and pedophilia are risky topics, I thought that I better ask first.
  • ^ Daily Telegraph, Wednesday 18 April 2018, page 1 (bottom right corner) and page 2.
  • ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/18/childrens-sex-selfies-fuelling-rise-child-abuse-images/

    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

    Anthony Appleyard, given that child pornography can be defined broadly to include late teenagers who snap pictures of one another, an aspect that is already mentioned in the article (in the Sexting section), I would state no. An image of a naked 17-year-old is not a "pedophilic image." Even the term "pedophilic image" is problematic.
    Legitimus, any thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    I do see that the source mentions 11-15 year-olds. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Flyer22 Reborn and Legitimus: I am very sorry if I have given any wrong impression here. I have NO inappropriate interests, thank God. Here in England the topic of pedophilia (spelled "paedophilia" in British spelling) and related subjects are wearisomely familiar to nearly everybody through being repeatedly trumpeted and plastered at length over the ordinary newspapers (including their front pages) and television news until I get weary of reading and hearing about it, and more so since the Jimmy Savile affair blew up. The newspaper article that I mentioned, with a large headline, 2 columns wide, stared at me from the bottom right corner of the front page of the Daily Telegraph (a main-field British newspaper) as soon as I picked it out of its rack in my local newspaper shop. (After the Jimmy Savile sensation had run on endlessly, dominating the news, I was thankful when the 2013 horse meat scandal blew up, because it gave the newspapers and the television news something else and not sexual, to sensationalize about.) If you decide not to include this matter, then feel free not to include it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    Anthony Appleyard, you haven't given me any wrong impression. I'm familiar with you from WP:Requested moves, and your proposal struck me as innocent. I was simply expressing concern about the proposal because children and teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves and/or one another has been criticized when it comes to being categorized as child pornography. The minors usually do not have the same intent as the adults, and there are cases where teenagers get branded sex offenders when their intentions were not at all the same as actual sex offenders (as noted in the Sexting section). So I was wondering about us including your text as "production and distribution." There's also a WP:NOTNEWS aspect to it. And by "not pedophilic image," I meant that pedophilia is not about a sexual interest in clearly pubescent or post-pubescent individuals, but rather prepubescent children, and "pedophilic image" is odd wording because images can't really be pedophilic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    Also, no need to ping me since this page is on my wachlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    Anthony Appleyard, I wasn't stating that I agree with the text being added. I still object per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Flyer22 Reborn and Legitimus: I have ventured to restore this section. My reasons are:
      1. The events described seem to be a major source of a type of sexual images, and thus are relevant here. The matter is duly referenced in the Daily Telegraph, which is a reputable British broadsheet newspaper.
      2. The expression "pedophilic image", whose correctness is queried above, is not in the text in this article.
      3. "I do see that the source mentions 11-15 year-olds" :: I am aware (via over-detailed public newspaper descriptions) of the difference between pedophilia and hebephilia etc. But most people lump them together as pedophilia. And 11-15 years old is well known to be by law sexually underage.
      4. '"including your text as "production and distribution." :: I have put this paragraph in a separate ==section==.
    Anthony Appleyard, I reverted per my arguments above and because you adding a section on a newspaper report is WP:Undue weight. As made clear, sexting already has a section in the article. And as for what the public generally refers to something as, it does not mean we should repeat misinformation. We make it clear in the Pedophilia article and Child sexual abuse article what pedophilia actually is. And in the lead of this article, we state, "The prepubescent pornography is viewed and collected by pedophiles for a variety of purposes." But the "pedophilic" wording can easily be changed, and I see that you didn't include that in your latest text. The point is that your text is undue weight. I suggest you take the matter to some form of WP:Dispute resolution since you have decided to insert it yet again after objection to its inclusion and without further discussion. If we include any information on this, it should be one or two sentences. And as for where it should go, that should be discussed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
    As seen here (followup edits here and here), I added the content to the Sexting section, and I expanded the title to "Sexting and filming among minors." That is where that newspaper report belongs if we are going to include it at all. I still find it undue in a way per WP:NOTNEWS. It's already well-known (among law enforcement and experts on child pornography at least) that sexting/filming among children and teenagers is a problem. We have academic sources to cover that. We usually do not need to include newspaper reports on the matter. Otherwise, we will have newspaper report after newspaper report in that section. I tweaked the wording and I removed "children's minds are hard-wired for imitating adults," which requires WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Furthermore, the Hard coding article is about computer matters. I'm also not sure about the "report said that pedophiles trawled for and amassed such images" line since true pedophiles will not be looking for images of 15-year-olds unless they are trying to sell them to men who like looking at images of young teenagers. That stated, ages 11-13 can fall in the pedophilia range since 11 to 13-year-olds, especially boys, may be prepubescent or look prepubescent. And, besides, the text does state "such images" rather than "these images." I do not see that anything more from the source should be added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
    And, no, at this point in time, I do not think that the section should be moved higher. The main concern when it comes to child pornography is pornography created by adults. That is what the literature mainly covers. Like I stated, there is debate on whether nude images created by children and underaged teenagers among themselves without the same intent that adults have when making and sharing child pornography should even be classified as child pornography. Then again, it undoubtedly becomes child pornography when an adult gets a hold of it for personal pleasure and/or for a profit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

    This article should be renamed and "Child Pornography" linked to it

    There's no such thing as child pornography, there is child abuse, rape, making and possessing indecent images of children and exploitation.

    As someone relatively new to WP I'm sure there's a way to request this, but not sure how.

    I would suggest Indecent Images of Children.DarrylKG (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

    I get what you're trying say, but the problem is that this is the term in common usage as reflected by numerous sources. Wikipedia is meant to just report what the best sources say, not as a method to force semantics in the furtherance of a social goal in a vacuum. To appeal for a change in article name, you would have to find multiple strong and authoritative sources declaring the current term improper and specifying another term as the authoritative one that should be in use.Legitimus (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

    "Controversy" section

    I found that the section is about United States Department of Defense rather than the subject itself. Should we remove it or move it to proper place? Mariogoods (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_pornography/Archive_6&oldid=1052065687"