Talk:Simulated child pornography in the United States
(Redirected from Talk:Simulated pornography)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Simulated child pornography in the United States redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The subject of this article is controversial 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, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Simulated child pornography was copied or moved into Simulated child pornography in the United States with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Refocused page
[edit]The former Simulated child pornography article read too much like a dictionary entry, and had mostly references to the United States. As such I have refocused the page with material merged from Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors, as the United States section was growing large. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Knowledgekid87, if the topic of simulated child pornography mainly pertains to the United States because the literature does, then we should keep the article titled "Simulated child pornography," not move it to "Simulated child pornography in the United States." For example, the Wardrobe malfunction article focuses on the United States, but that's because the sources on it do. So we don't add Template:Globalize to that article or move it to "Wardrobe malfunction in the United States." See Talk:Wardrobe malfunction/Archive 1#Removal of Template:Globalize. Readers are likely to be confused by being redirected to the "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" article when clicking on or typing "simulated child pornography" into the search bar. Simulated child pornography goes beyond drawings. And this previous version of the Simulated child pornography article was not a dictionary entry.
- No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- It was a dictionary entry as anyone can look up Simulated child pornography and is too broad in scope. I took an article that was lacking in sources and focused it on the legal aspects of a country which has more information on the subject. An encyclopedic way of portraying information here is how the term applies worldwide legally. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Anyone being able to look up a term or topic and/or the topic being too broad in scope applies to a number of valid Wikipedia articles. We have articles on terms even though readers can look up the term; the key is to have the article go beyond a dictionary entry. We have broad-concept articles. An entry having a single lead sentence and discussing types, like this article did, does not make it a dictionary entry. We should have a "Simulated child pornography" article, even if it needs to be a stub, to clearly explain to readers what it is. Or it should be housed at a more appropriate target, such as being a small section in the Child pornography article. This would align with WP:No page. In that section, we could add a "See also" hatnote to point readers to the "Simulated child pornography in the United States" article. Right now, because of your edits, the "Simulated child pornography in the United States" article takes the time to explain what simulated child pornography is, but it's the "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" article that readers will be redirected to when they click on or type in "simulated child pornography." That term shouldn't redirect to the "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" article when that article is
only aboutmainly focused on drawn material. Readers shouldn't be left scratching their heads as to why we have a "Simulated child pornography in the United States" article, but not a "Simulated child pornography" article. I'm going to list this move in the " Requests to revert undiscussed moves" section at WP:Requested moves. I suggest that the "Simulated child pornography" article be reduced to a stub, and to then look on Google Books for material to expand the article with (for example, this 2013 "Pornography and The Criminal Justice System" source, from CRC Press, page 185), whether beyond the United States or in general. If it can't be expanded much beyond the United States, we'll just have to accept that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)- Flyer22 Reborn, what you need is actually a WP:HISTSPLIT. I have posted at WP:ANI requesting help from an admin. Both Simulated child pornography in the United States and Simulated child pornography should exist as separate articles with separate edit histories. We could also do a copy paste move to fix this but a WP:HISTSPLIT combined with {{Copied}} is cleaner. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs, I appreciate you looking into this. I listed this article at WP:Requested moves because I was expecting an admin to handle it. It might have been better for you to have left the listing there for an admin to tackle. As for having both a Simulated child pornography and a "Simulated child pornography in the United States" article, I'm not convinced that we should have both; this is per what I stated above about whether or not the the topic of (meaning the sourcing for) simulated child pornography mainly concerns the United States. With the split, there is now a duplication issue and the Simulated child pornography article will need to be made more general. If there is not much to state about it beyond the United States, it will need to be a stub or it should go the WP:No page route I mentioned above. Either way, I thank Swarm for taking on the moving aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I am open to hearing alternative titles for this article as it mainly focuses on the legal status. The information overlapping Simulated child pornography in the lead can also be removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Knowledgekid87, I'm not clear on what you mean by "mainly focuses on the legal status." I state this because so much about child pornography in general is with regard to the law. If you mean simulated child pornography's status with regard to whether or not it's legal, it can't be helped if that's what most sources focus on when it comes to the topic. I don't see that this article needs a different name. As for its lead, some of what is in the lead -- defining what simulated child pornography is -- would be better placed in the lead of/lower in the Simulated child pornography article. And, of course, that article's content needs to be changed because of the material you moved. It shouldn't simply be a smaller repeat of the "Simulated child pornography in the United States" article and some of what is in the " Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" article. Google Books has solid sources to help build the Simulated child pornography article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I am open to hearing alternative titles for this article as it mainly focuses on the legal status. The information overlapping Simulated child pornography in the lead can also be removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs, I appreciate you looking into this. I listed this article at WP:Requested moves because I was expecting an admin to handle it. It might have been better for you to have left the listing there for an admin to tackle. As for having both a Simulated child pornography and a "Simulated child pornography in the United States" article, I'm not convinced that we should have both; this is per what I stated above about whether or not the the topic of (meaning the sourcing for) simulated child pornography mainly concerns the United States. With the split, there is now a duplication issue and the Simulated child pornography article will need to be made more general. If there is not much to state about it beyond the United States, it will need to be a stub or it should go the WP:No page route I mentioned above. Either way, I thank Swarm for taking on the moving aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Flyer22 Reborn, what you need is actually a WP:HISTSPLIT. I have posted at WP:ANI requesting help from an admin. Both Simulated child pornography in the United States and Simulated child pornography should exist as separate articles with separate edit histories. We could also do a copy paste move to fix this but a WP:HISTSPLIT combined with {{Copied}} is cleaner. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Anyone being able to look up a term or topic and/or the topic being too broad in scope applies to a number of valid Wikipedia articles. We have articles on terms even though readers can look up the term; the key is to have the article go beyond a dictionary entry. We have broad-concept articles. An entry having a single lead sentence and discussing types, like this article did, does not make it a dictionary entry. We should have a "Simulated child pornography" article, even if it needs to be a stub, to clearly explain to readers what it is. Or it should be housed at a more appropriate target, such as being a small section in the Child pornography article. This would align with WP:No page. In that section, we could add a "See also" hatnote to point readers to the "Simulated child pornography in the United States" article. Right now, because of your edits, the "Simulated child pornography in the United States" article takes the time to explain what simulated child pornography is, but it's the "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" article that readers will be redirected to when they click on or type in "simulated child pornography." That term shouldn't redirect to the "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" article when that article is
- It was a dictionary entry as anyone can look up Simulated child pornography and is too broad in scope. I took an article that was lacking in sources and focused it on the legal aspects of a country which has more information on the subject. An encyclopedic way of portraying information here is how the term applies worldwide legally. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Reverted this move. Please, per WP:Requested moves, stop moving this article without it being an official WP:Requested moves request. This article includes a lot of material on simulated child pornography. This 2013 "Pornography and The Criminal Justice System" source, from CRC Press, page 185, is clear about what simulated child pornography is. It doesn't mention drawn pornography as part of the definition. So why should this article be called "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors in the United States"? As you know, this is also being discussed at Talk:Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors#WP:POVSPLIT and oversimplification of USA laws. If anything, all of the simulated child pornography material in this article should be removed or the article should be tiled "Simulated and drawn child pornography in the United States" or "Drawn and simulated child pornography in the United States." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Correction (since cartoons may be drawn): The source also says "Simulations may include cartoon obscenity." But it still doesn't focus on drawn pornography. I'll start a move discussion below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
+1 to removing all content that was originally sourced from Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors. If you want to expand on this specific topic, it might be best to spruce up the Simulated child pornography existing article, rather than creating one for specifically the United States. If there's no objection in a reasonable amount fo time User:Knowledgekid87, I will remove all the content originally sourced from Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors Tutelary (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- This is honestly becoming more of a hassle than its worth. I didn't think a routine split-off of content would cause this many waves. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I was okay with this article with the title
"Legal pornography depicting minors in the United States""Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors in the United States but User:Flyer22 Reborn moved the page back to this title, which is now original research. Flyer 22, what content on this page is solely about simulated child pornography? I see little mentions here and there, but nothing that would make me revert the page move back. Tutelary (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)- This article was not titled Legal pornography depicting minors in the United States; that's why that link is currently a WP:Red link. It was titled "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors," which is the title I moved it away from. I've already explained why I did so. Given what is in this article and what you've argued, I fail to see why you think that "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" fits when the article obviously discusses simulated child pornography as well. I am not stating that the article is solely about simulated child pornography; I am saying that it is mostly about simulated child pornography and somewhat about drawn pornography. If one wants to say that it's somewhat about both, then it's still about both. And as for cartoons? Depending on what one means by "drawn," cartoons are not automatically drawn. And the reliable source I've referenced above states, "Simulations may include cartoon obscenity." So, yes, simulated child pornography includes cartoons. To repeat, what I have argued is that either all of the drawn pornography material should be removed from this article and the article should stay titled "Simulated child pornography in the United States," or it should be renamed to indicate that it includes both simulated and drawn child pornography material if it's to include both. I'm fine with the article staying titled "Simulated child pornography in the United States" if the drawn pornography material in the article is there for context and is not excessive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- My mistake. That's what happens when you type the title so many times at once. I've struck my previous comment and replaced it with the proper title I was referring to.
to repeat, what I have argued is that either all of the drawn pornography material should be removed from this article and it should stay titled "Simulated child pornography in the United States...
| I agree with you on that part, and will be waiting another day or so for Knowledgekid's objections or another editor's objections, if not I will do so. I don't agree on the second part purely because I don't believe the split is necessary from the parent article, given the section only makes up 16 kb among other reasons already outlined. Though the removal of the content from "Legal status of drawn pornography" would make this article look a lot like Simulated child pornography, which I'm also not convinced there should be a country split from. Tutelary (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)- I'm not clear on what you mean by "Though the removal of the content from "Legal status of drawn pornography" would make this article look a lot like Simulated child pornography." Do you mean that it will be as short as that article? If you mean that it would essentially be another Simulated child pornography article, then where would the drawn material go? The "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" article currently includes material that is not limited to drawn pornography. It includes simulated child pornography material as well. So right now, its article is broader than its title. If we are going to cover simulated and drawn pornography in one article, we should be consistent with it. Either cover them together consistently and make sure that the article titles fit or cover them separately (only including content on both where necessary). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean that it will be as short as that article?
Yes, essentially, and perhaps a duplicate of that article at that point.If you mean that it would essentially be another Simulated child pornography article, then where would the drawn material go?
It would remain exclusively in "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors". The drawn material would remain in "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" due to me contesting the split for various reasons, but removed from this article. My statement was expressing concern what to do with this article once said content is removed, given it would look like a near duplicate of Simulated child pornography.If we are going to cover simulated and drawn pornography in one article, we should be consistent with it.
That's my exact opposite position the entire time. They are distinct topics, and should not be covered together in one article, but separate articles. That's why I don't agree with having content from "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" here. Tutelary (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on what you mean by "Though the removal of the content from "Legal status of drawn pornography" would make this article look a lot like Simulated child pornography." Do you mean that it will be as short as that article? If you mean that it would essentially be another Simulated child pornography article, then where would the drawn material go? The "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" article currently includes material that is not limited to drawn pornography. It includes simulated child pornography material as well. So right now, its article is broader than its title. If we are going to cover simulated and drawn pornography in one article, we should be consistent with it. Either cover them together consistently and make sure that the article titles fit or cover them separately (only including content on both where necessary). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- My mistake. That's what happens when you type the title so many times at once. I've struck my previous comment and replaced it with the proper title I was referring to.
- This article was not titled Legal pornography depicting minors in the United States; that's why that link is currently a WP:Red link. It was titled "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors," which is the title I moved it away from. I've already explained why I did so. Given what is in this article and what you've argued, I fail to see why you think that "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors" fits when the article obviously discusses simulated child pornography as well. I am not stating that the article is solely about simulated child pornography; I am saying that it is mostly about simulated child pornography and somewhat about drawn pornography. If one wants to say that it's somewhat about both, then it's still about both. And as for cartoons? Depending on what one means by "drawn," cartoons are not automatically drawn. And the reliable source I've referenced above states, "Simulations may include cartoon obscenity." So, yes, simulated child pornography includes cartoons. To repeat, what I have argued is that either all of the drawn pornography material should be removed from this article and the article should stay titled "Simulated child pornography in the United States," or it should be renamed to indicate that it includes both simulated and drawn child pornography material if it's to include both. I'm fine with the article staying titled "Simulated child pornography in the United States" if the drawn pornography material in the article is there for context and is not excessive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I was okay with this article with the title
- This is honestly becoming more of a hassle than its worth. I didn't think a routine split-off of content would cause this many waves. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This redirect does not resolve the simulated child pornography material in the Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors article and unsourced material such as "and concerns simulated pornography." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- This is something that should be moved and centralized at Talk:Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors as it appears to be an article wide issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- There is no need to move this discussion there. The talk page discussions that occurred here should remain here even if archived. I've already addressed the "note" piece at the talk page you've pointed to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- This is something that should be moved and centralized at Talk:Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors as it appears to be an article wide issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This redirect does not resolve the simulated child pornography material in the Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors article and unsourced material such as "and concerns simulated pornography." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 21 September 2019
[edit]Simulated child pornography in the United States → Simulated and drawn child pornography in the United States – Article is about both simulated and drawn child pornography. That stated, "simulated child pornography" may also refer to cartoon pornography; so perhaps the move is not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC) Could alternatively be called "Legal status of simulated and drawn pornography depicting minors in the United States", but I don't see a need for the longer title. I don't see why "legal status" is needed in the title (considering that so much about child pornography concerns legality), and I don't see why "child pornography" should not be in the title. Yes, child pornography may include a person as old as age 17, but it's still called child pornography. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - I see no difference between this split-off article and Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors. The only thing that was done was merge information in that article to create a separate article, so why would the title be any different? I support a return to Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors in the United States as discussed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- The difference, other than that article being broader (not focusing solely on the United States) and someone having conflated simulated and drawn pornography in that article's current lead, is that "simulated pornography" and "drawn pornography" are not automatically the same thing (as noted at Talk:Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors#WP:POVSPLIT and oversimplification of USA laws). It's why this section in the article states, "This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults." "Simulated child pornography" is the broader term, as it goes beyond drawn pornography, and it's what this article is primarily about. This article should either keep the current tile, for accuracy, or be moved so that it includes "drawings" in its title. It should not be moved to "Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors in the United States." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC) Updated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I oppose this move. They are two very distinct topics from one another. One would concern a drawn image of a nude Simpsons character, and the other would concern virtual child pornography that is virtually indistinguishable from real child pornography. I don't want these two distinct topics combined, given one has a much more clear legal status than the other. Open to discussing this, however. I also believe the content that was from Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors should be removed if "simulated child pornography" becomes the main title, or part of the main title for this article, given the stark differences between the two. Tutelary (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support move as proposed, per Flyer22 Reborn's explanations. Article definitely is about both simulated and drawn. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment It seems like this article, Simulated child pornography, and Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors, are talking about essentially the same thing, so barring any rescoping of these articles, the three titles should probably use consistent terminology. Note, for example, that Simulated child pornography has a subsection on "Cartoon images", and that various sections in Legal status of_drawn pornography depicting minors talk about photorealistic depictions (e.g. the sections on Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain). Colin M (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- This is because the majority of the content in that section for the USA was moved to this article, once it was named Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors in the United States. Given this is no longer the name, I have reverted the split on the parent page. Perhaps this will make it less confusing, given that Knowledgekid moved the majority of it to this page, and the compromise for my objection was the rename. Without the rename, including content from that page is WP:NOR. Nor do I believe that this suggested name change will fix things, because these are two distinct topics from one another, and should not be combined in the same article. Tutelary (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I've redrawn my proposal to rename the article for now, per discussion in the above section and this move request having barely gotten traction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)