Talk:Child pornography

Archives
2003 October – 2006 July 2006 July – 2006 November

USA Question=

Is computer generated/illustrated/animated work illegal, or is it not because it involves the exploitation of no minors? What about acts that say that an adult is a minor for the work's purpose?

I'm sure illustrated work isn't illegal.--70.17.209.58 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Notes that need work

Here are some bits that didn't fit anywhere: with a little more work, this could become another section in the main article.

Random notes

Law-enforcement:

• Law-enforcement organisations (FBI, Interpol)
• Methods of tracking child pornography users and finding actual child abusers
• A discussion of the largest operations (such as Stardust, Blue Orchid, Operation Candyman, Operation Ore)
• LEO successes in closing first offline and then online BBSes
• ISPs (such as GeoCities) developed practices for instant reaction to child porn hosters (bandwidth limits, rapid reaction to abuse reports)
• Monitoring of the Net by law-enforcement and vigilante organisations
• A survey of psychological research about effects of child pornography
• A section on political implications of child pornography

Please explain the removal of links to Friedman & Associates

I have added a relevant link to a relevant site, as well as expert opinion on the simulated porn aspect to the article. See diff. However an anonymous user 69.3.235.56 and user User:Doc Tropics removed these additions, describing them as "spam", "unsourced POV and linkspam". This is clearly and obviously untrue.

The following text was inserted in the "Simulated porn" section:

However, real legal practice, popular sentiment and political positions stray far from this apparently clear-cut decision

User:Doc Tropics says it's unsourced, but it is nonsense, because that text itself is a refernce to a source! He says it's POV, but it's a sourced expert statement and thus doesn't meet the Wikipedia definition of POV. He says it's link spam, but it's a nonsensical claim, because it's a reference to a sourced statement which is directly relevant to the subject under discussion!

I also added a link section "Legal support" and a link to:

• Ian N. Friedman & Associates works with a nationwide team of lawyers, investigators, computer experts, psychiatrists and expert witnesses to represent defendants who are charged with computer sex crimes in court across the United States.

The description was copied from the linked site. I simply don't see how a law firm working specifically with this type of cases can be irrelevant to the article, considering that they provide links to articles in law journals discussing this subject.

I would like to see the explanations for these deletions, because I simply don't understand the justification and how they may add to the quality of the article... Paranoid 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(this reply is crossposted from my talkpage. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC))

Hi Paranoid, I reviewed the recent edit history of Child pornography, and I'll try to address your concerns as best I can. You added the section "Legal Support" which was nothing but an advertisement for a specific lawyer. Next, you inserted two seperate links to the lawyer's webpage, along with a rather POV statement on the subject. The links clearly qualified as "spam" since they linked to a purely commercial, self-promotional site. Trying to use that site as a reference for your POV really isn't acceptable since the attorney can't be considered a reliable source...he clearly has a strong financial interest in presenting his particular POV. In short, I removed your changes because I felt that they reduced the overall quality of the article and called its reliability into question. Please note that two other editors have also reverted your changes with Edit Summaries indicating the content really isn't acceptable. If you honestly feel that your material would strengthen the article we can discuss that on its talkpage, but the way the material was originally presented simply isn't suitable to an encyclopedia. Finally, your reference to my Edit Summary as "blatantly false" seems to indicate a certain lack of good faith. My summary was clear, concise, and honest. There's no need to take a combative approach to this situation...my only personal interest is in maintianing the overall quality and credibility of WP articles, and I certainly hope we share that goal. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the good Doctor. Herostratus 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the link in Legal support was not an advertisement - no more than any other valid link to a company on wikipedia. Why do you think we need 4 web links (and not wiki links) to Law enforcement organizations and 7 links to Other investigating organizations on the page? And why not a single link to a law firm that specialises with this sort of cases? If you are concerned about this particular firm - link to a different company. I don't have any connections with this one. But it is clear to me that a link to Friedman & Associates is as relevant as a link to INHOPE - International Association of Internet Hotlines/Tiplines. Why an encyclopedic article on child porn should have a direct web link to INHOPE? And why not to Friedman & Associates?

Second, the 2 links you are talking about were 1) the link in the Legal support we discuss above and 2) a reference link as is supposed to be done in wikipedia to source a statement. The statement on the subject WAS NOT POV. The NPOV policy states: "assert facts, including facts about opinions". My second edit (which someone also reverted, not edited, also indicating a lack of good faith)

Third, the links aren't qualified as spam and your accusations are false. The site they link to is not purely self-promotional, because, among other things, it contains free original information on the topic, including articles published in professional law journals. It clearly means that the site is at least partially informational. If you feel that the attorney can't be considered a reliable source (when writing for a professional law journal) about specifics of a particular type of legal cases, I don't know who can be. But, as always, feel free to replace the statement I added about simulated porn with a better statement from a better source (official statement by SCOTUS, may be?).

Fourth, there is no reason why someone of the deleters couldn't make the change to my original edit reflecting that it's a statement about lawyer's opinion, just like I did myself. Reverting is not the best approach when editing Wikipedia.

Fifth, it is not up to individual editors to decide what is acceptable and what is not. We have Wikipedia policies and voting mechanisms in place for that. If you disagree, I can easily find two other editors who would say that YOU are unacceptable at wikipedia.

Sixth, I explained in details how your edit summary was false. If you disagree with my words, provide your counter-arguments, not just accuse me of not having good faith. I explained why my edit was sourced, why it wasn't POV and why it wasn't linkspam. Now please respond to my explanations - don't just deny me the right to call falsehood false.

I see that the comment in the article is still kept in its reworded form, which is a good thing. Now I suggest to you all that instead of continuing the bickering about particlar wordings we think whether this article should contain a link to a law firm that specialises on these cases and has information about it. And if not - why not included a law firm, but include 11 investigative organisations? What do they add to the article that a link to F&A wouldn't.

Finally, there is also an unjustified comment by User:DanB DanD in his edit summary. I am not connected to Friedman & Associates - I just found their site and added information from one of its article to this wikipedia article because of the relevance. If you feel that Friedman & Associates is not a valid example of a specialised law firm, add a different company - I don't insist it should be F&A. But seeing how there are 11 links to investigative agencies, I don't see why there shouldn't be at least 1 link to a firm that protects people accused of computer sex crimes. Paranoid 08:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can't find more than two editors to say that I'm unacceptable at Wikipedia, you're just not trying hard enough. I piss people off every time I delete spam. There's got to be hundreds of them that would say I'm unacceptable. But I'm the strong, silent type and I'll nurse my wounded feeling in private. I'll try agan to expalin this: ANY link to a law firm is linkspam unless it is in an article that specifically relates to that firm; this doesn't. If you really feel it's necessary to the article, you could mention that some lawfirms specialize in this field...without linking to any of them.

Uh oh...I wanted to write an extensive and thought provoking commentary that would win your undying respect, but I just stopped caring. Let me put it simply for you:

• Wikipedia is not going to be used as a clearinghouse to help degenerate scumbags hook up with shyster scumbags trying to keep goddam baby-rapers out of jail. It's not going to happen. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 08:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea for folks to calm down. Paranoid does not seem to fit the profile of a typical linkspammer (first edit Feb 2005). Having said that, I don't think the link to FA is particularly relevant. Rather I think it is too much commercial and too little content. I see no need for an example of a law firm that defends people against computer pornography charges. The second link, to the article by Ian Friedman looks, by its placement in a context of press coverage of the firm/partners, to likewise be advertising. Moreover it is cited to The Vindicator which I have been unable to pin down as a peer-reviewed law journal. From the heavy opinion and light citations, I would guess it is more of a magazine. His opinion really should not be cited as established fact. On those grounds I don't think the links should be included. Paranoid does bring up a good point: the encyclopedic value of the other links. I tend to think they are more relevent, but that should be discussed seperately. --TeaDrinker 09:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

TeaDrinker, thanks for being rational and reasonable when I...wasn't. I did not mean to imply that Paranoid is a linkspammer, I just generically refer to inappropriate links as "linkspam". I also don't mean to imply, in any way, that Paranoid has any ulterior motives. My extremely loud, emphatic statement was directed against a potentially grotesque misuse of wikipedia. I do appreciate both the content and tenor of your response, thank you. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 09:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw the deletion of Paranoid's material, checked the link, and definitely approved of the deletion. Paranoid, notwithstanding your impassioned argument, I don't find it convincing, and at this juncture you appear to be outnumbered, granted that numbers are not everything. A number of people watch this page, and if your arguments are convincing you may garner support. Note, however, the Wikipedia is WP:NOT intended as a place for people to go for finding assistance in any life situation, it is a scholarly encyclopedia and is intended for reference. There are further steps you can take to appeal, but it is not the time for that yet. Herostratus 17:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the "encyclopedicnessness" or otherwise of a link to a firm of lawyers, shouldn't self-disclosed bigots be prevented from editing Wikipedia? Lawyers are shyster scumbags? Those accused of child pornography offences are goddam baby-rapers? Wiki-is-truth 10:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Paranoid's right about one thing - many items in the link section are non-encyclopedic. It could use a thorough culling. DanB†DanD 18:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with thaqt wholeheartedly. I meant to come back and do that, but I'm spread a bit thin right now. If no one else gets to it, I'll eventually try to clean it up when I have more time. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Avaliablility

I don't think that we will be able to find a reliable source for the claims of availability of child pornography involving amateurs or very young children, since any source that would typically be considered "reliable" would be unwilling to confirm this in the interest of legality. Would it not be better to simply use a phrase such as "It is said that" and remove the citation needed tags? 'Net 02:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Those claims could be supported by reports from agencies or even even quotes from newspapers. We don't need to find a pornographer willing to make a statement (yeah, that could be tough), we could use one from the FBI or the New York Times. I haven't looked yet, but I'll bet the cites could be found. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia to be a neutral encyclopaedia, or a re-spinner of official propaganda? Wiki-is-truth 10:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive

The archive needs to be kept on top of here. As well as the sigs. A lot of posts here were unsigned and the unsigned ones were quite old. As well a lot of old talk was missed in the last archiving. I've archived up to all but the last couple discussions and some notes I couldn't easily date.--Crossmr 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Childsupermodels

I believe this site was taken down as part of some latest operations in the US. I thought it used to have an article here, but I can't find it. The servers are no longer responding and I read a story about a "vague" network of sites that were taken down which contained young girls in sexually suggestive poses but not nude. It was based in Florida. Claim is being made that even without nudity it is child porn. Once more details come out it should be considered adding to the article.--Crossmr 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the story here [1]--Crossmr 18:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• They're still running alive and well as far as I know. Colonel Marksman 04:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. Lily Models, Cheerful Models, such websites have the primary intention to depict children in suggestive poses.--Doktor Illuminasyon 19:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

here you go: http://members.cheerful-models.com/ --Doktor Illuminasyon 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

What dispute? Hasn't it been resolved? (I thought?) Colonel Marksman 04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is pretty bad -- the argument that was resolved was just the specific back-and-forth about the picture of the Vietnamese girl. I don't know that there's an active "other side" to the dispute at this point, it's just that no one has the energy or the will to clean the article up. I certainly would not support removing the POV tag without a pretty big rewrite. DanB†DanD 07:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not necessarily an offer to do the required cleanup (not sure I know enough about the issue, anymore at least), but what specifically do you find POV? I don't find it obvious that any particular POV is being pushed. It's true that the article doesn't go out of its way to say "CP is evil" every other sentence like most other writing you'll find on the topic (even in academic journals, much of the time), but it doesn't exactly come across as supportive of it either. Letting the reader come to his or her own conclusions seems to be the Wikipedia way of doing things, just as Nazism doesn't say "The Nazis were evil" but lets the reader come to that rather obvious conclusion on his or her own. PurplePlatypus 07:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

DanDan, care to comment. I too have read the article, and don't see what specifically you would find POV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.158.72 (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

This article needs more pictures

Of course, given the delicacy of the subject, proper care should be taken. But such a large article should have at least some pictures of examples of child pornography, at least partially obscured. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

YOU collect the pictures, YOU obscure them, YOU stick them up on the Wikipedia, I will report you to the FBI :-) Cheers Wiki-is-truth 10:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can ask the FBI to release some pictures, they have huge archives of child pornography. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're proposing putting child porn on Wikipedia. Have fun with that.

Gb2 12chan fgt-- Mudkips 08:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HA. I think WP:NOT needs a section about this, how about WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a collection of fetish pornography? In all seriousness though, when I first went to the Lolicon article to find out what it was (after hearing the term somewhere) there was some very dodgey stuff on there that is no longer there. Maybe some of the reasons for getting rid of those pics (that would also apply to here) can be find in the talk archives, though they seem more focused on why pictures of little girls with dildos are better than pictures of little girls without. --Einsidler 08:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, I think that the pics on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse article would be much worse than any sanitized kiddie porn in this article, so why not? Do you honestly think that a person who is looking for kiddie porn would search Wikipedia? ...err never mind about that. And actually you're wrong about the collection of fetish pornography. There are many users that have photoalbums hosted on wikimedia that contain many images of pornographic nature. And funny you should mention WP:NOT, when Wikipedia is NOT censored.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted." and if I recall correctly, CP is illegal according to Child pornography#Legislation, now combine these with Child pornography#United States and any images you could post here are against Wikipedia policy unless it doesn't fit ANY of those dot points. However, if it didn't fit any of those dot points, it wouldn't be relevant to this article and could be considered vandalism. --Einsidler 12:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

While the idea is stupid for the most part...maybe adding one of the censored Masha Allen pics could work? --David Bixenspan 01:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec... "Wikipedia is not a collection of fetish pornography"? I beg to differ (or at any rate someone does)... :P As for including the pix: ah, I think we're being trolled... LOL Herostratus 03:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting what I'm asking for. I'm not asking for blatant penetration of a little girl or something. I mean a picture of a girl, with he subheading "child pornography includes young children such as this one", or something. Or maybe we can have a non-nude, non-sexual still from a child porn video. I think that a picture of a child is very important for this article, so we can explain what exactly we mean by "child" pornography. For instance, many people consider 17 year old porn to be child pornography, and they may be confused if they don't know that infants getting fucked is also child porn. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is either a simple bad idea or trolling. Either way it's not likely to have a good outcome. -Will Beback · † · 07:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, why is it a bad idea to suggest pictures that represent the main subject of the article? We have penis, syphillis, ejaculation, and other disturbing pictures, so why not have pictures for this article too? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, on top of everything else, getting appropriate pics that have been released by the creator or copyright holder into the public domain or under the GDFL would be tricky at the least. Herostratus 12:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• NO PICTURES OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. EVER. Granted, Wikipedia is not censored, but we also aren't too keen on getting into legal issues. This would generate more trouble that it is worth and would, to be perfectly frank, just take the article and "whore" itself out. Thanks but no thanks. Yanksox 01:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my points? I said we need pictures for this article, not specifically pictures of infants getting fucked. There is nothing wrong with depicting a fully clothed 3 year old with the caption "Children as young as three years old are often depicted performing sexual acts in child pornography" --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hell, I'm going to add a picture like that right now. Let's see who reverts it. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 08:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I did. I would direct you to WP:POINT, but I'm not sure you have a point. DanB†DanD 10:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'm not trying to prove a point. I do, however, want to contribute to this article. You reverted my edit; ok. I don't want to edit war. But I ask, why do you feel that the picture is not appropriate for the article? Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture adds no information to the article, particularly not any information that can't be just as easily conveyed through text. It may in fact be misleading: there is no reason to think that the child pictured is typical of the children depicted in pornography, in age or otherwise.

DanB†DanD 19:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur, there is no reason to add the picture. --TeaDrinker 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. -Will Beback · † · 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

there is no reason to think that the child pictured is typical of the children depicted in pornography, in age or otherwise. That's exactly why the picture should be there! Because people don't know what child pornography looks like!!!--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Contrariwise, if nobody knows what it looks like, then logically the possibility must exist that what it looks like is exactly what the article looks like right now. DanB†DanD 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And that is...? Because that's the whole reason I raised this issue in the first place: because there is no depiction of what it looks like. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but I think as a minimum, we should add some pictures of porn that is attempting to depict child porn.Thoughtbox 07:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! In future years you'll look back fondly on this, your very first post. DanB†DanD 08:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I figure that would please both sides of the debate. 1. There are would be no victims (all the models are over 18, and we can provide links/names/details etc.). 2. We could show sufficient detail, showing exactly what child porn would physically look like. Perhaps we could provide some examples for specific criminal cases where the charges were dropped because the material in question was found not to be pornography. Anybody have any problems/issues with my suggestion?Thoughtbox 09:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough already. It ain't happenen, so just stop it. Good grief. Herostratus 11:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(moving back left) I would expect that pictures involved would be copyrighted, saving ourselves the inevitably painful arguments about morals, censorship, etc, etc. that have been rehashed to death. If we can find details of such cases then they very much should be included in the article prose. Thryduulf 17:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand....what exactly "ain't happenen"??Thoughtbox 10:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Pitchurs. Herostratus 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughtbox actually makes a good point. We don't have to depict actual kiddie porn, all we need is an 18 year old with small tits and a notice saying "This actress is mimicking child pornography. She is legal" or some shit like that. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So do we have a consensus, that posting some porn(that appears to be attempting to depict child porn) is acceptable?216.241.228.209 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Far from it, most people seem to think that it is unacceptable. I don't see the compelling need for a photograph. The suggestion seems to be to put in a photograph which is not child porn to illustrate what it is. Moreover I think it is in poor taste to imitate or simulate illegal activities. --TeaDrinker 18:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Poor taste? How is it poor taste to follow Wikipedia policy? And it's not just that, it is also a moral matter that I want pictures on this page. There must be examples so that people can understand what child pornography is and be able to identify it to the police. Check out WP:GRAPE. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm...user:Thoughtbox, do you agree with user:Kirbytime?

DanB†DanD 03:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good argument, but totally unnecessary. Anyone who wants to know what porn is can get an excellent understanding over at the porn article. Child porn, then, is simply porn involving children. What possible encyclopedic purpose would a picture serve? It's redundant.

That said, it is possible to have a legal child porn picture on this site, if anyone wants to make a 3D virtual porn picture using the Poser software (see the Poser porn article). It's easy to find legal web sites that offer that stuff, usually depicting acts of incest which, of course, involve children.

Even so, I still think it's unnecessary for this article. You want pictures, go find them elsewhere. =Axlq 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But child pornography is more than just pornography featuring children. Child pornography is a form of sexual abuse, because minors cannot give consent. Pornography, on the other hand, usually has consent involved. Even if someone is over 18, if they do not consent to sexual acts (rape), that form of pornography is illegal. And in the same way, child pornography differs from pornography. That's why we have to illustrate that even if the porn depicts the children "enjoying" or "consenting" to the sexual acts, it is still illegal. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Specious argument, for the following reasons:

• Minors can and do give consent all the way up to age 17.999 (just go to any high school and poll the students), but such consent does not enjoy legal recognition. Claiming they can't give consent is a red herring having nothing to do with the necessity of a picture.
• You were originally arguing for an "obscured" picture or a picture of "an 18 year old with small tits", and now you're going on about the definition of child porn. Stick to the topic of this section. Why is it necessary to have a picture, non-representative of child porn as you proposed?
• You didn't really address the point that it's unnecessary.

I say again, if you want an actual picture depicting child porn, you can obtain it legally by generating realistic 3D images of virtual children engaged in sex acts. Go ahead; you can make it look as appropriate for this article as you want, and then attempt to gain consensus. Beyond that, I don't see the point of this discussion. =Axlq 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Please don't obfuscate. You know I clearly meant legal consent.
2. I never said to have a picture non-representative of child porn. Also, the picture does not have to be child pornography to be included in this article. It only has to be related to the topic of child pornography.
3. It is entirely necessary, WP:GRAPE, Abu Ghraib prisoner torture and abuse, etc.
4. I don't want an actual picture depicting child porn. I'm not interested in that kind of stuff when I have real little girls at my disposal, as well as women of legal age. And I don't mean that for sexuality; it's more of a lolicon eroticism. In any case, my own sexual preferences have NOTHING to do with this article whatsoever. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not the one obfuscating. You know that the legal age for consent is an arbitrary boundary unrelated to the necessity of having a picture.
2. If you can come up with a picture "related" to child porn that doesn't explicity show it, go right ahead. However, a picture that doesn't illustrate the idea will be reverted as irrelevant, as it has in the past.
3. WP:GRAPE isn't official policy. It isn't even a guideline. It's just an essay. It also does not indicate necessity. Furthermore, that article suggests we have a real picture of child porn, not something else that you describe above.
4. Nobody here mentioned your sexual preferences; they are irrelevant. And a picture depicting child porn isn't needed either. However, I will agree that pictures help articles. A picture (even 3D virtual rendering) of a child in an arguably erotic but otherwise unrevealing pose might serve the purpose. You are welcome to find one. I think anything else would probably be reverted as irrelevant to the article. -Axlq 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF?!What part of CHILD PORN dont you get.This does not need no pictures. If you dont know what porn is you have a problem.

NEVER WILL I ALLOW A PICTURE OF NAKED KID ON THIS DAMN SITE! I MAY BE NEW BUT I HAVE 0% LIKEING TO CHILD PORN FANS. SO NO PICTURES HERE IF SO MY ORGANIZATION WILL KNOW AND I WILL PERSONALLY TELL THE FBI AND MEDIA! sorry. --saikano 19:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This debate was not about putting pornography with actual children up; just read it and see. Your organisation can relax. Clayboy 19:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry, been away. The key is to put up pictures that are "attempting" to depict child porn, pictures that actually depict child porn are illegal(atleast in Canada). This type of porn is available everywhere. The article can explain, why this particular photo is legal, it can explain numerous other details(popularity of such porn, easy of access, money specifics, % of the porn industry etc). Saikano...I'm sorry your grammar is terrible, I didn't really understand what you were attempting to saying (and by the way, leave your tiny threats at the door). The reason we should want to post such pictures is for the further education of the public(that is what Wikipedia is all about, no?). It is just that simply. Stop the censorship folks, we will find legal pictures, and we will post them, and we will accompany them with reasons why they are legal. Who here has a problem with that?24.80.158.72 03:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone has a problem with that shouldn't be looking at this article in the first place.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Christ what a mess. What about the news, when BBC News has an article about child pornography they obviously don't show naked children but they certainly have pictures. Pictures of police raiding someone's house, closeups of computers when discussing internet porn, wideshots of school playgrounds to remind you it's about children, pictures of whichever peadophile the news report is about. Just because you personally don't want to look at naked children in a sexual manner doesn't mean you should have a massive row about how wrong it is in the talk section of a wikipedia page, go find a forum to rant.Simondrake 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some talked about putting 3D pictures, hentai, this sort of things, to illustrate legally the article. I guess it'a allowed in some American states, but it's not in France neither in United Kingdom. Please don't do this or Wikipedia will be banned in some free countries!Barraki 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's a good idea in principle to respect laws outside the US, that's still a bad argument against the inclusion of a picture that would be legal in the US. I understand Japan, Singapore, and other countries ban any depictions of adult genitalia, but that doesn't stop articles like penis and vulva from having pictures. I'm sure plenty of articles on Wikipedia would be illegal in other countries just due to content. So what? The English Wikipedia can only be expected to comply with the laws where its servers reside: the United States and Florida. See the last sentence in the paragraph WP:NOT#CENSOR. =Axlq 23:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg 24.44.96.29 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good (no pun intended). I'll add it to the article.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, it's not allowed. "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question,". Can't use it in this article. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole request of pictures of child pornography from Kirbytime seems trolling to me. This is not a surprise, considering Kirbytime is from Iran and has denied the holocaust. --Matt57 00:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 (contribs) has never edited this article, has never edited any articles relating to pornography, and most certainly came here through Wikistalking me using my contribs. He has posted the same message to numerous other articles I edit, as well as talk pages of users who edit articles he has never edited. Please ignore him. I don't deny the Holocaust, I have explained this many times, I am entirely against the concept of the Holocaust because of its Christian roots... etc. etc. etc. Matt, go back to editing Islam-related articles. Leave us in peace.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted link?

There is a whole bunch of external links related to and included in the definition. Yesterday I posted a link to the official website of a campaign against child pornography but it was immediately deleted. My entry went as follows:

• A campaign against online child pornography - one can join it by lighting a candle

I decided to browse all editions made by the person who deleted the link and it turns out that he has pedophile inclinations and even doesn't try to hide it. I just can't get over how can Wikipedia tolerate such openly pedophile views and do nothing to block users who openly promote and defend pedophiles... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bravehearted (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting or defending anything. But of course you are right that many of its editors are. Wikipedia policy tells us to treat editors promoting pedophilia in exactly the same way as people promoting their favorite band: delete or correct any biased or non-encyclopedic content, and treat notable, sourced, factual contributions just as if they came from anyone else.

I agree that this policy looks pretty useless when articles like this one are left in a hopelessly messy state for weeks on end, while a link with a genuinely benign purpose is deleted within minutes. But the fact is, the link you posted was not encyclopedic in nature. The fact that other non-encyclopedic links remain in the article is not a good argument for keeping one more.

Please be bold in correcting the imbalance yourself! As part of Wikipedia, you are as qualified as anyone to clear out the crap.

DanB†DanD 21:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, that first of all, there are no bad editors, only bad edits. (Well there are exceptions). If possible it's best, when evaluating an edit, not to give too much weight to the editor's history. As to the link, we do allow a fair amount of leeway in external links (as opposed to reference links). It's allowable to have links to advocacy sites; it's up to the reader to make use them as he sees fit, and presumably have the intelligence to take them with a grain of salt. However, the link you provided didn't have any information, biased or not, so it wasn't really a good link. Herostratus 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting Ptch

I am not sure if anyone knows about this, but pthc is also shorthand for Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiogram, a legitimate medical procedure. I duly believe that we need an ambiguity link for pthc, since I was expecting to get one and instead got redirect here. Why on earth does pthc redirect here anyway? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's probably one of those "secret" search terms discussed in this article a while back. The medical procedure is obviously more notable, and the child-porn search term hardly notable at all. We don't need a disambiguation page - just change the redirect. DanB†DanD 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?

Could someone please say specifically why the neutrality dispute tag is still there? I can't tell, either from either reading the article or the hopelessly vague comments above, what specifically is considered to depart from WP:NPOV. PurplePlatypus 19:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I checked and the tag was added in August of 2006 by an anon IP who only edited Wikipedia in that month. So it's really just an artifact, it appears, and should be removed. It can be re-added if anyone has a specific issue to bring up. Herostratus 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Examples

Given that wikipedia is not censored, can you post some expamples of 'child porn'. I've noticed this article lacks any pictures, while other 'porn' articles have pictures for example.--158.123.153.254 16:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Woudn't that violate the laws of where the severs is hosted?

no, and by the way if you looked up ^ we already discussed that issue lou.--158.123.153.254 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal or not I think it's just a very bad idea. JohnCub 17:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

HA! There is no reason for an ex. of child porn. What part of "CHILD PORN" dont you get? When we think Child Porn we think...CHILD PORN! so no never ever EVER!!! but if you get a number of people to say yes than i can get an ex.--Lolicon(Down With Child Porn)Saikano 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC) but i still say no!

THat's just..wrong. Perhas a psych consult might be of service to you. If Wikipedia did that..that would be illegal (Atleast according to US and UK law, not to mention seveal violations of the accepted UN Childrens Rights)..and immoral. - Tiger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.114.139.37 (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Personally, I think this picture from the Justin Berry article could be appropriate since he was a child pornography 'actor.' Not really because it adds to the article, but it would add a little colour to break up the text and end this picture debate. --58.165.228.23 13:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's copyrighted and wouldn't be fair use in this article. Herostratus 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of IRC and other less used mediums.

I think that a section should be added about the known use of child pornography rings of less-mainstream channels, such as IRC. It seems like DalNET and Undernet had big problems with these characters back in the late 90s and early 2000s before they started cracking down with the help of Federal and International authorities, and I think it's worth a note.

It's been well documented by both the FBI and Interpol that this is used commonly, as it is less common and less mainstream now adays than File sharing programs.

- Tiger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.114.139.37 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Citation Needed?

I added the citation. Read Ashcroft v Free Speech coalition. "The Ninth Circuit held the CPPA invalid on its face, finding it to be substantially overbroad because it bans materials that are neither obscene under Miller nor produced by the exploitation of real children as in Ferber." The supreme court upheld this ruling.

I don't see how you can add a citation needed tag right after the citation! The supreme court has clearly ruled that material that had no minors involved in its creation and is not otherwise "obscene", is protected speech.

Gigs 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Consent in canada

The age of Consent in canada is 14, but you need your parents signiture, aswell if one of the party is below the age of 18, the gap needs to be at most 4 years apart. Look it up, it's true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.31.215 (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the information. Do you have an official governmental website from Canada stating this, so that we can add it to the article? Thank you.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 05:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I was flicking through here while writing a paper, and figured I'd toss in the answer to your question, Kirby:

http://section15.gc.ca/en/dept/clp/faq.html

I've added it to the article. Really, it took me literally 10 seconds on google, you know. Cheers. Raeft 15:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(Non-pornographic) Images?

yeah yeah, I saw the above discussion -- I'm not proposing images of child pornography, obviously, but it seems to me that it would certainly be possible to post some type of graphic. I don't know if photos of convicted child pornographers would be allowable/relevent/appropriate; but how about charts? Any ideas for a relevent chart? Or, someone could post a map of the world, with colors indicated the severity of punishment for pornographers, or the legal age of consent, or something along those lines. I have some Photoshop ability -- if someone has a list of of this information I could create such a map.

I'm very visually-oriented, I think a lot of people are; any type of (non-pornographic) graphic on this page would be a good addition. Any other ideas? --70.17.209.58 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe we can borrow some pictures from pederasty.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything there which would improve the article; most seemed like they would confuse the issue by providing a misleading example. --TeaDrinker 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

TeaDrinker, what would be a good example then?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)