Talk:Internet child pornography/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Text from "Votes for deletion"

  • User:Cyan/Internet child pornography - this article was deleted prematurely, so I undeleted it and moved it to my user space. I have a feeling this one may become contentious, so let's do the commenting at User talk:Cyan/Internet child pornography -- Cyan 22:50, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Since the article no longer exists in either the normal wikipedia article or your talk page, we might as well delete this entry in the VofD page. User:Raul654 23:31, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Um, it is still available at the above link, as far as I can tell. I prefer this listing to remain here, so that people realize that a deletion debate is going on. -- Cyan 03:58, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Please note that the discussions and vote are currently taking place at User talk:Cyan/Internet child pornography rather than here. -- Oliver P. 08:32, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Since this is out of article space, let's delist from VfD. When/if it goes back into article space, someone should relist. Martin 20:21, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Article on abuse or Article promoting abuse?

Why is an otherwise good article effectively promoting child abuse, and violations of many national laws? This article starts out by describing child pornography, and the spread of child pornography to the internet. Fine. We need an article on this immoral crime. But then this article does somthing horrifically irresponsible, and actually gives instructions on how to obtain child pornography for themselves! What is going on? Should our articles on biology also give terrorists information on how to make and distribute biological weapons, in the name of "intellectual freedom"? Should our articles on chemistry also give terrorists information on how to make and distribute chemical weapons, in the name of "intellectual freedom"? I think the radical left wing culture of Wikipdia is showing a problem here; too any people believe in absolute and total freedom, yet seem to have no idea of responsibility. The two, however, go hand in hand. Civilized people have a responsibility to make it difficult for sick people to spead and obtain child porn. And aiding and abetting others in doing so is a Federal offense in the USA and most European nations. Teaching others how to access child pornography, as a part of this article does, will only increase its viewing, and increase the trade in photos of abused (and sometimes raped) children. This needs to be corrected. RK 14:19, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a howto

This article certainly needs to be corrected to avoid the appearance of it being a "how to", given that "how to" articles are in any case deprecated on Wikipedia. Various folks have started on this, but more needs doing. Martin 14:24, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

More text from "Votes for deletion"

  • Internet child pornography
    • An article with a troubled history, this has previously been listed on Vfd for seven days with no consensus to delete, but the fact that it had been outside the article space during the discussion period may well have prevented people from realising that its status as an article was being seriously debated. Now that I've moved it back into the article space, perhaps we should start all over again. (Please could people not, in future, move articles out of the article space before their status has been decided. It does nothing but cause confusion. Thanks.) -- Oliver P. 08:00, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Get rid of it. It reads like a 'how-to' to an audience of pedophiles. --mav 10:36, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, but remove "how to " material (including removal from history). Andy Mabbett 11:34, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The question of "delete versus disinfect" has been extensively debated before, but attempts at removing the "how-to" character of the whole thing have not gone very far. It it is not radically rewritten it can not stay. Kosebamse 11:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • If the comments and questions in bold inside the articles were followed, it wouldn't be a bad article. At18 12:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I would propose keeping this article. It still needs editing, but there's much valid content here, and we don't delete articles just because they need work. Martin 13:46, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. We have a whole page of How-tos. If we have them in principle, we might as well have this; making an exception on the basis of the subject would be POV. --Wik 15:55, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
      • How-to content of this nature could well be illegal in many countries, free countries, that Wikipedia has a strong user base in. Don't kid yourself that we can't treat this case differently if we want to. Pete 17:28, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • copyedit and keep; otherwise delete JDR
    • It needs editing to make it no longer a "how-to", as do all the other "how-to" articles. (No exceptions!) But that means it is a page needing attention, not deletion. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move any salvageable content to child pornography, and redirect from this article to there - may be a way to remove the how-to nature. A problem with this article is that few people seem to want to edit it as they don't want their name associated with the topic.
    • Remove the how-to stuff: currently reads like a POV article encouraging illegal activities. Bmills 10:04, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Could use some editing, especially along the lines others above have suggested; but appears to be a serious attempt to prodiuce an article on a real subject, so keep - Marshman 23:30, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • It is a serious subject so we need an article on the subject, but the 'how to' stuff needs to be deleted permanently, it gives me the creeps. This is not a subject matter we need maintain NPOV upon.
      • Yes it is. Anyone can be neutral on the easy stuff. The test of our neutrality is in using a neutral point of view even where it is difficult. Martin 23:46, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I meant that you we don't have to be neutral about including 'How to' material in the page history. This should be deleted. As regards the article I meant that it is NPOV to condemn child pornography, the tricky question is at what age does a child stop being a child, and what photographs are actually pornography. : ChrisG 15:05, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. People have tried to fix this, but it just isn't happening. It's best just to clear the slate. --Minesweeper 23:41, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)