Talk:Generative AI pornography

Problematic image

The following discussion 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.

---

File:Simonetta Vespucci (Gemälde von Sandro Botticelli) und einmal mit einem Nudify-Webdienst 'entkleidet'.png is misleading as it implies AI is censored. Neither AI nor Wikipedia is. The concept itself is sound (using PD image and contrasting original with AI), but the censorship ruins it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I would not call that "problematic". Would the addition of "censored afterwards" help? Kind regards, Grueslayer 05:47, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Grueslayer It would help a bit, but the image still goes against WP:NOTCENSORED and needs to be replaced by an image that doesn't violate that guideline _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 26 April 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.

Apparently, me verifying the sources wasn't enough

So I went out of my way to check the sources for misinformation due to the recent deletion nomination, to remove any content that is either not sourced properly or has weasel words - mistakes AI commonly makes. After this whole work has been done and the article has been closed as keep, @GrinningIodize decided that my efforts were not good enough and reverted the whole shit. This is despite the fact that I have painstakenly went through every source, verifying the correct information and removing/fixing erroneous claims and bad sources such as those written by Forbes contributors.

Iodize then suggested me rewrite the whole article from scratch, using the sources I verified as a base. While I'm not particularly opposed to this, I still think reverting everything was unneccesary. Plus, I've been doing this whole thing completely alone (other than minor edits by @Issac I Navarro and Iodize himself).

So if you have anything to say about the whole reversion, or want to help with rewriting the article, feel free to reply in this thread. In the meantime, I will be translating this article to Russian, and if no one does anything again... Well, I guess I'm going to manually translate it back so the LLM signs naturally go away.

Pinging deletion discussion participants: @The Other Karma, @User:Fences and windows, @MissBVCC, @Gurkubondinn, @Jishara and @Gnomingstuff. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 17:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, my revert was a temporary change to keep the article in a policy-compliant state until it can be properly rewritten. Furthermore, reverts are not deletion. You can still view your previous revisions, it's just that they're not the first thing that uninvolved readers will see. Once you (or someone else) have sufficiently cleaned up your version of the page, my stubification can be reverted again.

I bear no ill will towards @Dabmasterars or the other AfD participants, I just want to clean up LLM-generated content. GrinningIodize (articles without a Wikidata item) (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no need to ping me, I have no more input. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars The article seems okay. Your efforts to improve the page seems to be more than sufficient.

If I have a moment to spare over the coming week, I will see have what might be able to be improved. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have restored the section titled “Functions and Production Strategies”; the person who conducted the review obviously did not check all the sources. The Other Karma (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Except I literally went through every source specifically to find information that is related to the text written next to the cited source (aka verifying). The fact that I didn't change most of the text was because it was already fine and adhered to the sources. I may have missed some things here or there, but in that case it is better to clarify what I missed rather then just criticizing for the sake of criticizing.

Also, the article is now in Russian, just as I promised. Don't mind the em dashes, they're a standard practice in ruWP (you can find them on evry page) and I just copied them from another page. Everything's been done manually, except for specific words I didn't know. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 19:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@The Other Karma, it looks like you've unintentionally reintroduced LLM-contaminated content to the article. Would you please rephrase it in your own words so that it's manmade and in compliance with WP:NEWLLM?

A couple examples of suspicious content (LLM signs in bold):

• "Platforms often allow fine‑tuning of parameters such as settings, style, or theme, and provide prompt enhancers or suggestions to improve outputs"
• "enabling tailored sexual and non‑sexual interactions"

GrinningIodize (articles without a Wikidata item) (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, you can remove it for now. Dont know if i can do that under the week. The Other Karma (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for your time! GrinningIodize (articles without a Wikidata item) (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I implemented a minorly rewritten text. The words settings, style, or theme, are keept cause the source uses them too (Page. 10). Same for enabling tailored sexual and non‑sexual interactions this wording is also used by the source. (Page. 10) The source is additionaly also peer-reviewed. Therefore i dont see any issue. The Other Karma (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@GrinningIodize @The Other Karma Here's a comparison (diff) between the LLM version and my corrected version, so that my changes and original text are visible. You (or anyone else) may bring back the info that you think was properly rewritten. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 19:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's been over three weeks and nothing has been done. @GrinningIodize and @The Other Karma, are you still planning to rewrite the LLM infested sections or do I have to do everything myself? Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 22:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I've already reviewed my section—it meets the requirements. If you don't like the wording, feel free to rephrase it. The Other Karma (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind your section. Still, more work is to be done. If Grinning doesn't reply, I'll just call him a coward and translate the article from the Russian version. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 18:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not have the time or motivation to rewrite the text in question at this time. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Discussion on one of the current pics in this article at Request for opinions, from the Legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

TLDR it's about the lolicon image, though one can probably guess that. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 16:34, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Debated pic

WMF legal might decide to delete it per WP:OA or something at some point in the future per ongoing discussion at . My understanding is that they consider it their decision to make, though they want to hear from the community.

But apart from that, this is also a local en-WP matter, though it might become moot at some point. The article currently mentions children very briefly, and lolicon not at all. Should we keep it per MOS:IMAGEREL? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• At this time, Keep. It doesn't seem to cross the line into the closing of this RfC: My interpretation of the consensus is that, files should be removed if they are potentially harmful to be viewed by children, and if it crosses into WP:GRATUITOUS.

Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

But that's not my point. As the article is written, this pic has very little to do with article content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I did some of the rewrite for this page. Also, above I added Template:Refideas as this topic needs to be expanded. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Article still hardly mentions children, and lolicon not at all. Trying to re-write the article to make the pic fit better seems the wrong way to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

See above "(Apparently, me verifying the sources wasn't enough)" and I did my last edit on this page before @Dabmasterars added that file on Old revision of Generative AI pornography. Dabmasterars made the edit to add the file on Old revision of Generative AI pornography. I expanded the page more on Old revision of Generative AI pornography and found sources that I linked above in this Talk. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I just saw Gnomingstuff's statement at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Request for opinions, from the Legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation. It seems that Gnomingstuff confused the tan lines for a bathing suit. At first glance, it does look like that, and the image is not particularly graphic in a way that would meet WP:HARDCORE. While Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, I don't think this image would be particularly surprising or unexpected for readers, given the section of the page that it was in. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you meant Blueboar confused. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång thank you. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I do not want to generate a realistic image, because such image would be legally contested and is unlikely to pass WP:GRATUITOUS. Oh, and I have basic human decency too, you know. This is why I chose a mildly erotic anime image with no sex organs visible that can still convey a point established by several sources - open source AI models don't have guardrails. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 19:59, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars, I see, that is why I am fine with the file being kept on this page. No explicitly graphic bits are showing, thus doesn't seem to pass WP:GRATUITOUS or the precedent set for the RfC on Clop's Talk. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

If we are going to have an image on the generation of hentai visual content, it's probably better in line with MOS:OFFENSIVE (which states Wikipedia is not censored: its mission is to present information, including information which some may find offensive. However, a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar, horrifying, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers, should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available) to have a non-lolicon representation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion the article is less informative now that you removed the image. Replacing the image with one that features a real child is going to be even worse and more gratuitous, so I don't know what other alternatives you can think of that will make the article more informative. Also, images should be removed AFTER consensus says so, not before as a precautionary measure. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 22:59, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:ONUS says otherwise. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content. You also seem to be invested in lolicon-related disputes in an unhealthy way (both here and off-wiki) and I would advise you to step back from the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

For once in this ongoing shitshow, I do agree. I need to think less about this whole debate and focus on more productive stuff, like finishing my abandoned draft articles or uploading images that aren't going to cause a meltdown among community members. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 23:12, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia Should we set up a RfC? Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, provided that the initial question follows WP:RFCNEUTRAL and is relatively brief Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

We could just have let this thread run for awhile and then posted on WP:RFCL instead of the 30-day thing, but that's moot now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia  Done Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry to have seen this image, except that it allows me to weigh in on this issue to help prevent others from seeing it. It is so obviously "vulgar, horrifying and obscene". I highly contest assertions that it makes the article more informative. We can have text, supported by RS, that speaks about sexualization of children/childlike characters; and having an image does not make it more informative to the reader. It is just a reproduction of the repugnance being discussed. غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, the Ai file is more on the tame side. Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

But why a child-like figure? Would have been better if this was clearly less child like. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman per my reasoning on C:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stability Matrix Inference in action.png: Because it shows that generative AI can produce and raise serious concerns about lolicon imagery as a distinct and harmful, rather than treating it to only concerns adult anime pornography Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

RfC on the debated file

File:Stability Matrix Inference in action.png "While closed-source models usually block explicit and controversial content, such as lolicon, open-source AI models such as Stable Diffusion (pictured) have no such "guardrails", causing debates about the openness." To note, this may not even be an issue if the photograph is delated on Wikimedia Commons; for some background there is C:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stability Matrix Inference in action.png, C:Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Lolicon in general and there is a general discussion at meta:Wikimedia Forum#Request for opinions, from the Legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation for this file. But the specific matter is should this image be on this English Wikipedia page? Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep, I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said. Norahqueen (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Remove. The image is obviously "vulgar, horrifying, [and] obscene" to a "typical Wikipedia reader" per MOS:OFFENSIVE. I contest assertions that including this image makes the article more "informative, relevant or accurate". If we want to make the article more "informative, relevant or accurate" on the use of AI in the sexualization of children/childlike characters, we can have more and better text on this subject, supported by more and better RS. If the text, backed by RS, says that people are generating images that sexualize children, no one needs the visualization to understand this, and removing it does not "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate". When we encyclopedically describe rape pornography, shall we include a genuine example of the above, even if a relatively "tame" one, to illustrate the matter? It is a WP:GRATUITOUS reproduction of an obvious moral outrage, far more so than it is an illustration of it, and it does not "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter".

FFS, غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh no, we do have an image of rape on the page about Rape. Speaking in general, I think it is appropriate to provide images illustrating a crime on the corresponding pages. Consider Extrajudicial killing, for example. Yes, the image is nasty and terrifying. But was it proper to include such an image? Yes, absolutely. Having such an image is actually consistent with MOS:OFFENSIVE because that is what a typical reader would expect. And it does not really matter if it was a sexual crime, a murder, or anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, we also have other pages that have illustrations such as Beheading of John the Baptist. Given the context of the body of the surrounding text that this image is placed at seem appropriate. If it is deemed too inappropriate we could also use File:Stability Matrix Inference in action.png censored.png.

Though the censored one almost seems worse akin to Sailor Mouth. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I can't see any justification for using that censored image anywhere other than as an example of how excessive censorship can make something useless. As some people have shown in these various discussions there are good faith arguments for and against the encyclopaedic nature of the uncensored image, the former based on the uncensored version illustrating certain points. Not everyone agrees on which of things it illustrates are encyclopaedic, however the censored version illustrates none of them. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

The censored version of the screenshot is an excellent example... of censorship. Amitie 10g (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure what's the problem. Maybe I have a bad taste, but some images on page Naturism look ugly to me, unlike the original AI-generated image. While the girls on page Femen look nice. Or consider the images on page Vulva activism. None of these images, including the AI-generated one, seem to be sexually suggestive to me. Well, maybe to some people... My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Commons has c:Category:Nude children at beaches, and on Depictions of nudity this image is used: File:Summer day at the beach of Skagen by Laurits Tuxen.jpg.

I tend to say it is about context, and this image was made for Generative AI pornography, so not the same as that file.

However, the image used in the lead of Lolicon, was made for Lolicon. I lump Lolicon in the boat of simulated child pornography. It obviously has sexual connotations. Yet there is a whole RfC now at Talk:Lolicon#RfC Should this be characterized in relation to CSAM? about it. Outside the scope of this matter.

For me the leads at lolicon and Shotacon are on some level to be simulated child pornography. Now, I don't think there is any problem with those leads nor do I think this one is an issue. Because both are not explicit or graphic. Much like this one. If the shotacon was an issue it would have been deleted by the WMF in c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Super Forbidden Love, however, they left that one. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

You seem to entirely miss an important part of my point. The page Rape contains culturally relevant illustrations of the concept. Adding an example of rape pornography is a reproduction of the horrific/offending act, not an illustration of it. Same goes for this image, which is a reproduction of the horrific/offending act of creating/distributing/consuming images that sexualize children. The equivalent here is not to include a culturally relevant 200-year old painting representing an extrajudicial killing, but to go out, photograph yourself killing someone extrajudicially, and upload the image to Wikipedia. The image itself is the offending act, and not a representation of it. غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

So, you are saying that creating such image and posting it on wiki was a crime? If so, this should be handled by the legal team of WMF. As about someone personally making a photo of an extrajudicial execution, yes, here is it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

@My very best wishes It seems that the foundation is still making their judgment on this image as they have yet to close or make a statement about the matter on meta. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Legal questions and WP policies aside, it is probably important if including such image(s) would be damaging or good for the project publicity. I have no idea. Perhaps the number of people looking at the pages would increase, but this is just a guess. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I explicitly chose not to use the word crime. I argued that the image is "vulgar, horrifying, [and] obscene" to a "typical Wikipedia reader", and that it does not make the article more "informative, relevant or accurate". I also cited relevant guidelines and policy that, together with those arguments, mean in my opinion that the image should not be used here. غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, Wikipedia talk:Offensive material, Talk:Hentai, Talk:Lolicon, Talk:Shotacon, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Since there's very little about children and nothing about lolicon in the article as written, No per MOS:IMAGEREL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep, see my previous comments in the aforementioned discussions. Not repeating the same arguments again. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 08:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider doing that, you're asking the closer to look at a lot of discussion, and they may not feel like it, or just miss something you consider relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Alright then, here's a TLDR:

1. Lolicon is legal in the United States, enWP and Commons do not have to abide by other countries' rules. This is more relevant to Commons, but I'll still mention it nonetheless because so many users forget it and focus on the wrong thing.
2. While regular erotica/pornography is allowed on some specific proprietary models, lolicon is almost universally blocked from being generated due to companies' fear of external pressure. In my opinion, the image is a better example of open source models not having guardrails than a potential safe alternative.
3. The image itself is barely explicit at all. It is presented in a neutral context that could be on a nude beach, for example. No sex organs are visible. Easily passes WP:GRATUITOUS.
4. Some people noted that the sources mostly focus on the risk of photorealistic child imagery, but I do not want to generate such images for obvious reasons.

So yeah, this is why I think the image should be kept (both on Commons and in article). Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 09:21, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. This RFC is a pointless duplication of the above discussion (which participants and the closer here need to read to understand the background), see my comments there for a detailed explanation. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I also agree and think that the above discussion and this RFC could potentially be merged. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 09:10, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I said something similar in the thread above, but since we're here we might as well go with it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The furry porn related images that are already presently in the article demonstrate how gen-AI is used to "cater to specific fetishes" without having Wikipedia host something that is, at the very least, tiptoeing up to the line of MOS:OFFENSIVE. In general the images in the article as of this timestamp show the breadth of issues with AI porn including nudification apps and such in a manner that is as tasteful as the distasteful material allows. We don't need to add even a non-nude lolicon image with the prompt next to it. And as it isn't needed to elucidate the subject, OFFENSIVE is the driving manual of style consideration. Simonm223 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Simonm223 There is File:Stability Matrix Inference in action.png censored.png Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  Redacting the image is undesirable but understandable, but redacting the prompt itself? Talk about less educational purpose. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 15:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  It is not impossible that a censored version of that image could have some educational purpose (even if that isn't necessarily the same purposes as the uncensored one). However by censoring almost the entire image and key words from the prompt means that I see absolutely no educational value in that image at all (unless shown alongside the uncensored version with the goal of demonstrating how excessive censorship can remove educational value from an educational image, but there is no need to use an image containing nudity, let alone arguably sexualised nudity of a child, for that purpose). Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Simonm223 MOS:OFFENSIVE is a guideline, whereas WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy. The fact that MOS:OFFENSIVE may support avoiding an image does not, by itself, override a policy against censorship. The relevant question is therefore whether there is a policy-based reason to exclude the image, rather than simply whether the image is offensive or distasteful. Amitie 10g (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  There is no policy saying we must use an image that is not needed. This image is not needed nor do we need to educate people on how to make such images. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  And being clear, nobody need tag me in this conversation further. I have said my piece. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  The "needless" characterization you are making is just your opinion. My opinion is that the screenshot has educational and encyclopedic value (as it demonstrates the ability of generative AI tools like Stable Diffusion to generate not just pornography but also lolicon, with no restrictions). Do you know the phrase "A picture is worth a thousand words"? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is no requirement that encyclopedic information be conveyed exclusively through text. Amitie 10g (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Coming at this from the perspective of a UK editor where Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 criminalises possession of certain pornographic non-photographic images of children, and Section 65 includes depictions of imaginary children. These would apply to manga and other fictional depictions.
  
  There is, then, a genuine question as to whether material of this kind can constitute a prohibited image. I think this image in question is sufficiently borderline that hosting it creates a legal risk.
  
  Hosting sexualised depictions of children carries a hopefully obvious reputational cost, irrespective of if a real child was involved or not. Wikimedia also operates in an increasingly hostile environment, and we've already seen Governments block the Movement because of our content. I am not saying we need to self-censor in response to that, but we do need to be careful we do not broaden our attack surface unnecessarily.
  
  That means that the test of educational value needs to be really compelling. Where material is genuinely important or irreplaceable, we should be prepared, legally and morally, to defend hosting it. But in this example, where we can communicate the fact that AI models can generate sexualised images without using an example image, we should do so. Just as we can communicate the use of AI to create non-consensual sexual deepfakes without actually creating and hosting one ourselves (the en:Deepfake pornography article, for example, has no images and explains the concept in prose).
  
  I can't see an argument that this particular depiction is sufficiently irreplaceable to justify the legal risk that come with hosting it. I also can't see that this image meets the test of educational value. qcne (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Why should we care about non-US laws? If Saudi Arabia would ask us to delete all porn and Muhammad images form Commons, should we also comply? Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 15:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Because the internet is global. That doesn't mean that every country gets a veto over our content; the question is one of proportionality. Where material is important or irreplaceable encyclopaedic content, we should be prepared to defend hosting it. Where material has marginal educational value we should not incur substantial legal or reputational risk just because it is lawful in the United States. qcne (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep: As I stated at Meta, regarding the file and its use at Wikipedia...

• I see a "loli" on a nude beach, nothing else. Sexual connotations are a matter of personal interpretation.
• I don't see any problem with the fact that the uploader intentionally designed the prompt to produce content of that kind.
• I believe the file has educational and encyclopedic value according to Commons' Project scope, as well as under English Wikipedia's Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia policy, which recognizes that Wikipedia is not constrained by the limitations of a traditional paper encyclopedia...

• It illustrates the ability of open-source, privately usable tools (Stability Matrix + Stable Diffusion) to generate not just pornography but also lolicon with no restrictions (unlike some online tools that are able to even produce pronographic content but with severe restrictions), illustrating both the tool and the generated result (the main subject is not the "loli" by herself, but the screenshot as a whole).
• It is in use on the English Wikipedia in a specific article, Generative AI pornography.
• While the uploader intentionally designed the prompt to produce content of the lolicon genre, it does not appear to be illegal under U.S. federal law (a sort of Dost test):

• Depicts a real minor? No; it depicts a fictional minor.
• Depicts a realistic minor? No; it depicts an anime-style minor.
• Depicts nudity? Yes, but nudity is not illegal per se, see below.
• Depicts sexually explicit conduct involving a minor? No; the image depicts a fictional, non-realistic minor in a nude setting, viewed from behind, without depicting sexual activity or an explicit exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.
• See also this deletion request resolved as kept.

• Neither Commons nor Wikipedia are censored.
• The file is not a low-quality pornographic picture; indeed, I would not characterize it as a pornographic picture at all.
• While Commons and Wikipedia aren't Danbooru, this specific file server a specific purpose (as I mentioned above), and blurrying will lose its purpose.

Amitie 10g (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Using "loli" content is absolutely unnecessary, gratuitous, and would be considered offensive to any reasonable person. This kind of stuff should not be normalized. It doesn't matter if it's technically legal in some jurisdictions, allowing this kind of content is a reputational stain on the entire community. This is the MLP coprophilia nonsense all over again. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Clop (erotic fan art). Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång and everyone else who criticized the image for not adhering to sources, I found a source that addresses AI generation and lolicon directly:

Erotic and pornographic manga (eromanga) and anime encompass many sub-genres with extensive fan bases and online communities, from soft core lolicon (derived from Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita) featuring underage girl characters to explicit hentai associated with abnormal and extreme sexual desires and practices [...] With recent advancements in media technology and artificial intelligence (AI) tools, anime can be created without the need for manga drawings as a source. This calls for urgent address in terms of legal clarification...

Now, the image (and the caption) directly supports the source without feeling shoehorned in. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 15:47, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars Stop trying to justify the inclusion of simulated child pornograph into Wikipedia. It is really not a good look. qcne (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

This file is rather tame, by not showing the focal point to be of genitalia or pubic area. However, I agree that it is definitely sexually suggestive. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Unless something of that actually is accepted in the article-text, no it doesn't. Pics are meant to illustrate article content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Here, we have to weigh the relative educational value compared to the legal risks involved for readers and editors. The fact that AI image models can generate lolicon may be described through text alone. The image shows an explicit example of this, and the added information is technically non-zero, but it remains relatively negligible, and is far from being critical to a reader's understanding of the topic.

On the flip side, the legal risks should be considered. Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and the Wikimedia Foundation themselves aren't at risk, but readers in many countries other than the United States are. In France, for example, Article 227-23 of the Penal Code criminalizes the creation, diffusion, and even repeated viewing of fictional child pornography. Some other jurisdictions are even more strict, with viewing alone being penalized.

This functionally dissuades non-US editors from editing articles using this picture for legal reasons. While Wikimedia projects shouldn't usually self-censor just to follow applicable laws in other countries, the added value of retaining this picture is minimal compared to the risks it carries for readers and would-be editors. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

In particular, the inclusion of the prompt could be seen as Wikipedia providing a how-to for the creation of child pornography which is legally iffy in many jurisdictions as well as being morally inexcusable. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

(And contravenes WP:NOTHOWTO to boot for those people who seem to think we need explicit policy reasons not to show child pornography.) Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

How is a prompt supposed to be illegal? it's just words. Reminds me of the time AACS tried to ban the Free Speech Flag. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 18:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

It is an instruction set for making pornography of children. Frankly I don't think there should be a place on Wikipedia for people who would add such material. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree. qcne (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

This "instruction set" means nothing if you don't have an open source AI model. At this point, you're better off lobbying to ban these AI models instead. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 19:22, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. It is absolutely gratuitous to illustrate generative AI pornography with an image closely adjacent to child pornography. The creation and advocacy for using this image comes dangerously close to breaching Wikipedia:Child protection. Editors should not be making arguments that paedophiles would also make. Fences&Windows 04:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: I wish this debate were that simple, but it's not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

*Weak Keep. The image shows an example of how open-source AI models such as Stable Diffusion are subject to debates about their openness. Although, I wonder if this can be done through words alone rather than have an image for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually... Delete per DatGuy as my latter instincts were correct. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - we're demonstrating an issue with generative AI by having a graphic depiction of that issue? Is a textual description of it (together with the context for it) insufficient? Surely not. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:03, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• The image creator, Dabmasterars, is now ArbCom blocked. I have no inside knowledge of why, but I might hazard a guess that their creation and advocacy for inclusion of gratuitous images of simulated naked children had something to do with it. Fences&Windows 21:14, 24 September 2026 (UTC) [added link]

  @Fences and windows I took a look at WP:ARB, and I am not seen a specific reason/any consensus for the block on Dabmasterar. Was this an action of a c:COM:ADMIN, WP:ADMIN or WP:BUR? Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  It says it's an ArbCom block, presumably under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities, "To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons". Fences&Windows 21:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Fences and windows, I was wondering if there was a reason given as I just noticed the users on Commons a moment ago at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:CharlieKirkMemes1.png. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Reasons are very rarely given for {{arbcomblock}}s, because the evidence supporting the reason is very rarely able to be shared publicly. You are free to ask but don't be surprised if the only answer you get is some variation of "we can't say". Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Fences and windows and @Thryduulf Since I asked, here on en Dabmasterars seems to have noticed and responded to my inquiry here. Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete There is no educational value in including simulated child porn. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:32, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  Which "porn"? Amitie 10g (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  I get the feeling that most people dont understand how much time, effort, and money goes into locking artists up over drawings. All of these resources can and should be used toward actual victims. Other than that the "educational" bit is debatable. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Amitie 10g we've had this conversation elsewhere, I'm not interested in going over your opinion again. As to the effort to lock people up anyone owning, producing, or distributing this type of child porn would be arrested and locked up where I live. Not all countries or cultures see this the same, that it is not technically illegal in some countries or cultures isn't a matter for discussion here. US law is only relevant to what we must censor, not what is due inclusion in articles. This doesn't add anything by the article, and so isn't worth inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think the issue goes beyond lolicon. What is legal in the United States can be illegal in other English speaking countries. So what do we as an English encyclopedia do about it? Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Wikimedia projects are governed by the U.S. laws. You accepted that when accepting the Terms of use. Amitie 10g (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Again that is only relevant to whether something should or shouldn't be censored, and that isn't under discussion here so US law is irrelevant. Unless of course you can find policy that says that US law dictates that content we should include in an article, and again you won't find that because it doesn't exist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested, I think this file is fine as the WMF, has not stepped in to remove the file like they did in; c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Super Forbidden Love. The question for this page should be is it acceptable for English wiki under WP:GRATUITOUS? Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes as I've said repeatedly US law is irrelevant to this discussion as this image doesn't have to be censored under US law. The only relevant issue is whether this simulated child porn is due inclusion. Whether something is due inclusion isn't dependent on US law, so the repeated mention of it by some editors is redundant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I would have to agree with you. However this simulated CSAM. It is not particularly graphic in a way that would meet WP:HARDCORE. While Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, I don't think this image would be particularly surprising or unexpected for readers, given the section of the page that it was in. Furthermore, it's only in that section to illustrate the lack of guardrails in creating problematic content. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I've not made any of those arguments so I'm not sure why you are stating them. All I've said is that this silumated child porn isn't due inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  As I said it doesn't. Interpretation of whether this is simulated child porn differs, so it's not possible to say that it's definitely isn't stimulated child porn. As it is consider simulated child porn were I live there is nothing wrong with me saying that it is simulated child porn. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  By that logic, its fine for someone to say "this image is illegal where I live therefore I get so say its illegal everywhere and anybody who disagrees with me is objectively wrong" regardless of what that image is. That is, at best, extremely unhelpful to reasoned discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  All I'm saying is that this simulated child porn isn't due inclusion as I don't believe it adds anything education to the article, I've not made any comment about other editors being wrong or right. Other editors have disagreed with my characterisation of the image as simulated child porn, which is not relevant to the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think calling it simulated CSAM is perfectly okay. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  What is relevant is that you consistently refusing to acknowledge that your characterisation of it as simulated child porn is opinion and not fact. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  So it's is my opinion and the law of the country were I live, but that it's simulated child porn isn't relevant to my argument. You're nit picking over my words. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  That's precisely why I asked what legal definition or authoritative source you are relying on. If the classification differs between jurisdictions, then saying simply that "this is simulated child porn" without identifying the applicable legal framework presents a jurisdiction-specific legal classification as an unqualified fact.

  I'm not disputing your opinion about whether the image should be included (educational value). I'm asking about the basis for the factual characterization you are making. If you are using "simulated child porn" as a legal classification based merely on your own opinion rather than on an applicable law or authoritative source, then it is reasonable for other editors to challenge that characterization. Amitie 10g (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  There is currently a RfC on the lolicon article for that specific matter; on the terminology. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  All of that is irrelevant. If you can find policy to back up your demand that I don't use words you don't like please let me know, otherwise read WP:SATISFY. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Please point to some policy that disallows other editors from calling you out when you claim your opinion is objective fact, which is what multiple people are doing (not complaining about words we may or may not like). Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Are you saying that it's wrong to use the terminology used by the law of the country in which I live, I know you disagree with it personally but I don't see how the matter being different in other countries makes a difference. It is a fact that it's illegal in my country and would be handled as CSAM. I agree with the laws of my country, but I fail to see where I have said that it's object fact, instead it is you and others who have said that your opinions are object facts and that I must align with them. I will not and will continue to discuss this matter in terms that are legal facts in my own country.
  Again though, you are arguing against the wording of my argument, I've never said that this shouldn't be included because it's simulated child porn, but because this simulated child porn adds no value to the article. An argument you refuse to engage with, and instead nit pick over my choice of words. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Are you saying that it's wrong to use the terminology used by the law of the country in which I live, Yes. Because it, like the terminology used by the law of every other country, is completely irrelevant to this discussion and hinders discussion of what is relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  It seems that the technology that is being used is outside the purpose of this RfC. Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  Do you mean "terminology" rather than "technology"? Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf, Yes, mobile auto corrected. Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  That's a ridiculous statement, I will continue to use the terminology that is perfectly accy where I am. I don't believe there is any policy that states that I must use terminology acceptable to other users in this way. This will be my last response unless someone provides such a policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  When multiple people independently tell you that the words you are using are hindering a discussion it is better to listen to them than to be sanctioned for disruptive editing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  The only issue has been other editors disliking my terminology, and otherwise completely failing to engage with my argument. That they dislike my terminology is not my issue unless you can find policy to say otherwise. It's is other editors who have filled the discussion under my comment with replies unrelated to my argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Could someone be against lolicon without being in favor of censorship? What matters here is the educational value of the file and its use in this article. (rhetorical question). --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes to both. However whether someone is for or against lolicon and/or censorship is not relevant to whether this file does or does not have educational use in this context. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

This has been my argument all along, you have continually argued against it because of the wording I used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:21, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The problem is not the wording, but the lack of a legal basis supporting your wording. That is what is being challenged, and not just by me. Amitie 10g (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Stop bludgeoning every single discussion about this, or people really will start wondering what sort of interests you have. qcne (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Qcne Although I might agree that they're close to bludgeoning I urge you to strike that comment, discussion should be on the content not other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Stop bringing up laws, the laws of your country or mine are irrelevant unless the matter under discussion is whether to censor the image. And then we would only have to censor it if it was illegal under US law. But the question is whether this simulated child porn adds value to the article, please try to keep to that discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are the one bringing up the word "porn" here. You can easily make your point without the buzzword. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

People could engage with my argument without worrying about the terminology that is perfectly acceptable where I live. As per my previous comment unless someone can provide a policy based reason that I'm not allowed to do so, I won't be responding any further. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to claim this image has nothing to do with porn. The image was directly generated for this Wikipedia article, Generative AI pornography. If it isn't porn, it's irrelevant. If it is porn, it's simulated child porn. Showing readers of a generic article on AI porn a simulated picture of a naked child breaches the principle of least astonishment. Advocating for lolicon in irrelevant places needs to stop. Fences&Windows 12:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I think there are three separate issues here that should not be conflated: encyclopedic value, whether the image is pornographic, and the principle of least astonishment.

First, I do see encyclopedic value in the image. It illustrates that generative AI can produce not only pornography in general, but also lolicon-type content without the restrictions that would apply to content involving actual minors. Whether it is the best possible illustration can certainly be discussed, but I don't think it is accurate to say that it is irrelevant if it isn't pornographic.

Second, nudity should not automatically be equated with pornography. And if the image is to be legally classified as pornography, I think we should be clear about which jurisdiction and legal standard we are applying, rather than presenting a jurisdiction-specific legal classification as an unqualified fact.

Third, least astonishment is a separate issue from whether the material should exist or be included. If readers may be surprised or disturbed by controversial material, the solution does not necessarily have to be censorship or removal. The Board's 2011 Resolution on Controversial Content explicitly addressed both the principle that "Wikimedia projects are not censored" and the principle of least astonishment. The Board later rescinded its specific request for a personal image-hiding feature in 2012, while explicitly stating that the remainder of the 2011 resolution remained in effect, leaving the responsibility for implementing such measures to the community.

So I think the relevant question is not simply whether the image is shocking, but whether it has a legitimate encyclopedic purpose and, if so, how it should be presented to readers. Amitie 10g (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

"Shocking" or not is a matter of personal perception. I would say not. Does it have "a legitimate encyclopedic purpose"? Yes, because this image illustrate well the subject of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The subject of the page is AI pornography. It does not actually illustrate that subject well enough to get past the fact that it's a pornographic image of a child. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

This is not an image of a real child, but a computer-generated image, an abstraction. As such it is covered by Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors and is apparently legal in the US as follows from the page (if I am not mistaken). Hence, it can be included on the page. Should it be included? I would say yes, merely as a good illustration of this page subject. It does not mean we support pornography. We do not. Just as we do not support fascism and a lot of other things described in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The legality or illegality of the image doesn't change the nature of the image. Legality is a major distraction from whether the image should be included. Only those supporting inclusion have brought up the legal status of the image in their argument on whether the image should be included. As noone has suggested removing the image based on WP:CENSORSHIP legal status is irrelevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but it was not my argument for inclusion. Nevertheless, I would vote "delete" if such image was illegal in the US because I am a law-abiding citizen even while editing in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

We wouldn't have a choice in that case, as policy says it wouldn't be optional -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Not so much policy as the law. If it's illegal for the WMF to host then we can't use it, nothing else is relevant. Something is illegal for the WMF to host if either a US court or the WMF legal team say it is.

Then there are some things that are legal to host but which policy says we cannot use. The most common examples are images that could be used under the US fair use doctrine but which do not meet the non-free content criteria.

Everything else is subject to editorial consensus. This is the category the image under discussion belongs to. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The community could decide to host illegal content, it would just result in an office action. But this is getting very far from the point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep (conditional). Having an article on any subject and being unable to illustrate that subject by images is bad from the educational resource perspective. If there are no legal reasons to delete this image, I would vote to "keep" per WP:Not censored and WP:IAR. I understand it would be legal in the US, but illegal in UK. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Some participants think that including such image would be a violation of Wikipedia:Child protection (i.e advocating for inappropriate adult–child relationships on-wiki), even though this is not an image of any specific child. I do not think so. This is merely an illustration. For example, including an image of a Nazi to a page about Nazi does not mean advocating anything, just providing a relevant image. It may happen that a reader of a WP page likes Nazi and the image, but this is not our responsibility. My very best wishes (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

A pornographic image of a child created by a LLM is fundamentally different from a photograph of a Nazi. This is an image that serves no pedagogical value and that is, frankly, disgusting. The inclusion of prompts that could let a reader produce simulated child pornography of their very own is a particularly awful violation of WP:NOTMANUAL. Our bar need not be as low as "editors believe this doesn't violate US law." Especially when images that are not sexual pictures of cartoon children already illustrate the article topic satisfactorily. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I am only saying that the image is an excellent illustration of this page subject, including the prompt. It does not matter if it seems disgusting to you. Hitler is a lot more disgusting to me, but it's OK to have his image on his page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Someone should hat any personal feelings about the type wording being used by editors as that is outside the scope of this specific RfC. Additionally, any legal mention, as the legal aspects are for the WMF's request for comments on Meta, and are also out the question of this RfC. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. BTW, some people have referred to MOS:OFFENSIVE because the image seems offensive to them. But this is not about it. This guideline says: Images should respect conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. Yes, that image is exactly what everyone expect on such page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't expect a lolicon pic on a page that doesn't mention lolicon and hardly children. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång , The page should add more information about the concerns of generative ai creating this type of content. As there are many sources such as https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2024/PSA240329 Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

"Should" is a matter of opinion, go ahead and se what happens. Adding content for the purpose of supporting inclusion of this particular pic is not high prio. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I have come across this article of an example of a man in Australia "guilty of importing anime child" https://www.abf.gov.au/newsroom-subsite/Pages/Shepparton-man-guilty-of-importing-anime-child-abuse-material.aspx it also makes the statement to describe it as: "All material, including anime, computer generated images, and AI, depicting the exploitation and abuse of children is 100 per cent illegal, and those who commit such offences will be brought before the courts." - I thought this article might be useful in this discussion. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree that such images are concerning and might even incite someone to commit a crime (unlikely, but who knows?). But the same is true for many other pages and images on wiki (Incendiary device, etc.). I just think this is not our responsibility. Our goal here is writing informative and interesting pages, and providing an example of the script and the image serves that goal. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

This is an image that serves no pedagogical value. Multiple people have explained in detail why this image does have educational value. As has also been repeatedly explained this is not a pornographic image of a child. Please also explain how images of things other than sexualised images of cartoon children illustrate the ability of LLMs to produce sexualised images of cartoon children.

It's fine to have a different opinion to others, it is not fine to assert your opinion as fact, especially when it has already been shown that the opinion is not factual. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a sexualised image of a child, that it's a fictional child doesn't change that fact. Noone has shown this is not simulated child porn, only that they are of the opinion it's not. Does the fact that LLMs can produce such images require that such an image is included, is anyone not able to understand that without the image, the ONUS is on those wanting to include the image to show that it's necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Precisely. The suggestion instructing people in how to construct custom (simulated) child pornography on Wikipedia is challenged. Silly jabs don't change that no reasonable argument for pedagogical value have been raised nor, in fact, has anyone substantively responded to my WP:NOTMANUAL argument. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

That you disagree with the educational value arguments presented multiple times by multiple people in multiple venues does not mean that those arguments do not exist, nor does it mean they are unreasonable.

That this is an explicitly and obviously fictional depiction of a fictional child is unambiguously relevant, because it means that this is not, as claimed, a pornographic image of a child.

The citation needed "jab" is not silly, it is a simple request for you to cite sources that support the claims you are stating as fact are indeed factual.

NOTMANUAL is not relevant to the question I asked you - indeed it rather undermines the argument that there is no educational use because instructing someone how to do something is, by definition, educational. NOTMANUAL is refuted by that not being the reason the image is in the article: the image is there to illustrate that such images can be produced by LLMs. Whether we as a community think that is something we want in the article is something that can be rationally discussed (once we finally get past all the ad hominems, irrelevant discussions of legality, moral judgements presented as facts, etc), but NOTMANUAL is not relevant to that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 3 October 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.

Lolicon has an RfC

Lolicon has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)