Talk:Child pornography

This article was deleted by an administrator and restarted as a stub on 22:07 2007-05-28, due to the presence of a problematic search term. The result of the deletion review was to refer further disputes to ArbCom. Revisions prior to the first that contained the term may be restored.

False Information Under "Internet Proliferation"

Reading through this article I found the line "The NCMEC estimated in 2003 that 20% of all pornography traded over the Internet was child pornography..." This is such a ridiculous accusation (come on, people, there is a LOT of porn on the internet), I decided to follow up on the sources.

The NCMEC site the source of this line leads to says "Child pornography is illegal. The possession and/or distribution of child pornography is a federal crime. It is estimated that 20% of all pornography on the Internet involves children.$^{4}$" Source 4, at the bottom of the page, reads:

$^{4}$ Source: “Internet Sex Crimes Against Minors: The Response of Law Enforcement, November 2003. (Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, November 2003) page 3.

Which is a University of New Hampshire report, a copy of which can be found here: www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV70.pdf

The only time the number 20 appears on page 3 is "20% of all arrests... offender used the Internet to initiate a relationship to the victim."

Absolutely nothing on that page, or that I found in the entire report, claims what percentage of internet porn is child porn.

This may be the result of an internet-citation form of the game Telephone, and an authorized Wikipedia editor should trace this claim, verify it and fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.162.75 (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this the same thing that was discussed at /Archive 5#NCMEC Not a Reliable Source? If so then my statement there stands - if it's widely cited, then we need to include it with a mention that it's credibility is not up to much (ideally we should find a reliable source that discredits it to avoid original research problems. However if it's not widely cited then we should just get rid of it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The following link is dead and can be easily replaced,

38.^ Ryan C. W. Hall; Richard C. W. Hall (2007-04). "A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues" (PDF). Mayo Clin Proc 82 (4): 457–471. doi:10.4065/82.4.457. PMID 17418075. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8204%2F8204sa.pdf. Retrieved 2008-05-09. [dead link]

http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf new link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.194.167 (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

BIAS

Is't this article quite biased against child pornography? There are almost no arguments for legal child pornography, or for the ability of children to consent to such. I believe this article is extremely biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.104.112 (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it's written by Americans, who are obsessed with child pornography. In their eyes it's not biased, because child pornography is the biggest sin on earth...it's pointless to try to discuss it with them, it would lead to no effect. --Gadolit (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

Are there studies about the demographics of who the consumers of child pornography are? ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Photos

Why is their no photographs to help better explain it?