This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theChild pornography article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
The subject of this article iscontroversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article,be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them.Content must be written from aneutral point of view. Includecitations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
While you mayconsider this article depressing or disturbing, please remember this page is only for discussing improvements to the article.Wikipedia is not censored, and articles must meet certain standards.
Per Wikipedia'schild protection policy, any editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be indefinitelyblocked.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofhuman sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for thelegal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcrime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve toprovide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
This article was nominated fordeletion review on 26 August 2007. The result ofthe discussion was refer further disputes to ArbCom. Revisions prior to the first that contained the term may be restored..
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Add this to the Distribution and receipt section:In 2023, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s CyberTipline received 36.2 million reports of suspected child sexual exploitation, an increase of 12% from 2022.(Redacted)
Just wanted to add my support for this article to be moved to "Child sexual abuse material".
Multiple sources have already been shared above, I'll add one: Task Force Argos, an Australia police unit, clearly explains that "porn" is made between consentent people. Speaking of "child porn" (with children or even infants) completely inaccurately reflects that the children have been abused.
Law in United States§2422. Coercion and enticement(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.
You have not said what change you are suggesting be made to the wording of the article. Exactly what text, if any, do you wish to see added to the article, and what text, if any, you wish to see removed?JBW (talk)23:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We all know Wikipedia has the ability to redirect when someone uses another term. You can do the same thing here.
Change it to Child Sexual Abuse Material or split the article between consensual age-appropriate child to child material and non consensual/abusive. The former only makes up 1/3 of "child pornography" so why not split it out for clarity?Ieditthethings (talk)21:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURO and WP:IGNORE I think there is a case to make an exception to the common name. We don't need to treat WP:COMMONNAME as gospel (for example, Wikipedia's policy against deadnaming, even if more sources use the dead name). CSAM (the words it stands for) seems to be more commonly used in place of CP, and it might make people who want to read this article more likely to under a more palatable name. I don't see any issue with making this current topic a redirect and moving this article to CSAM. I also don't think this would be considered censorship, either, since CSAM is arguably a more comprehensive term than CP.ThePoggingEditor (talk)06:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is theDepartment of Justice,Internet Watch Foundation, andTHORN all arguing that calling it "child porn" isnolongerappropriate. For those who don't want to actually read, the common agreement amongstliterally any organization that regularly deals with the issue is that "childporn" doesn't exist. Porn is a lawfully made piece of entertainment for adults over the age of majority. Child sexual abuse material is inherently criminal, immoral, and illegal to consume almosteverywhere anywhere on the planet. Leaving the name as is continues to conflate the two. Child sexual assault material is inno ways comparable to porn.
Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. If Wikipedia editors want to literally argue against experts on the matter, have fun with that and open a new discussion. Until then, it's time for the name to change.Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk)23:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here's theInternet Watch Foundation andInterpol literally making the argument that keeping the name child pornography is actively harmful to those who are victims of it.
Porn is a legal piece of content that those over the age of majority watch. CSAM is explicitly illegal overalmost the entire world (what the hell the Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Somalia, and Dominica have going on, I don't know, but since they have roughly 0.4% of the world's population, I feel comfortable with my hyperbole). It's time to change the name of the Wikipedia article to reflect what "child porn" really is: evidence of a horrible crime against a child that will continue to affect it's victims until the day they die.
Support but you need to calm down. We need to be as neutral as possible when doing any editing on Wikipedia, and right now your emotions seem to be guiding your judgement. I'm sorry if this subject is personal to you, whether something happened to you or a close one, but nobody wants to participate in a discussion thread if people think you might be a ticking time bomb that they need to tip-toe around. We're all old enough to know that CSAM/CP is bad; that's not the debate. If you can't have this discussion calmly, you probably aren't ready to discuss triggering topics like this.ThePoggingEditor (talk)00:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, my tone was the result of just coming off a VERY long day of work and errands after, but I appreciate the point. I was monitoring a page I had added some info to (Washington Hebrew Congregation), which mentions CSAM, realized that it was a redirect to the current page, which I thought a little off. Glad you support though!Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk)01:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no evidence of any change since the last two RMs. "Child pornography" remains, for better or worse, the common name in reliable sources and is far morerecognizable to the general public. To get a sense of usage in scholarly sources,JSTOR has 6,191 results for "child pornography", 108 for "child sexual abuse material", just 1 result for "child sexual assault material", and 314 for "CSAM".Google Scholar has 82,700 for "child pornography", 5,670 for "child sexual abuse material", 27 for "child sexual assault material", and 39,500 for "CSAM".Google Ngram shows that "child pornography" is dramatically more common in books and has been for decades. While I sympathize with the reasons why some organizations call for different terminology, it has not taken hold. The proposed alternative sounds euphemistic and even sanitized to many ears, despite reasonable objections to the term "pornography" here. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)01:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say thatWP:COMMONNAME isn't and shouldn't be an absolute, given 1) literal evidence that keeping the name contributes to harmful beliefs about the existence of child "porn" and 2)WP:IGNORE, 3) I've yet to see solid reasoning against the move beyond COMMONNAME, and 4) I've also not seen anyWP:RS disagreeing with my point 1. Therefore, I think it'd be better to ignore WP:COMMONNAME and move the page. If you (and others) disagree I'd understand, but so far, I heartily disagree with your reasoning for keeping it.Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk)01:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator provided inconsistent information in the{{requested move/dated}} template and the proposal suggestion shown below it, both regarding word choice and capitalization. That should be corrected, since it is unclear what is being suggested. — BarrelProof (talk)02:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I checked the three links provided in the nominating statement; none of them use the word "assault" in their terminology. They use "abuse", not "assault". That may indicate an inadvertent error in the proposal. — BarrelProof (talk)06:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very clearWP:COMMONNAME. Don't really care whether the proposer cares about it or not. That is our main standard for article naming and we don't make exceptions because someone doesn't like a title. --Necrothesp (talk)11:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RM is probably not going to pass, and I don't think titling it thus would be consistent with our practices, but what about having the alternate names in bold as per (one of the other options in)MOS:LEADALT (for example,Child sexual abuse material (CSAM), colloquially [or commonly or something else] known aschild pornography)?Alpha3031 (t •c)13:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this wording and variations thereof.Child sexual abuse material (CSAM) should be bolded in the lead but we should not 'demote'child pornography unless and until there is strong evidence that the term has really fallen out of use, at which time I would expect an RM to be more successful. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)14:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would not surprise me if the term CSAM became more often used academically and officially by govt and new sources than CP (usage seems to be rising), so even if this move doesn't happen, I could see a move happening eventuallyThePoggingEditor (talk)15:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I see some evidence of a change in recent sources. My sense is that we aren't there yet but I have not done a thorough assessment. An argument based on usage in the best sources might also be persuasive but it would need consider more than just a handful of government and POV sources and would be bolstered by evidence of a significant increase in sources overall. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)15:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm content to support this - new to proposed moves, what's the next step? Do we leave this open a few more days just to make sure anyone gets a chance to comment, or should we close it and make said edit a few hours from now?Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk)15:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:RMEC, you cannot withdraw the nomination because there is one 'support' !vote. @ThePoggingEditor may be willing to strike their !vote as a procedural matter to allow for withdrawal. Otherwise, we leave it open and unless there's a dramatic change it should close as 'not moved' after 7 days, and someone may come along and close it early based on the discussion thus far.* As for re-presenting the RM in the near or distant future, if there is a desire to do so, I would suggest first workshopping the proposal in a new thread on this talk page after this closes.*(There are other options to escalate a request for speedy close or other intervention but this is not the sort of disruptive discussion that requires such actions.) —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)15:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A strikethrough of, at least, the word 'Support' would be the normal way to indicate this. Sometimes people will self-reply with a new bolded !vote saying 'Procedural close' or 'Oppose to allow withdrawal' or something along those lines. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Done.svg)
