Talk:Child pornography
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child pornography article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Article policies
|
||
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | |||
|
|
|||
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Text from Child pornography was copied or moved into Laws regarding child pornography with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. |
| Text from Child pornography was copied or moved into Child pornography laws in the Philippines with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. |
Contents
Japan finally bans CP[edit]
Japan banned child porn please fix that link
--2602:30A:2C93:83A0:4CEA:1F6E:A01F:D1A0 (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
World map of child pornography laws[edit]
This map was removed on the grounds that it was out-of-date.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[edit]
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?[edit]
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)
- 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)
-
-
-
-
-
- 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)
-
-
-
-
-
- B-Class Sexuality articles
- High-importance Sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class law articles
- Mid-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Top-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime articles
- B-Class Pornography articles
- Top-importance Pornography articles
- B-Class Top-importance Pornography articles
- WikiProject Pornography articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles