Talk:Child pornography

Moving to Child sexual abuse material

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.

https://play.listnr.com/podcast/disclosed

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/cbc-podcasts/387-hunting-warhead

LexisVD (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This has already been discussed twice before. You can read the two discussions . Badbluebus (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

And? The term is losing its popularity. Wikipedia can redirect. It's time to make the change. Ieditthethings (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Strong support it's the right thing to do Masterofcapacitors (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Strongly support per @Masterofcapacitors ItsRadeZ 19:20, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2026

This part: "Child pornography (CP), also known as child sexual abuse material (CSAM)" Should be changed to "Child pornography (CP), also professionally known as child sexual abuse material (CSAM)" ~2026-37997-11 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Multiple governments use CSAM or adjacent terms. ItsRadeZ 19:22, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

RfC to change the article's title to "Child sexual abuse material"

Should the title of the article (in the most effective manner possible) be changed from "Child pornography" (which includes implications of consent children do not have) to the far more accurate "Child sexual abuse material"? This is an attempt to establish an up-to-date consensus on a better common name for it.

ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 21:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@ShawnIsHere: This is not an RfC matter. Please use the potentially controversial moves process. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I honestly felt that it would not be controversial. I will re-file this soon. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 17:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The section begins "Should the title of the article (in the most effective manner possible) be changed ...". If you feel that you need to ask, it's potentially controversial. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Not today. This all is cryptically worded and it lacks good reasons why, other than to say "the far more accurate" name and "a better common name". The reply to previous move requests above say that unsupported move requests are not the way to go. ("please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request".) It stays put until there's a reason to move. But you've already progressed to a new move request anyway (below). I've moved my objection there. -A876 (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus against moving Child pornography to Child sexual abuse material as the nominator has failed to show that the majority of sources use the proposed title. Participants also disagreed with the claim that "pornography" implies consent. (closed by non-admin page mover) — 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:53, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Child pornography → Child sexual abuse materialChild sexual abuse material – Earlier, I attempted to use a request for comment to establish a new consensus on changing title of the article and common name (in the most effective manner possible) from "Child pornography" (which includes implications of consent that those considered children do not have) to the far more accurate descriptor "Child sexual abuse material" that is being used by more and more organizations.

As it was advised that this could be considered "potentially controversial" by another Wikipedian, I have elected to re-issue the attempt to establish a new consensus under the advised process.

References

-ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 17:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this just an attempt to prevail by simply persisting? See Talk:Child pornography/Archive 7#Requested move 16 December 2023, Talk:Child pornography/Archive 7#Requested move 16 August 2024, Talk:Child pornography/Archive 7#Requested move 12 November 2025, Talk:Child pornography/Archive 7#Move review: CSAM, Talk:Child pornography#Moving to Child sexual abuse material, and Talk:Child pornography#RfC to change the article's title to "Child sexual abuse material". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  In fairness, ShawnIsHere was explicitly advised to file an RM and the November 2025 RM was a bit of a mess and was ultimately withdrawn. Most editors in November opposed a move but there was some indication that there might be a trend toward this usage and that a better-formed RM with a proper source analysis could be successful. I was actually expecting to see a repeat RM sooner. Unfortunately, @ShawnIsHere hasn't provided the depth and breadth of source analysis that is likely to be successful. I would suggest Shawn and anyone else supportive of a move at least read through the last two RMs and try to respond to some of the key objections. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with @Myceteae on the point regarding I do believe the previous RM was a very noisy one and one that ended far too soon in that regard. As for the lack of depth on my initial post, I confess I was trying to be bold in my own way and was more concerned with getting what I had jotted down first.

  Looking over what @BarrelProof has kindly linked in their response, I can see one of the biggest and most consistent objections from previous attempts has been the common name policy, specifically with the lack of scholarly articles found via the usual suspects (e.g., JSTOR). While I agree that it can be (and still appears to be when using the default settings), scholarly articles are not the only choice we have to determine a more accurate name.

  According to the common name policy above, we also have additional options such as major international organizations (see the link to Interpol above) and major English media outlets. Touching on the latter, a quick search of 'new york times "csam" -wikipedia' on Google shows more and more results as time has gone on during the past 8 months since the past RM alone. Additionally, both the BBC's and The Guardian's style guides have been updated, advising writers to avoid using the present title of this article.

  And that's not taking in account the increasing amount of governments and NGOs changing away from it as well, despite the slow changes to the text of the law, in their press releases (again, see above).

  ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 01:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

References

It may be worth noticing that neither of those style guides suggests to use (or even contains) the proposed term, and that one of them explicitly refers to the views of an advocacy organization as part of its policy considerations. These policy documents are policy-based, not merely observational. Moreover, all five of the links provided in the nominator's original rationale are either advocacy organizations or law enforcement organizations. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed! The two [British] news-reporting style guides last cited by the OP agree on avoiding [the commonplace] "child pornography", but neither one lands on [the much-touted] "child sexual abuse material"! They [almost] agree on the even-more-sensible "child sexual abuse images" (but that is plural; the singular "... imagery" might fit better). No universal answer. Must-read:

The terms child pornography or child porn trivialise the nature of what is criminal material. We should use other language such as “images that show child sex abuse” or “indecent images of children”. In headlines and/or summaries, [say] child abuse images. Similarly, “sex work” when applied to children or non-consenting adults should instead be referred to as “sexual exploitation”. – BBC style guide

Say child sexual abuse images or child abuse images rather than “child pornography”, “child porn”, and especially the tabloid “kiddy porn”. The NSPCC says that such terms give “a misleading and potentially trivialising impression of what is a very serious crime”, and favours the term "child abuse images”. – Guardian style guide

These selected terms that redirect to this page show 11 names that arose without the word porn[o[graphy]]:

• Child abuse images
• Child abuse material
• Child exploitation images
• Child exploitation material
• Child sex abuse images
• Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
• Child sexual abuse images
• Child sexual abuse material
• Child sexual exploitation material
• Depicted child sexual abuse
• Documented child sexual abuse A876 (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, not common name. Per previous discussions. Also, the idea that porn = consent is just untrue. Much of the porn industry relies on dubiously consensual, nonconsensual, or abusive practices, so saying that calling child porn "porn" is implying it is consensual is just untrue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Resist with extreme prejudice. I included my reply to your post with Barrelproof's ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 19:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

WALK AWAY! It still seems "early" to rename this article.

The "newer" term is already associated with this article. Child sexual abuse material redirects here, since 2016. The first sentence of this article is currently "Child pornography (CP), also known as child sexual abuse material (CSAM), ...". (As are 3 to 10 more terms or phrases that redirect to the page and are mentioned on the page!)

"Experts prefer the term", but does everyone use it? Or are they puzzled when they hear or read the term? "Child sexual abuse material" is VAGUE. What "material"? "Material" with which to sexually abuse children? ("toys", lubricants, "clothing", etc.?) Or "material" produced from that sexual abuse? (used "toys", used "clothing", and captured media such as videos, photos, audio files(?), and diaries(?)?)

Maybe someone will come up with a more sensible term.

Is "child sexual abuse material" the predominant term? Wikipedia can't drive a new term into general use; we report general use. (Though we can state misnomer aspects of the existing term and explain major alternative(s) that are being pushed to replace it.)

People and "organizations" put forth "possibly better" names all the time, for a variety of reasons and motives. Some of them "catch on" with some people and organizations. Honor killing (euphemistic), shame killing, honor murder, or how about even "honor" murder (complete with sarcastic quotes)? Suicide bombing, self-sacrificial blast, or murder-suicide bombing? Nuclear weapon (so vague, presumptuous, and non-descriptive) or nuclear explosive device? (Explode is what it does. Not all were weapons; some were designed and used for other purposes. It's not a "weapon" until it's deliverable and positioned to be delivered.) Knife or cutting weapon? Pistol or finger-activated killing machine? And so on. -A876 (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this is not an either-or question!

Many terms and phrases are in use. (4 to 11 terms or phrases redirect to this page and are mentioned on it.) And most seem variably defined, as mentioned here in this article. Example: An Australian man "pleaded guilty to five counts of transmitting child pornography material and two counts of transmitting child abuse material". (Referring to the photos and the text describing himself having sex with Thai children, which he sent via SMS from Thailand.)] -A876 (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, the proposed new name is very technical and not particularly common in everyday language. The intent of adopting this newer term is good, but can sound like a socially-motivated dysphemism. I have never heard that CP implies consent in any way; that sounds like quite a fringe definition. In professional settings, the two terms are not interchangeable because CSAM, by its name, implies a real child was involved, which leaves out purely fictitious material such as text or drawings. Fictitious material remains relevant in clinical settings in relation to the diagnosis and management of patients, regardless of legality or the uncertainty of it being a risk factor for real life offending.Legitimus (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreeing to oppose: The name of the article should be the term that people use for it: the words that humans speak or write when mentioning it; the words that we recognize it by (according to reliable sources). It is NOT NECESSARILY the term that ten or a hundred agencies, organizations, or "authorities" say it "really is" or deem "official". It is NOT NECESSARILY the term that ten or a hundred "reliable sources" (authors, as-filtered by editors and publishers of journals, books, and other media) have chosen (perhaps under pressure) to SPECIFY or USE in their output. Those pushing the new term seem to be jamming "re-education" into it, always "correcting" the old term. They want to build explicit horror into the new term (for something already known to be a horror). The new term seems redundant, stilted (condescending), and pedantic. Those trying to impose it seem pompous and arrogant.

Semi-correction: Definitions of CSAM vary and contradict over virtual. A DHS glossary says it's "Any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a person less than 18 years old." A DOJ statement also doesn't mention fake images at all. Despite that requirement of "a person", An FBI IC3 PSA says "realistic, computer-generated CSAM is legally indistinguishable from material depicting real victims." (That would save a lot of effort prosecuting - no need to prove that it shows actual "conduct" (abuse) if it is realISTIC enough.) (But HOW realistic is "realistic"?) (What about a realistic oil painting or sculpture of an imaginary scene? What about words describing such an imaginary scene? (Thoughtcrime anyone?)) "Many state jurisdictions ... explicitly criminalize AI-generated VCSAM." -A876 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Severe Rebuke and Retort for @Legitimus - As mentioned in the warning, this is about establishing a consensus the re-titling of a page, not to push agendas regarding virtual CSAM, and certainly not to push slanders and/or libels accusing myself (as the OP) of claiming that child pornography implied consent when I was saying pornography (as involving adults) implied consent.

- ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 20:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

To "Rebuke" anyone here is not appropriate. There is no lectern.

"Retort" - where is it?

"... in the warning" - to what "warning" are you vaguely referring to?

Your exact words were ≪"... Child pornography" (which includes implications of consent that those considered children do not have) ..."≫. It seems as though you haven't read them.

... slanders and/or libels accusing myself (as the OP) ..." 1) That is incorrect usage of "myself". 2) You know what slander and libel are, right? 3) They don't need pluralization. 4) They don't go with the verb "push". 5) No one "accused" you directly or indirectly; they said they they never heard the idea of what you plainly said. You accuse. Wrongly. Trying to don the "victim" robe?

I knocked down one of Legitimus's objections, stating that the FBI insists that the new term does include CGI "photos" and "videos" just the same as the old term.

For you, "this is about" you getting this article renamed to an uncommon, spiky yet vague new name that officials are trying to dictate.

"This is about" finding a consensus on whether the article remains "Child pornography" or gets renamed to "Child sexual abuse material". A876 (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I've done an initial search of news sources and it does appear usage is changing. Using "child sexual abuse material" site:nytimes.com and "child pornography" site:nytimes.com to search Google and restricting results to the past year, The New York Times has 107 hits for "child sexual abuse material" and 51 for "child pornography". I repeated the same for BBC.com and got 154 hits for "child sexual abuse material" and just 25 hits for "child pornography". These are just two sources and I did not dig into individual articles to assess how these terms are used. Additional source analysis would be helpful. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Resist: Can we get from these wonderful reliable sources reliable knowledge of the term or expression that people use for it? Do we only care what the editors and publishers of newspapers journals and books allow their authors to call it, possibly under pressure from government agencies and private organizations? Maybe dictionaries take more care to know the terms that people use. Maybe we should look there more than asking Google what NYTimes and BBC say. -A876 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, that is what I was saying in regards to using more than dictionaries and article aggregators such as JSTOR. Under the common name policy, English-language media organizations that meet the project's standards (yes, even the BBC and New York Times) can, should, and must be consulted as well.

- ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 22:21, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, which is part of the Article titles policy : [Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria. Thus, usage in newspapers and academic journals is relevant. We should be mindful of everyday "man on the street" usage but ultimately usage in reliable sources should drive our decision making. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Very clearly not the most recognizable name. If you were to tell a random person on the street that someone got caught with child pornography 100% of the population would immediately understand what you mean and the implications. If you were to say someone got caught with CSAM maybe 10-20% would understand. If you go with the more mouthful "Child sexual abuse material" more would understand by many still wouldn't make the connection that this is referring to the exact same crime as the universally known and law defined "child pornography". To further add the current title fits the guidelines of naturalness, concision and consistency better. "Child pornography" is a dry matter-of-fact term, not a single English dictionary defines "pornography" as meaning or denoting "consent". The title is consistent with the pattern used in the titles of other similar articles, specifically those involving fictional, simulated and AI content and those covering law. In the article body itself using the term "child sexual abuse material" everywhere would comes across as awkward and stilted. Compare sentences like these from the article with the current term and the replaced one:

Experts differ over any causal link between child pornography and child sexual abuse, with some experts saying that it increases the risk of child sexual abuse, and others saying that use of child pornography reduces the risk of offending. A 2008 American review of the use of Internet communication to lure children outlines the possible links to actual behaviour regarding the effects of Internet child pornography.

Experts differ over any causal link between child sexual abuse material and child sexual abuse, with some experts saying that it increases the risk of child sexual abuse, and others saying that use of child sexual abuse material reduces the risk of offending. A 2008 American review of the use of Internet communication to lure children outlines the possible links to actual behaviour regarding the effects of Internet child sexual abuse material.

If a move like this is to be made way more time should be waited for the term to popularize or/and a better term than the current one to emerge if there is any. WetGlass (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The suggested term seems deliberately designed to promote a POV. It flatly declares that child pornography is child sexual abuse and cannot exist outside of that context. That may be a view that many or even most people agree with, at least in most cases (e.g., aside from images and video self-recorded by experimenting children or teenagers), but child sexual abuse material is not a term that has arisen naturally in colloquial use, but rather a neologism invented, codified and promoted to create and reinforce this impression. The term seems primarily used by advocates, governments, the law enforcement community, and for virtue signalling. As pointed out by A876, the term is vague – it was chosen more with an interest in expressing condemnation than in identifying what it is talking about. Also, per PARAKANYAA and others, the whole discussion of consent is a red herring – "the idea that porn = consent is just untrue." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  Unfortunately you and @PARAKANYAA have no proof to your supposition on the hypothesis that pornography automatically has no ties to consent, or for your own suppositions about 'virtue-signalling' or whether or not it should include caveats (which to be honest says far more about yourself and the opposition than anything I may ever add).

  - ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 19:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  Pornographic pictures of minors (and material that some people would consider pornographic and others would not) can be produced by minors themselves without necessarily involving abuse. Any minor with a cell phone can easily produce such material in a few minutes or less, and there are about a billion minors in the world who have access to cell phones, so the existence of such material is inevitable. Pictures and video can also be produced without any direct contact or even awareness on the part of the person who is the subject of the photography, which may be creepy but does not have any clear impact on that person. Circulation of such material can have bad consequences, but that is not inherent in the material itself. The subject matter can also be purely fictional or simulated, in which case no actual minor may be involved. This is not to say that all that is perfectly fine, but the term "abuse material" is POV and does not even clearly indicate what it is talking about. I also suggest to focus on the matters under discussion rather than insulting other editors and speculating about their motivations. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  The same can be said for you, @BarrelProof. - ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 04:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can you please point out where I have insulted other editors or speculated about their motivations? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Pornography is defined as "The explicit literary or visual depiction of sexual subject matter; any display of material of an erotic nature." per en:wiktionary:pornography. Pornography involves at least one person, and isn't always multiple people. If there's just one person, then no abuse is happening, sometimes. "Child pornography" is a term arising from ordinary natural language, but it also makes sense as a category. The term "child sexual abuse material" when considered without context is vague, as another user pointed out. In terms of what "child sexual abuse material" (CSAM) is defined to mean: that's a different topic or a subcategory within the category "child pornography". CSAM means that it's a nonfictional situation. Wiktionary says "1. Child pornography depicting or created by means of actual sexual abuse of children." and "2. (sometimes proscribed) Synonym of child pornography." Sense #1 is what I already said. Sense #2 is a bit ridiculous but not so ridiculous if you don't consider fictional child pornography to really fit the label "child pornography"; either way, the idea that it's synonymous is motivated by a non-neutral point of view. I know that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but what dictionary entries mean has a huge influence on how things are termed and categorized. --~2026-41428-41 (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Resist - Unfortunately, Wiktionary is not a reliable source as it is both user-generated and self-referential as Wiktionary is a Wikimedia project. Please use reliable sources for your arguments.

  - ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 04:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  Cambridge Dictionary: pornography, n., "books, magazines, films, etc. with no artistic value that describe or show sexual acts or naked people in a way that is intended to be sexually exciting"

  Merriam-Webster: pornography, n., "1. the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement", "2. material (such as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement"

  The definitions are basically the same compared to Wiktionary.

  "child sexual abuse material" and "CSAM" are in neither Cambridge Dictionary nor Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which is telling. --~2026-41428-41 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Discussed ad infinitem and despite that the current title remains the overwhelmingly WP:COMMONNAME. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Some sources may now use the proposed title; most do not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

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.

Australian government citation

The opening phrase of the Wikipedia article is "Child pornography (CP), also known as child sexual abuse material (CSAM), ..." In other words, the beginning of the Wikipedia article says these terms are synonyms. However, one of the citations used to support that phrase is (a dead link to) an Australian government website that says "It is an offence to: access, possess, distribute, produce, advertise or make available child pornography or child abuse material" (boldface added). That does not say that the two terms are synonyms. In fact, it seems to say that those are two different things that are both considered an offence under Australian law. It is also not an exact match for the CSAM phrase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

And yet, Australia is not the be all and end all for the English language. I would also look on the US DoJ and UK's NSPCC as well, both of which are on record as preferring the use of the phrase child sexual abuse material over child pornography. - ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 23:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Since that Australian source does not support the statement that is made where it is cited, I plan to remove that citation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)