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)

It's not illegal in most countries, as it can be classified as artwork. However, in others it is, though it would be difficult to prosecute for.203.59.9.15 10:26, 15 May 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)

that is one of the most fucked up things i have ever seen. god help us. 06:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Would that website be considered illegal or legal I mean it's pretty gross. Does anybody know of those pics on that webstie are illegal or if the website all together is illegal cause if it is we need to get it down. Please respond on what you think. Michael74 02:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Caveat on the Introduction (and on western civilization)

Well you've got this currently:

Child pornography refers to pornographic material depicting children. The production of child pornography is widely regarded as a form of child sexual abuse[1] and as such these images and videos are illegal in most countries. Some outlaw only production, while others also prohibit distributing, possessing, and accessing child pornography[2]. Prohibition generally covers visual representations of sexual behaviour by children under a given age but may also include all images of nude children, unless an artistic or medical justification can be provided.

Maybe that's about as good as you can make it, but what of the rather bizarre peculiarlities of western television advertising? One is tempted to amend the last sentence as follows:

Prohibition generally covers visual representations of sexual behaviour by children under a given age but may also include all images of nude children, unless an artistic or medical justification can be provided, or unless a profitable marketing rationale is involved, such as an opportunity to promote a brand of toilet paper or other disposable paper-based products. (GOVERNMENT WARNING: While single-use paper products may be sold by broadcasting full motion video of unclothed children to all age groups without restriction, similar non-marketing images must NOT be printed ONTO paper products themselves; doing so without intent to advertise may be a crime.)

Why do marketers get this seemingly outrageous exception, and should Wiki articles point it out? Just wondering. Parsiferon 22:52, 25 August 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

PLEASE NOTE: User Kirbytime who started this section was warned and blocked for repeatedly requesting inappropriate pictures. See: User_talk:Kirbytime#Blocked_for_48_hour PLEASE NOTE: User Kirbytime who started this section is now banned indefinitly. See: User_talk:Kirbytime#Blocked_indefinitly

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)

Kirby, You are one sick fucker. May you rot in hell.

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♥<;font color="pink">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)

You don't get to disallow anything, because you are an insignificant moron. Read the policies, and come back when you can argue like a reasonable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.67.153 (talk) 13:21, August 28, 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)

PLEASE NOTE: User Kirbytime who started the above section was warned and blocked for repeatedly requesting inappropriate pictures. See: User_talk:Kirbytime#Blocked_for_48_hour

Comment Notable, legal pictures only. This is one article where examples for examples' sake don't serve any useful purpose. Remember, not only are there issues of criminal law and copyright, there are also issues of privacy and model releases. Be very careful if you put a child's face on an article like this unless the the picture has previously been in the media in a child-pornography-related article or the child or parents give permission. It might be taken down if the OFFICE gets a legal complaint. However, there may be some doctored-up pictures that are notable in their own right. A few years ago the FBI edited the victim out of a motel-room picture and released it to the media, resulting in the identification of the room and the eventual capture of the photographer. The edited picture was a motel room with a bed and a ghostly outline of a person on the bed where the Photoshop artist's work wasn't perfect. It's perfectly reasonable to put that picture on this page. Dfpc 15:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have like 3 hours to read every statement, but if someone is looking for a picture of this, I may have a LEGAL solution. I remember a while ago, the police discovered a child porn ring, and found a picture of an underage girl whom they needed to identify. They used a company (or someone) to airbursh the girl out of the picture, so that just the background was visible. The image was shown on t.v. and news channels. (they made her become transparent, but you could see the outline of a human figure) ...it turned out to work and somebody recognized the background as a suite at disney world. If someone could find that picture (I don't feel like searching for the words child porn) and post it here, then there could be a LEGAL picture. Or if someone who knew more about this article, they could add it to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.5.67 (talk) 21:04, August 24, 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 Pthc

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?

PLEASE NOTE: User Kirbytime was warned and blocked for repeatedly requesting inappropriate pictures. See: User_talk:Kirbytime#Blocked_for_48_hour

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)

As perhaps we have discussed before, there may be no good (that is both illustrative and legal) examples to include. I am struggling to think of the context which would allow inclusion of a image which is not porn which is still illustrative of the topic, however I think it would be ill advised, for all the reasons laid out previously on the talk page, to include pictures which are actually porn. I honestly don't see a solution which involves pictures. --TeaDrinker 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No pictures? Perhaps drawings then? The article needs something visual. A graph even.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of a graph showing the number of times you have trolled this way, and the length of the resulting thread each time. DanB†DanD 23:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA. I'm trying to improve the article per:

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

And also

3. It has images where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Fair use images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly..

The end. Just because some pictures are offensive doesn't mean that they shouldn't be displayed. Florida's laws permit Wikipedia to host pictures of simulated child pornography.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I seem to recall reading an article last year about the US government releasing images of child pornography from which the child had been digitally removed, leaving only the room and its furnishings in the image. IIRC, they did so in an effort to track down the location in which the pornography was produced, and thus possibly generate leads on the identities of the children in the pictures. These would be works of the federal government (and thus public domain), they'd be relevant to the topic, and best of all, they'd include no traces of children (real or fictional) and thus arouse no prurient interest from any parties viewing the article with bad intentions. The only problem is that I can't find the article I'd read with a casual search, and since I'm editing at work I don't want to put six thousand queries for "child pornography" in my browser history. Does any of this ring any bells with anyone else, and if so, does it seem like a possible solution? -Hit bull, win steak^{(Moo!)<;/sup> 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)}

You are thinking about Masha Allen, and one of the pictures can be seen here. Don't really know if that would be appropriate, but there you go. J Milburn 00:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like what I'm remembering (though it was Canada and not the US). Anybody have any opinions on this? I don't want to add it unilaterally, since this is kind of a touchy subject. The only other thing I could think of, image-wise, would be a cover scan or poster from one of the Color Climax films mentioned in the "Commercial production and distribution" section, though those would potentially be unsuitable if the cover includes any explicit images (and a scan might be hard to track down anyway, since they're now illegal to own privately). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: User Kirbytime who started the above section was warned and blocked for repeatedly requesting inappropriate pictures. See: User_talk:Kirbytime#Blocked_for_48_hour

I noted that, thanks. The notice on ANI is actually how I found this talk page in the first place. When I saw the circumstances, I figured that if we found and added an acceptable image of some sort while he was blocked, it might help prevent any future trolling along the same lines. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but if he trolls again, he will be blocked for a longer time. Probably no one except him wants to see any graphics for child porn. He should have been blocked indefinitely but maybe that will come later if he keeps repeating these requests. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably not the kind of images he's talking about, anyway. "Florida's laws permit Wikipedia to host pictures of simulated child pornography" is not a statement that's very conducive to A(ing)GF. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

CCC?

Why is there no available historical investigative material concerning the Colour Climax Corporation's production of Child Porn? Technically from a legal point of view CCC had the legal ability to produce Child porn in other countries and then distribute and sell it in Denmark without prosecution between 1969 up to 1980 before the introduction of Section 235 of the Danish Criminal Code. So in effect the Danish establishment allowed Child Porn to exist for almost 11 years. Why is there no books or historical studies on this shocking fact? Also the fact that section 235 did not become law until 1985 odds. So in effect there is almost 16 years of history that needs investigation here. Why has no one tracked down the founding members of Colour Climax to confront them with these points and issues? A lot of work needs done here.

Sounds like a project for you. Be bold. 76.186.98.67 19:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Child Pornography on the Internet Guide No.401 (2006) - New link with lots of references - go to it guys

I just added

• Wortley, Richard and Smallbone, Stephen, Child Pornography on the Internet Guide No.401 (2006). Center For Problem-Oriented Policing. Accessed April 24, 2007. Very thorough treatment of child pornography with extensive bibliography.

to the Further Reading section. If anyone has time please dig through this and use it to improve the main article. This link may also be relevant to other child-sexual-abuse Wikipedia articles. 76.186.98.67 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• It MIGHT be a useful document, or it might be a highly skewed representation of the subject. Is Wikipedia simply to toe the party line on any sensitive subject area now? lmno 03:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

UK law

The UK section mentions the increased age limit that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 brought in, but it's worth noting that there's an exception for married couples, to avoid the situation of married 17-year-olds not being able to take photos of each other. 86.132.142.181 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• If child pornography is inherently harmful, why does this exception exist? lmno 03:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Added "expert" tag - request to verify illegal-to-verify-first-hand statements

Statements such as "The age of the children being photographed or filmed and then made available for sharing or trading has become younger and younger to where videos and picture series of toddlers are more often encountered now." are all but impossible to directly verify without running afoul of the law and/or making the editor physically ill. Such statements need either a citation or a statement from a subject matter expert such as a police officer or scholar saying "this is true." A citation is of course preferred. Dfpc 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure law enforcement agencies can provide such information, no illegality needed.--Kirby♥time 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• In some circles there is a view that the police "sex up" this subject area with such claims as are mentioned above in a less than non-partisan way. lmno 03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. However, they won't unless someone in law enforcement sees it. "Expert" should raise the odds. Dfpc 03:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

revamp in progress??

The user User:Voice of Britain blanked the article without providing replacement content. If there is no good new article in a short period of time, the article should be reverted. In the meantime, I put up some notices and a link to the last full version. Dfpc 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The current form is very accurate, lets slowly build it up from scratch. I will add material today or tomorrow, I have plenty of studies regarding child pornopgraphy. There is no rush here, the article is atleast factually correct, which is more than we can say of the old version. Voice of Britain 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted the blanking. That's not how things are done in Wikipedia. If you think the existing article needs repairs please specify where you see problems. -Will Beback · † · 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is a mess and scares away any serious contributors. It may not be the intention, but its the effect. Voice of Britain 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Use your user page as a sandbox. Some users create new user pages with a name like User:Voice_of_Britain/Sandbox, others like me just use their main user space. See User:Dfpc for an example of a proposed replacement for Nudity and children. See Talk:Nudity and children for the announcement and discussion. Once I get a quality article written and there is consensus to replace the old one, or at least lack of an objection, I will replace the article. Consider doing the same on any other article you do extensive changes to. Not doing so leads to hurt feelings and edit wars. Dfpc 19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recommend that approach to this article. If you have a specific problem with specific text then please raise that issue so that we can edit this article collaboratively. Saying that the article is a mess and blanking it is not an acceptable approach in this type of article. -Will Beback · † · 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Social Perception

There has recently been some activity in this section, most of it revolving around the following text:

• The arrest was criticised in forum communities with some people saying that her constitutional right to express herself was violated and that child pornography laws were never intended to include such situations. One forum user claimed it was exploitation by police in order to find out who she distributed the photos to. There were some speculative allegations as to how police found out about the photos.

While this article is not as sensitve as a BLP would be, these additions have not been properly verified and cited. I'd suggest that it would be appropriate to remove them until such time as they are cited. Such unverified (and probably unverifiable) information is highly suspect and doesn't really belong with the factual entries. Doc Tropics 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't see what there is to verify. It's plastered all over. -PromX1 00:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's plastered all over what? Where is it plastered? I've never seen this info before. If it can't be cited properly, it should be removed. Doc Tropics 15:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: I didn't initially realize that the text had only been in place a few days. It's relatively standard to allow about a month for citing before any text would be removed. So, no rush yet, but it really does need proper cites. Doc Tropics 16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, would any of the various comments qualify as a proper citation? :/ -PromX1 17:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the first 30 (of 81), and couldn't find anything that related directly to this. Given those negative results, I'm not really hot to explore the other 51 in depth. Even a single cite would be sufficient, if it mentions this specifically and can be considered reliable (most forums and blogs aren't reliable sources though). Doc Tropics 18:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The main article page here is the one that I've not even considered reading, for some reason

Just because it seems wrong, somehow.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please edit. There are pro pedophile issues on wikipedia and any hands on deck would be very useful, SqueakBox 00:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit this article (I edit articles on many other topics), but I don't see why anyone would want to even be seen being associated with this topic on the Internet in any way whatsoever. Remember what happened to Pete Townshend a couple of years back?-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Because if someone doesnt stick their neck out the consequences for wikipedia are inevitable. Editing with a strong NPOV on these issues will not bring the type of troubles Townshend (for whom I have no sympathy) faced, if Esther Rantzen can do it so can we all but I hear what you are saying. Take a look at my contribs, SqueakBox 00:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Taken a look at your contributions. I suppose the thing with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit on the topics that they're interested in, but to some extent I'd avoid extremely controversial topics such as this one. I mean, I probably wouldn't edit articles about terrorists either (ironically a university lecturer of mine, a few years ago, once said that the most hated individuals in the UK press were probably pedophiles and terrorists, and I can see where he was coming from...)-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh so can I. I find this subject both tedious and distatsteful but after more than 2 and a half years as an editor here I have learny that editing what is important is more useful than editing topics we find interesting, SqueakBox 00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. By the way, I shouldn't have said "years ago" that my university lecturer told me that because it was only in 2004, and that implies I'm old, which I'm not.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Me neither (lol), SqueakBox 00:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, I would not even Google the title of this article in attempting to research the topic. I doubt this article is going to get to a good state because of the controversy surrounding searching for information on it online.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The hardest thing about editing this page (and related) topics is keeping your cool when someone comes along to "defend" the behaviour and insists that it be treated "fairly". Gah!!! Doc Tropics 22:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that is how it is! I would recommend that anyone who does get involved makes sure they have a good contribs track record as there is clearly no shame in promoting NPOV re these articles. But a cool head is a good idea as well, SqueakBox 22:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"I suppose the thing with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit on the topics that they're interested in..." HisSpaceResearch

One of the most precious things on Wikipedia is an editor willing to work on articles that he isn't interested in. Disinterested editors are always in demand. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 02:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is to distinguish disinterested editors from uninterested editors. An editor has to be interested enough to want to meaningfully contribute to an article (for anything beyond reverting or copyediting), while still being disinterested enough to avoid a conflict of interest and maintain the article's neutral point of view. Regardless of how wrong the vast majority of Wikipedians see the pedophiles' position as, it's going to be part of any neutral report on this topic. Similarly, other heterodox views on the subject should be included, but none given undue weight. This will only happen if the article is in the hands of disinterested editors.

We can write about murder, rape, or genocide without becoming tainted by our subject. Surely, we can do the same here. I look forward to the day when this article can describe child pornography as a historical anomaly that's been eradicated like an infectious disease. Until then, child pornography's moral evil does not negate its existence, and its existence requires that we cover it. --Ssbohio 03:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am TRULY fascinated to know that you don't even want to read the article. I now consider myself better informed about the world.lmno 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Restarted

I have nuked and restarted this article. Several hundred versions contained a keyword used to search for child pornography, labeled as such. This is obviously unacceptable. Because of the GFDL's requirement for article history, I could not keep a current version with that line deleted and just selectively nuke months of edits. So there's now a stub, and this article will have to be restarted.

The moral of this story is to edit with a sense of ethics and when you see idiocy like that immediately remove it and contact an arbitrator or steward to delete that edit. Phil Sandifer 22:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And you couldn't have cut & pasted the source of a good version before nuking it? Andy Mabbett 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. That would have violated the GFDL. If I used any old article text I would have had to preserve the history of the page that led to that text. Phil Sandifer 22:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We are doing our best Phil, and thanks. I'll keep you in mind in the futuire and yes the arbcom are aware of the general issues re this subject, SqueakBox 22:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I mean, I'd like to note, I'm sorry to see any good material in this article get trashed because of this. But, well, it had to be done. And editors on topics this contentious and potentially harmful need to be careful in the extreme not to hurt people. Phil Sandifer 22:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Need to be careful full stop, SqueakBox 22:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am still fairly inexperienced with Wikipedia, thus please forgive my ignorance. Is it possible to lock this article so that only certain users could modify it since it is so sensitive and there have been serious problems? Also, can the discussion page be re-started as well? It's difficult for me to know where to begin with so much text already in the discussion area. Has work already begun to re-write the article? Thanks. XOHottie 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It could be locked to stop new editors editing but I dont think it is necessary right now, SqueakBox 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not especially familiar with the oversight function, but couldn't the inclusion of that information and every subsequent edit have been oversighted, instead of destroying everything before that edit too? Atropos 06:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Would this so-called keyword have been "PTHC"? Or "Ray Gold"? They are the only ones I remember from previous incarnations of this benighted article, and they have become so widely known that they are probably about as useful to anyone searching out child porn as "lolita" or "schoolgirl". Further, they have been reported in news articles the world over (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=629047). Please stop being such pitiable prudes and show some objectivity. lmno 23:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Images?

Is child pornography just images or does it include video? Gaz 00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO vidoe too, we could link to video clips, SqueakBox 00:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends on country. In some countries you can go to jail for cartoons or wood carvings. Nandaba Naota 00:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The current version is an abomination in terms of NPOV, written entirely with information denying the damage of child pornography. Phil Sandifer 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't even talk about effects at all. Nandaba Naota 00:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently it mostly stresses that children often aren't coerced and that child pornographers are secretly good and upstanding folks. Phil Sandifer 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that? The article does not state that so is this your personal opinion? Nandaba Naota 00:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Riegel 2004

It has since been removed, but just to salt the earth about its return, the Riegel 2004 reference is a letter to the editor about a internet survey. It is highly marginal as a source, and in its previous use streched what even that work attempted to quantify. --TeaDrinker 01:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

This has been discussed many times on the talk page, generally with the consensus that images are inappropriate. Well, I guess it is that time again; they're back to being added and reverted. eg. [2] (There are two images, a painting of nude children and a photo by Lewis Caroll of Alice in Wonderland fame.) My objection: if these were examples of porn, well then we should not include them if only to keep on the right side of the law. If they're not porn, then they don't belong in the article. My view, no pictures which may be construed by some as porn should be in the article. Additionally, as is the standard for controversial edits, I suggest we reach consensus before making the change. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 07:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The images were added by a new user, and one of the edit notes was "One more for User:Kirbytime". Now trying to add Alice to Lolita pornography. Nuff said. -Jmh123 07:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you really want pictures of nude children there's enough of them floating around on smtp and NO most of them are not cp. For something to be considered child pornography it has to be sexual in nature and posed so candid shots are automatically not cp. Not against the placing of nude children even if ones nudity is someone else's pornography but if it's not cp then I don't really see the point considering it won't have anything to do with the subject unless you want to illustrate what is not cp. Just my thoughts. Btw Lewis Carol is one of the forerunners if not the father of child pornography. -196.207.32.38 21:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• TeaDrinker is correct. If they're not porn, they're irrelevant, and if they ARE porn, then there's no reason to use them at all (for any reason, period). I've thought about what would work in this article if someone wanted to add an image, and I think that the following are the only reasonable options: a) An image of a historical figure involved in some way with child pornography. This might be a politician responsible for drafting significant child pornography laws, or a notorious child pornographer (such as Richard Steve Goldberg), or even someone like Traci Lords who has spoken about their involvement in the industry after the fact. b) A pornographic image that has been edited by law enforcement bodies to remove all pornographic content, such as the Masha Allen "empty room" images discussed earlier on this page. c) A logo or example of promotional material from one of the companies that legally produced child pornography prior to the enactment of the relevant statutes, provided that said image includes no nudity or pornographic content (I cannot stress that last point strongly enough). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

CP Investigation

Just a thought - I looked on this page to get some information on the investigation of child pornography. Unfortunately, there's no info on this, but don't you think it would be a worthwhile heading, perhaps highlighting some efforts to investigate and prosecute perpetrators and rescue victims, as well as discussing some of the difficulties in doing so? 83.71.89.135 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - thought I was signed in. Above comment is by me, Blaise Joshua 14:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

At least some of it is covered in Category:Child pornography crackdowns. Lectonar 15:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the term "depictions" needs to be defined with regards to legal and illegal child pornography. In the United States, written depictions are protected. Lolita has not been banned yet! Illegal child pornography involves the exploitation and abuse of real children, not fantasy ones. No real children are harmed by print in a book, no matter how crass the descriptions. Rory Helm 06:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal status internationally

I was astonished to find out that child pornography is apparently legal in Japan, or at least it was in 1997:

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/japan.htm

There is no law prohibiting child pornography in Japan. 5000 pornographic films are approved each year by an ethics commission composed of major representatives of studios. Japan's obscenity laws require pornographers to blur out pubic hair and genitals. 1,000 illegal pornographic, that do not blur the genital regional, are produced in Japan each month - 35 new titles a day. Media Jack Productions makes 500 approved pornographic videos a year and makes US$31.7 million ("An industry seen through the eyes of one pornographer," Christian Science Monitor, Cameron W. Barr, 2 April 1997) & (Director Mitsuhiro Shimamura, "Pornography Easy To Find in Japan," Joseph Coleman, Associated Press, October 1997)

I don't know whether to trust the source (even to the degree of getting the quote or primary source correct) and I have no idea where to look to check this fact myself (and don't know Japanese) and Wikipedia has let me down here. This article needs a section on the legal status of child pornography. Or if there already is such an article, it needs to be put in [[Caregory:Child pornography]] or named something better (or both.)

I'll try to add something on this myself if I can, but would like to perhaps request help from those more knowledgeable, first. --Sapphic 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to get a better source than uri.edu as it could just be a student. A ggood source and we'll add it but a not good source will be deleted as such, SqueakBox 23:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we actually doubting that the legal status of child pornography varies in different jurisdictions or are we merely doing the tired old "well, I'm ignorant about this fact, so I have to have a footnote"-tirade for the umpteenth time?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Please bring any massive or major changes here before implementing them, adding 46,000 bit changes without getting consensus fiorst is not reasonable, SqueakBox 00:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is. I have removed none of the previous material. Stop removing sourced material from articles. ●Farenhorst 00:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding 46,000 bits of material is not consensus, doing it on your own with no support and definite opposition. The article you are creating is much worse. Material being sourced doesnt mean we have to accept it merely because of that, SqueakBox 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You do not require consensus to add material, and the amount of material bears nothing on whether you have consensus or not. Saying that the amount of material plays a part in its validity (to incorporate without asking) devalues or overvalues that material. I am far more concerned with editors who seem hell bent on ripping the guts out of articles that they don't like. And as you can see, I have been supported by one other editor at the time of writing.

Also, sourced material doesn't have to be accepted, but it should at least stand, until it has been argued out on a talk page. In this sense, you are not God or Jimbo Wales. ●Farenhorst 15:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What your sock? That isnt another user. And given that you have been banned on so many occasions but not only keep coming back but doing so in a highly aggressive and unpleasant manner this issue clearly isnt going to be resolved just because you can use sock or meatpuppets, etc, SqueakBox 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The new version is appalling, the shorter version doesn't defend child pornography as something good and therefore while some material like the legal material could be re-added overall the newer version is appalling. Why was it changed, the shorter version has been there ages.Pol64 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It was changed because apparently a pro-pedophilia group is working to insert their propoganda into articles. --YellowTapedR 05:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, could you stop throwing around unfounded accusations? We've gone through this before, and it's only going to have a negative outcome for you. The material that you are disputing was, if I understand correctly, removed due to a single search term (r><@><ygold). The fact that you now oppose it stronger than ever because of the content shows that you are willing to attack material based on who has supported or inserted it as opposed to the material itself. And even those personal assertions are unfounded and donright uncivil. Please stop playing dirty. Samantha Pignez 17:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)