Talk:Clop (erotic fan art)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should this page include hardcore pornographic images (such as File:Czu_MLP_clop_Wikimare.png or File:Lead shits in Crunchy's mouth by Lordcuckness.png)? Note that this is not about the softcore images also present on the page. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. ~~~~

Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: This is a request for comment from other editors, don't reply to this if you already stated your position in the thread above. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 23:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I haven't stated my position above, but I've never seen an RfC say that editors who were debating the issue already aren't allowed to participate. No one is forbidden from replying to this RfC.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Does that only apply to the immediately-above thread, or the two previous threads as well? I'm not sure someone coming in to count the votes would bother with the above section(s), might be best to get as many previous commenters as possible. Ringtail Raider (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@GregariousMadness: @Gial Ackbar: @JustHereToFixThis1991: @EvergreenFir: adding users who were involved in the previous image discussions, doesn't look like anyone else pinged Ringtail Raider (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That is not how RfCs work. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not how this works. Editors who have previously participated are welcome to do so again. Any question that's ripe for an RFC has been the subject of prior discussions and I don't know that I have ever seen one where participants in those prior discussions did not weigh in. It is a best practice to try and keep responses here concise and leave behind any "baggage" from prior discussions. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• No, per the discussion above. Skyshiftertalk 22:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Yes to Czu, No to the fecal one, per this and this prior discussions. Ringtail Raider (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  To add since I see this given as a reason, I agree with commenters saying there is value in having a more explicit image as well, as just the wikipony socks image might give the wrong impression. And, as much as some people seem to get really mad when I say this, I am also concerned about the precedent it would set for other sex articles, as there are plenty where a more "tame" image than what is currently featured could be substituted, and the results of this could be cited to change those, which could be taken advantage of by WP:IDONTLIKEIT voters. Maybe I'm just paranoid but considering the current political climate I am probably overly cautious of anything that could possibly be an attempt to "sanitize" articles (please no one take this as an attack against you specifically lol). Ringtail Raider (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: As this topic is messy, to make it easier to understand these are relevant topics

• Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png - Wikimedia Logos and Visual Identity Guidelines
• Talk:Furry pornography/Archive 1#Hidden page revisions and Talk:Furry pornography/Archive 1#Source
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Czu MLP clop Wikimare.png
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png
• Talk:Clop_(erotic_fan_art)#Did_you_know_nomination_2
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Clop DYK

Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• No to both of the hardcore images mentioned. Yes, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, but WP:GRATUITOUS applies too. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. These images are not needed to understand what Rule 34 of My Little Pony means. Softcore alternatives can get the job done just as well; the only value the hardcore ones add is shock value. There is nothing inherent to this topic that necessitates a picture of a horse shitting into another horse's mouth. Never thought I'd need to say that sequence of words, but here we are. JFC.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'm undecided on Czu, but I say No to the feces image per WP:GRATUITOUS GamerninjaNotFound (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: I'm honestly not sure why the feces image is being brought back up considering it was previously voted against. I have a feeling there might be more votes against Czu than there would be otherwise because of the other image being lumped in. Ringtail Raider (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Re I have a feeling there might be more votes against Czu than there would be otherwise because of the other image being lumped in. - FWIW I am actually against Czu as well because the softcore image is just as effective at illustrating the subject & there's no additional value being added by also having Czu, so it still falls under WP:GRATUITOUS. I only singled out that other one in my !vote because of how extreme it was, but I hope that didn't make it look like my opposition to Czu was just guilt-by-association because of the other one being lumped in.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Vanilla Wizard, I didn't get that you associated both files. Your comment is a reasonable assessment. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I wasn't aiming that at you no, it was more just because I thought it was strange to put them together when the second image had already been voted against over a month ago. Ringtail Raider (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

My browser is "Safe search: Moderate": No, In the former file, activating the 1st listed source: "This warning may be hiding NSFW (18+) content. Your jurisdiction/age may mean viewing this content is illegal." in the 2nd source: "Age-restricted adult content. This content might not be appropriate for people under 18 years old.", the latter image, at the Filepage: the source link: there is a Filter active on the file which states "This item is rated adult"; no such filter / restriction exists within wikipedia so editor/users are obliged to provide suppression of the images. The 1st file isn't "hardcore pornographic images"=there isn't any actual sexual activity occuring. In the interests of neutrality a different reality, where it is possible to include such files and any similar files, they could be moved to a section "Images" because they are simply distracting and unhelpful mixed into the text for anyone who would want to study the subject who doesn't want to see actual examples of the images so input to their consciousness=it is understanding the subject not experiencing the subject which they expect/would like/prefer (maybe). That individuals of the Zoophilia#Zoophile community could want to look in and enjoy an article with text and images; there are other articles which provide simply a gallery at the end of the article (as above). For anyone in the zoophile community, it could be helpful to not suppress their interests because this could cause mental health problems like unacceptance, self-hate etc which could promote feelings of self-revulsion and so suicidal issues (I suppose I don't know). With regards to the risk (morally, legally) - how anyone would navigate to this page is that most people simply wouldn't so non-suppression doesn't effect many people detrimentally. My concern is, the idea of sexualizing the interests/culture of girls (who are below the age of sexual maturity) seems like the idea of creating the possibility of pedophilia in my understanding - but I suppose this factor is a different issue. In any situation I would simply deny access to the latter image (in any situation within the species - ignoring my obligation to neutrality) as a responsibility to the future of humans (whatever their preferences) because it introduces / continues / provides a service of, to human consciousness, something which is completely unnecessary=considering the existence of welfare systems, international aid to alleviate human hunger it isn't anyway necessary to resort to such behaviour as animals in nature are necessitated Cattenion (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be best to not have an AI write your vote answers for you. Not sure what most of this is even saying, but as for the first part, an image being "adult" isn't reason enough for removal, and for what I think? you're saying later, image galleries are generally only used in specific situations and this wouldn't be one. Ringtail Raider (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't understand a single word of what they're saying, honestly. Skyshiftertalk 03:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Skyshifter I don't know what they were on about, I think something about age? At Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png, (is the image that cuz file is based on) has already cleared up the age concerns. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Not AI according to GPTZero, just gobbledygook.--Launchballer 03:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• No to both, WP:GRATUITOUS. jolielover♥talk 06:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• No. And frankly this is a WP:SNOW call. We only permit even pornographic material low on the offensive side of things where a failure to do so will significantly undercut important information which cannot be relayed otherwise, and where the cost benefit of that illustrative benefit is massive. Forgive me for having reached the event horizon of my open-mindedness, but I think anyone who feels that it is appropriate to put a comic doodle of one cartoon child horse shitting into another's mouth for sexual gratification into a Wikipedia article is probably WP:NOTHERE for the right purposes. Beyond all of the very appropriately cited concerns around WP:GRATUITOUS, there are also serious WP:CHILDPROTECT considerations here, since we are talking about sexualization of a children's media, involving child-like characters. Now excuse me while I go bleach my eyes and try to tell myself that at least I can spare who knows how many readers. Seriously people, this is not DeviantArt, and anyone who though this material had any chance of flying here needs to reevaluate their understanding of relevant policies and this project's purpose and priorities. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise I understand some of your concerns, but the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy only covers protection of actual children. On the images discussed, these are fictional characters that don't feel pain, have rights or, frankly, exist. If you think that sexualization of child-like fictional characters should be removed, you might as well nominate Lolicon and its entire Commons image category for deletion (spoiler, this won't get anywhere). Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 09:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  No, in fact, WP:CHILDPROTECT broadly bans any content or conduct which seeks to normalize the concept of child sex abuse or which would serve to put children at risk of exposure to such ideas or content. To say nothing of the rest of our Trust and Safety framework, the Universal Code of Conduct requirements for safety, and the project terms of service. I don't know how more simply I can put it than this: we are not going to put material on a forward facing article that simulates CSAM, however abstract and cartoony. It's just not going to happen. Especially on an article with a topic that intersects with an actual children's fandom. Children, some small (but large enough) portion of whom can be expected to accidentally arrive on this page by virtue of natural project navigation of a topic.

  Let's put aside the deep ethical concerns with that on just so many levels, do you have any idea what kind of legal and reputational liablity these images represent for the project? Relative to what value? Almost any adult reading this article is probably 1) familiar with, 2) able to picture, or 3) entirtely capable of finding images of this nature if they are really curious. The idea that we would leave what I just had to look at up on this article to gotcha readers, most of whom will find it beyond revolting, and impact the safety of children is absolutely ludicrous. To say nothing of the prospect of well-deserved office action even if we did. Again, it's just not going to happen. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Where's the simulated CSAM? TarnishedPath^talk 11:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Are you joking? The first image is fixated on the genitalia and anus of a character that is clearly a proxy for a child. The second, I'm not going to repeat describing again. I give not one-tenth of one percent of a crap that they are ponies, not human: the imagery and the entire subtext of the fandom is based on the fact that they are children. And again, that subculture borrows on a medium and franchise this is legitimately aimed at children. Yes, of course we would hope that children would be well-supervised online. We also know that the reality is that masses of them do not have that supervision. Then again, I would like to think that our articles would be one place where parents could trust their children to not randomly stumble upon images depicting children (even fantastical, equine children) in sexually explicit ways.

  Regardless, none of this abrogates us of responsibility for enforcing our safety guidelines, which this clearly does. Other permitted offensive content on this project is not a danger to child welfare in the way that this content is. Whatever microscopic encylopedic value this image might have for the .0000000000001% of human beings who would want to see this content and yet somehow couldn't picture it is absolutely dwarfed by the safety and liability concerns. Again, not even remotely a close call on this one. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  "the entire subtext of the fandom is based on the fact that they are children" Can I get clarification on this? Are you saying that all the characters are children? GamerninjaNotFound (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  The first image is fixated on the genitalia and anus of a character that is clearly a proxy for a child.

  I'm not seeing that. Are your comments based on it being a pony? Pony's are just smaller, stockier horses. As per the second image, as my !vote below indicates, I don't see that it should be here. However, the content of this whole article means that the first image meets MOS:PERTINENCE. The fact that a vagina and anus are visible and that it's a pony don't make it CSAM in the slightest. TarnishedPath^talk 12:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Did you misconstrue the meaning of "simulated" in my wording ("simulated CSAM")? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just to be clear I see no more danger to children from the first image than I do to images found at Vagina or Anus. TarnishedPath^talk 12:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  That is a frankly wild assertion. I could show you the absolute volume of clinical research discussing the longterm psychological impacts of children being exposed to images (even simulated imagery) sexualizing children or characters they associate with childhood. But bluntly, do you really want to be on the record as needing to be convinced of that? The mere fact that we are having a conversation where someone is implicitly suggesting these kinds of images are not harmful if seen by children, is precisely one of the reasons why I was saying that these images inevitably implicate provisions of WP:CHILDPROTECT. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, what?! I didn't want to jump into this discussion but saying a drawing of an anatomically accurate horse saying it is "public domain" (aka, free use) while stretching its... vagina, with such a facial expression, is no more dangerous than images of vaginas is so beyond absurd. You have to be joking. Children being exposed to porn of animals with free use kink is in fact harmful, thank you very much. Children being exposed to vaginas in its usual, non-sexual state is not. Half of all humans have them. But sure, children being exposed to images of a woman in a situation like that pony image - yes, not good. Like with the other comment insinuating a woman's breasts are anything remotely close to this image, I find this notion quite offensive. You just cannot compare normal body parts to a sexual image of an animal. jolielover♥talk 13:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Jolielover Apologies, if that comment at at the DYK came off that way. I was restating that As @Crisco 1492, points out in the nomination, File:Sarah Goodridge Beauty Revealed The Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg was on the main page. I was speaking how other images were on the main page, and to be clear, I was not talk about this file it was I will speak on the lead, File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png, and this file,(the other one in that DYK nomination) illustrate a type of art style. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  See my comment below. It's parents responsible to monitor what children see on the internet. Just because there are ponies and vaginas involved it doesn't make it "simulated CSAM". TarnishedPath^talk 14:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Not what I said jolielover♥talk 14:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  You wrote "Children being exposed to porn of animals with free use kink is in fact harmful, thank you very much." While you may not have written anything about simulated CSAM, others have. We are not responsible for what children read or see. Even discarding sexually explicit material, there is all manner of material on our website which children should not be reading, let alone be seeing. That's their parents' responsibilities. We are WP:NOTCENSORED. TarnishedPath^talk 14:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NOTCENSORED expressly yields to WP:Offensive material on this subject. And yes, we are absolutely responsible for what children see on our servers. How can you possible think that our policies absolve us of placing literally anything in our articles. The reason we permit (very limited) content that qualifies as pornography on some other articles is because A) it is not nearly as dangerous as this content, and B) it is felt to have significant encyclopedic merit. The opposite is true here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  If your argument is that the images are offensive, then so is the whole article. Do you intend on taking it to AFD? TarnishedPath^talk 14:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  You must know that is a straw man argument. A textual discussion of a concept in abstract is not the same thing as an image actually displaying child sexualization. Not under polciy and not under common sense. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  There is no child sexualization. TarnishedPath^talk 14:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Bluntly, TP, tell it to the marines, if you actually believe that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise, regardless of it's nature. This has already been discussed with consensus (the non explicit file that the czu is based on) and this seems off topic for this discussion. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  It is very much critically, directly on point. The fact that this has been discussed previously does not obviate it as a central factor in this discussion and the !votes being made here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines, however that seems to be outdated. Wikipedia:Sexual content/FAQ Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's also marked as historical. It's not clear to me from that page whether it was once part of an early version of the image use policy that got stripped out, or if it is merely an WP:advice page from the Sexology WikiProject that never underwent the WP:PROPOSAL process, but, as you say, it's pretty dated, and I'd argue what little of it that is relevant to this discussion has already been argued here independently. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise "They are children", they are fictional. That's all that matters. Fictional porn is legal. Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons servers, for that matter) servers are based in the US, whose government can differentiate fictional characters from real children. Again, Lolicon article exists, with images and all, and you seem to even be fine with it. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 12:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  "they are fictional. That's all that matters." No, it very, very, very much is not. You're entirely missing the point here. The question is not whether these images qualify as illegal content. By virtue of professional relevancy, I can well guarantee you I am vastly more familiar with the law on this subject than just about anybody else likely to comment here, so I am perfectly aware they do not meet the legal definition for CSAM. That is not my chief concern (though I would ask you to consider whether we should be splitting hairs over CSAM and CSAM-adjacent, when discussing whether content belongs on Wikipedia). But putting aside how this content would make Wikipedia look, here's the major objection: it is a safety threat for children, some of whom absolutely will find their way here because of this subculture being derived from a children's fandom. To say nothing of the vast majority of our regular readers who just would want to have nothing to do with seeing this imagery (see the much lesser, but still sufficient to bar this content in its own right, provisions of WP:GRATUITOUS).

  And for what? For some fictional extreme edge case person who wants to see this content, but is also somehow unable to envision it or find bronie porn on the internet?. That person would have to have clinical aphantasia and be locked in a prison that somehow allows them internet access to Wikipedia, but not the rest of the internet. So I feel for that hypothetical, deeply challenged person, but not enough to abrogate the safety of the mental welfare of children or raise profound concerns about this project in the public eye. Let's keep our priorities in mind. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• the imagery and the entire subtext of the fandom is based on the fact that they are children. no??? the majority of the characters in the show are adults. As well as in most fan art and characters. This is a wild claim to make. Ringtail Raider (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes to File:Czu MLP clop Wikimare.png, No to File:Lead shits in Crunchy's mouth by Lordcuckness.png. The first image I don't find to be WP:GRATUITOUS (it's not hardcore), while the second clearly is. WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. Notably, the first image was in the version of the article which was approved to WP:GA. See Special:Permalink/1355949499. To those quoting WP:CHILDPROTECT as justification for their no !votes, that policy doesn't apply to content, it applies to "editors attempting to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships" and editors who may be attempting to push agendas. Frankly no child should be on the internet without some level of oversight from their parents. It is not our responsibility to remove explicit content just because some parents may be irresponsible. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

As I was undecided on Czu in my comment on this thread, I wanna express here that I now say Yes to Czu per your reasoning, and also that I agree with your comment as a whole. GamerninjaNotFound (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I would like to point out once again, to anyone voting because they claim the image looks like a child please see my comment of the related topics Issac I Navarro (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro, perhaps it would be useful to restate your comments here. This seems to be have been discussed quite a bit and it might be useful for other editors if you summarise what your position in this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath

Towards the top of the thread I

stated to see the following topics and threads as this topic is messy, for instance, the claim about it being a child has already been debated at a few places, at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png and was also Talk:Furry pornography/Archive 1#Hidden page revisions and Talk:Furry pornography/Archive 1#Source.

The involved editor at the Talk page where

• SparklesTrainNerd
• Ringtail Raider
• Chaotic Enby
• Toadspike
• Chess enjoyer
• DMacks
• PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST
• myself: The only thing that I mention in that thread is that a similar concern arose in July 2007 when a suggestive image of Wikipe-tan was proposed for the lolicon article. Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan#Use and mentions. In this case, the image is exotic fan art depicting Wikipe-tan as a pony, thus keeping the ponified version of the mascot as the primary image seems reasonable
• Ravenswing mentions there was also a thread at ANI about the pony being a child.

(These are about copyright of the wiki tan and Wikipedia trademark:

• Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png - Wikimedia Logos and Visual Identity Guidelines
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Czu MLP clop Wikimare.png )

(These are the DYK comments:

• Talk:Clop_(erotic_fan_art)#Did_you_know_nomination_2
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Clop DYK)

There is consensus for the image at Talk:Clop (erotic fan art)/Archive 1#Should an actual NSFW image be used as the primary image of the article, similar to Yiff there is also Talk:Clop (erotic fan art)/Archive 1#Examples, images in article body discussing images as whole, for the article. Issac I Navarro (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

is this seriously still going on??? Ringtail Raider (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

More like see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Also, I just realized that the whole child protection argument is completely irrelevant to the discourse surrounding the inclusion of images and is thus offtopic. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 13:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be illegal to be harmful to children, against our policies, against the WMF's universal code of conduct, against the WMF Trust and Safety policies, deeply offensive to our typical reader, harmful to the image of the project, and likely to receive an office action once WMF legal hears about it. And it's literally all of those things. And you need to give WP:CHILDPROTECT another look, because once editors start implying that images that sexualize children, even cartoon animal children, are not harmful for children to see, as multiple editors have now implied, it very much becomes relevant. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Snow Rise Please see my comment above. It has already been discussed that the image is not CSAM. It seems off topic of this RFC to keep bringing that up. Issac I Navarro (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Issac, please read again. I grant that it does not meet the legal definition of CSAM. It's still harmful to children and a source of liability for the project. It really is that simple. Though it's worth adding that it and also has no redeeming encyclopedic value that comes within an astronomical unit of passing even just the much lower threshold of the WP:GRATUITOUS test. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

"It's still harmful to children".

We're not here to monitor what Children see. That's their parents' responsibilities. The first image is not gratuitous as it is not hardcore. TarnishedPath^talk 14:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Protecting children from harmful content is absolutely one of this community's responsibilities. This isn't a zero sum game. Let's ignore for a moment that we absolutely want parents to be able to believe they can let their children use this encyclopedia without randomly stumbling upon simulated CSAM. Because regardless of what their parents expect, and regardless of their exercise of their parental responsibilities, this content will hurt children and will create liability for the project and damage to its image, and has no encyclopedic value that comes anywhere near justifying any of that. What parents "should" or "should not" be doing is immaterial to our responsibilities in that regard. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, where is the "simulated CSAM"? TarnishedPath^talk 14:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I've already discussed this at length, TP, and will not repeat myself in what is already becoming a voluminous discussion. Frankly I am befuddled that you would challenge that label, given the nature of the content, but I'll let the rest of the community judge this ginormous spade for its spadeness. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

You are plenty welcome to find this image inappropriate or distasteful for other reasons. However, calling something CSAM or CSAM-adjacent when there are no children or child-adjacent creatures involved waters down the term. That is its own dangerous precedent to set. Clearly enough people here disagree with you that maybe it is worth taking a step back and considering why, rather than flirting with the line of WP:AGF. No, I don't want to discuss it further on your talk page. Have a good day though. Norahqueen (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Snow Rise The topic of it being harmful or akin to CSAM has already been mentioned at other places and we should stay clear of that topic. The latter half of what you said is what this topic is about.

Is this file educational useful and encyclopedic for this page? ( I have expressed my settlements regarding this file at

Talk:Clop (erotic fan art)#Removal of File:Czu_MLP_clop_Wikimare.png) Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, the first image clearly meets MOS:PERTINENCE. TarnishedPath^talk 14:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

As in my thread above, no to the two hardcore pornographic files (File:Czu_MLP_clop_Wikimare.png or File:Lead shits in Crunchy's mouth by Lordcuckness.png etc).

I am fine with softcore and/or sexually suggestive images being used to illustrate the article: those could add encyclopaedic value. Hardcore, gratuitous, fetish art does not. qcne (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The Czu image is not gratuitous, given the article content. It is not hardcore. Hardcore porn involves visible sexual penetration, oral sex, and ejaculation. TarnishedPath^talk 14:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, it is certainly more gratuitous than the others.

I disagree with the notion present in the thread that it is "simulated CSAM", I also think that's off-topic, but I can't deny that the Czu image is not that softcore. GamerninjaNotFound (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne I originally had a similar view point in Talk:Clop (erotic fan art)/Archive 1#Should an actual NSFW image be used as the primary image of the article, similar to Yiff? Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Clop (erotic fan_art)#Growth: "On Fimfiction, the Clopfics group" the source link to fimfiction.net: "This group is marked as nsfw". Clop (erotic fan art)#Community response "critics (both bronies and non-bronies) raised concerns that children...on mainstream search engines could inadvertently encounter explicit material" (though "approximately 40 percent agreed" doesn't provide a majority of support) is the same as my comment above "no such filter / restriction exists within wikipedia" Cattenion (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Special:WhatLinksHere/Clop (erotic fan art) → My Little Pony is listed Cattenion (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Incase it wasn't clear, No for the coprophilia image, as I expressed here Talk: Clop (erotic fan art)#Is the coprophilia image needed/allowed? A potential edit war. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen anyone argue for the coprophilia image. TarnishedPath^talk 15:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

No, indeed, that image is providing quite a bit of cover for the other, because almost anything looks at least slightly tamer by comparison to an illustration of childlike characters defecating into eachother's mouths. Somehow by this transitive comparison, some editors who really should know better have managed to convince themselves that an image that is "merely" zoophilic and pedophilic in nature is appropriate content for a Wikipedia article. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably because none of the images on this article are either of those things. Ringtail Raider (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate that humans in lives en route to eternity could find the notion life itself has no purpose and so do things which in those acts themselves don't have any outcome which should necessarily produce-promote life / increase the probability of living (because of the wikt:futility, such as Coprophilia, but the fact is the majority of life is governed by principles (which is laws, policing) which ensure humans continue in-as-much-as the fundamental need for continuation (which is merged with an innate acceptance of the natural response: orgasm) is fused necessarily to generation regeneration <---> that the orgasmic response reposne has no natural affinity to defecation as a natural biological process for waste / toxin elimination for the organism human; not any other thing, is 1 or 2: the obvious natural use of genitalia (excluding fornication) is reproduction & 2 or 1 the laws of government don't promote such confusion of natural occurrences to ensure our survival as a species. Cattenion (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC) error: "response" Cattenion (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cattenion , Not too sure what you are specifically on about. I will say that Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines states For some people, even having an article on sex education is over the line, and not appropriate. Wikipedia has no religious affiliation, and so do not cater to religious dogma. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

In any example of erotic: the core subject is "sexual" - that a niche or limited number of people could find coprophilia a sexual preference - doesn't present the subject in the majority of cases (I don't know this as a fact it is a presumption), compared to conventional human sexual activity most people don't have such sexual preferences. If we interpose this fact onto "clop" it would perhaps be the same statistics, most clop viewers would not find coprophilia to be interesting and would instead find it abnormal (if the normal is the statistical majority)=does not portray the basic interests of the subject, so is not helpful for furthering human understanding, at least within the scope of an encyclopedia - is a specialized aspect. Ignoring this previous, why you think the value of improving human understanding can't replace the image with a statement indicating coprophiliac sexual preferences exist within this subject. What exact value does the image possess that it can't be instead replaced by a word / sentence? Cattenion (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cattenion I said no to that file and yes to the czu file. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any images in this dialogue - this is because of? words are sufficient for the purposes of intelligent communication. Cattenion (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• No (eg support removal) The current top image is sufficiently illustrative of the topic, and while edgy, isn't meant to be overtly obscene. Anything more hardcore than that does violate image use policy because they are not needed and only there for obstinately sexual imagery that is not needed to understand the topic. Masem (t) 15:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have stated elsewhere (below) on this talk page my stance on the matter. I personally agree that the (cuz) image may be considered to be extremely vulgar. However, it is relevant to the article, it is clearly depicting what the article is about.

  As we know Wikipedia is not a censor, and many pages on Wikipedia, have sexually explicit images. An example is that, almost evey individual articles listed in the Glossary of BDSM article and any article under WP:SEX include explicit images. Under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines

  Ultimately the question is:
  Is this image educational useful and encyclopedic for this article? I would answer that it is Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't disagree "educational and useful" for researchers "anyone who would want to study the subject" (as above) - but it isn't necessarily a group of researchers who would navigate to this page - could be "children...on mainstream search engines"; (last paragraph of the Introduction) "two animated shows,...concluded in October 2024" is a possible cause for children searching routing to this page. Presumably parents would have a safety filter on their childrens phones so perhaps there would be no actual risk, though I think such a filter wouldn't respond to wikipedia pages, I don't know. Cattenion (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete both for fucks sake let's use a little common sense. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Hell no. Per WP:GRATUITOUS. These images are not necessary or even helpful to understanding the topic. If anything, they are a distraction. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Suggest leaving them out as a matter of editorial decision (invited by the bot). There is actually an explicit question here plus another which might get interpreted later into the answer. The explicit one is "should they be included in the article?" My opinion on that is I suggest leaving them out as a matter of editorial / RFC decision. They really don't add to the article and are a minus regarding other considerations including grossness and offensivenes. The other question one that might get wrongly interpreted later into the answer is "should we per se ban / exclude images such as this from the article? My answer to that question is "NO", Wikipedia is not censored, buttressed by the many reasons for that statement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  @North8000 As stated by other editors, the czu image was apart of the article when it was promoted and accepted as a GA. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping and response. Respectfully, I don't consider the image presence during GA acceptance to be very meaningful regarding the discussion at hand. GA acceptance means a single editor deciding such based on meeting GA criteria. IMO that is not a reflection on the presence of the image. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree and will add that GA approval does not hinge on the use of a specific image. GA status is often taken into account when editors are contemplating a substantial rewrite of an article but even then it is not meant to prevent substantive future edits. Regardless of the content under consideration, a well-attended RFC supersedes the GA assessment of a single editor or even a handful of editors who collaborated on improvements the brought an article to GA status. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  czu isn't "hardcore" - if has to be included it should be under a specific heading "Images / Gallery" so that people could choose to avoid seeing the image while understanding the subject - researchers would like to not get enmeshed into the experiential of the subject - they would like to be able to keep their professional isolation from the actual material which is produced as "experience" and instead have as input meta / critically evaluated information. The position where czu is could be replaced with a less overtly sexual image, so to reduce the boringness of an all text version: erotic doesn't necessarily need to indicate pornographic, so pushing the more pornographic version of a whole range of erotic material is only moving the imaginary line to somewhere else which erotic is not equatable to (the original question erroneously indicating "hardcore" introduces this as an idea). Really for clop fans it is all "just fun" and though the hullabaloo here, clop fans aren't radically advertising or bothering anyone with their private wikt:titillations; so I think we should take the same stance-position. Cattenion (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  As I already said, gallery sections are usually only used in specific situations. Content some people might find offensive isn't one of them; they aren't used like this in any other sex articles, nor the controversial religious articles. Ringtail Raider (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

No for the one with shit in it- Wikipedia may not be censored but the image is stupidly gratuitous. I am undecided on Czu's image since it was in place when this article became a GA, but it is still blatantly pornographic.

I have to wonder who sits down and thinks "today I want to draw porn to put on a Wikipedia article". There's an infamous website for these sorts of images already. GarethBaloney (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Certainly not, Voorts put it better than I could ever have. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

(Comment retracted)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringtail Raider (talk • contribs)

I could theorize all the way to Nebraska and back about how WP:GRATUITOUS means we shouldn't show a gaping horse vulva when other alternatives exist to convey the same point, about how the appearance of impropriety can be problematic even if the characters in questions aren't canonically children, or even about how "common sense" can sometimes be used to assume shared cultural referentials that might not be present. But in this case, I'd say it is putting it quite well. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• (responding because I was pinged) Remove both. I don't see what they add to the page. Most of our pages on similar topics, including Pornography itself, have little to no explicit material, simply because it doesn't help the reader understand the subject any better than the text does. Per MOS:OMIMG, we should only include a "potentially offensive image" if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. It is fairly clear to me that removing these two images, especially with a third already present in the lead, does not make the article less informative, relevant, and accurate. Toadspike [Talk] 18:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Neither of them should be anywhere near Wikipedia. Per , and especially . --Xacaranda (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

(Comment retracted)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringtail Raider (talk • contribs)

Nobody accused anyone of being a pedophile, they said that these images violate our child protection guidelines. Those are very, very different things. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely no one has accused you (or anyone else here) of being a pedophile. And if you make that WP:ASPERSION even one more time, this matter will end up at ANI one way or another, I can promise you. I am done extending courtesy on this one; we have exceeded the threshold of WP:AGF. Read the room: this image staying in the article was never, never going to happen. I haven't the faintest notion what is animating your attempt to push for that result, but regardless it betrays a very serious lack of understanding of the applicable community standards. What you have been told is not that you are a pedophile, but that the image presents an unacceptable safety risk, and an unacceptable liability level fo liability for the project, including to its public image. That it violates community content and safety guidelines, the site's terms of service, and the WMF's Universal Code of Conduct and Trust and Safety guidance, basic common sense, and baseline understanding of the ethical implications of hosting such content here. And it's mere presence on this page is causing editors to contort themselves so much that some have implied that images sexualizing children would not be per se harmful to any child seeing it here, treading on the line of WP:CHILDPROTECT at the bare minimum. If you are someone who has managed to live in such a rose-coloured world that you are unaware of the profoundly harmful impacts of children being exposed to child sexual imagery has (even be it fantastical, cartoonish, animal children), then I congratulate you on your idealic life. But for the rest of us living in reality, we were never going to permit the chance of even a single child being exposed to this threat.

To say nothing of the fact that it is beyond a shred of doubt that the vast, vast, vast majority of adult readers would also not be happy to have this image thrust upon them without consent, and would not consider its addition to this article a boon for educational purposes. I honestly cannot fathom a more clear cut case of where WP:offensive content and image use policies more clearly mandate not including the image. I mean, if the rule doesn't apply to these images, there would be no point in having it at all. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, very reasonable assessment. First off, thank you for your contributions and edits.

I made a comment above regarding, that I do have a slight concern regarding the larger impact of this matter. Specifically there being sexual and pornographic images as a whole on Wikipedia and how this image may set a precedent. Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• No to both. I consider myself to be quite a staunch supporter of WP:NOTCENSORED but this is obviously too far. I could start going off about WP:GRATUITOUS and reader's expectations on just how extreme the images they might encounter on Wikipedia can be, but I realized that I'd literally be writing elaborate arguments about pony porn. I think Voorts got it right here. Common sense is enough.

We are building encyclopedia for the readers, we should not include stuff in articles if the positives for readers are outweighed by the negatives for readers. The tiny bit of understanding that you could argue the image provides to readers is outweighed by the fact a lot of readers simply won't keep reading if that image is next to the text they're trying to read. Therefore the negatives outweigh the positives. People have to actually want to read our encyclopedia for it to be able to provide encyclopedic value to them. It's as simple as that. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 01:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• No on other grounds. Is it OK, copyright-wise, to have art that is intentionally and obviously based on a specific work of fiction and its art style and characters, in such a way as to at least toe, if not cross, the line between the idea of a cartoon horse and the expression of Hasbro's characters and universe? Maybe I'm just a worrywort, though. As far as content concerns are involved... meh. I'm not offended, but I can see how other people would be, and perhaps the scat image is too far, but I don't see the other image as being much worse than what's on A Free Ride or Hentai. I don't get the WP:CHILDPROTECT concerns, though; the characters depicted look more like the adult cast, akin to Twilight Sparkle, rather than the fillies, e.g. Scootaloo. (It's called My Little Pony, not My Little Filly.) -Brainulator9 (TALK) 04:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Brainulator9 Please see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Czu MLP clop Wikimare.png regarding copyright concerns Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  That discussion is about the puzzle piece cutie mark and its connection to Wikipedia. Brainulator is asking about the Friendship is Magic base pony design. As far as I can tell it's been deemed basic enough to be okay as long as the design added on top of it doesn't too closely resemble one of the real characters. That's more Commons's concern than Wikipedia's though. Ringtail Raider (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  What I said over at Commons: "In regards to the pony, it is tagged with Template:MLP fan art, it seems that there are not copyright concerns regarding the fan art. Furthermore, the Commons:Volunteer Response Team confirmed it's use with the artist." Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• No to both. They're WP:GRATUITOUS, don't add much to the article, and certainly could be replaced with less obscene images to convey the same message. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Yes. Not every reader would know what pony porn actually looks like. One (and only one) explicit image should be included. However, I do not think any of those two images are a good option. One is feces porn, which is a very small niche in the clop images, and the WikiTan image has too much text (i addition to the possibility of her being interpreted as underaged). A more neutral image would be preferred. Gial Ackbar (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• I just realized that even though I made this RFC, I haven't yet voted, so my choice is no. The images are WP:GRATUITOUS, unnecessary to illustrate the concepts mentioned, would turn away the average reader, can be potentially harmful to children (let's remember that MLP is made for very young kids), and are clearly zoophilic in a very gross way. I also want to point out that using a Wikipedia puzzle piece on one of them creates the appearance that it's some sort of "mascot" for Wikipedia (like Wikipe-tan), and using that kind of image on Wikipedia gives an undue appearance of impropriety to the project as a whole, or may make it seem like the community/website endorses this kind of material. As voorts so eloquently put it: for fucks sake let's use a little common sense. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• I just realized, I have spoken a lot in this discussion, yet, I haven't actually said, that I have a week Yes to the Cuz image. And an absolute No for the shit image.

Ultimately, there is a concern that I have for how the exclusion of this image may set a precedent for excluding explicit images from Wikipedia. When this topic is closed I would like a clear reason why this image is different then others on the the platform.

I have cited Wikipedia Signpost:"Explicit sexual content draws fire", WP:PLA, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines, Wikipedia:Sexual content/FAQ and WP:PR0N to consider in this matter, in addition to WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:GRATUITOUS.

In regards to WP:HARDCORE, under "Scope and definitions," states that "and other sexuality explicit acts". ("Explicit" is further defined as "very specific, clear, or detailed" and as "containing material that might be deemed offensive or graphic"." The image File:Czu_MLP_clop_Wikimare.jpg, seems to be doing a very sexuality explicit act.

WP:CHILDPROTECT, keeps being brought up. However, I feel that is not what the question for this RFC been about. It has been stated that the lead image is not a child on Commons and other places here (linked above in my first comment). The czu is clearly based on the lead due to it being drawn on a screenshot of this page (that the lead image is in the background).

I have interpreted the question to have always been about whether or not the image is actually educational and encyclopedic for Wikipedia.

My stance has been that it doesn't really matter if it is in the page or not. It is a pornographic cartoon horse. There are way more important articles to discuss and edit.

That being said, if the czu image is excluded. Why? Furthermore, since this article is at WP:GA status. What does that say about other explicit images on Wikipedia as a whole? The Hentai article is at B class, and it has the very explicit image File:Eroge.jpg. That is just one example of countless pages that also contain such files. If we are basing the removal of the czu file per WP:GRATUITOUS, I feel that the image on the Hentai article should also be removed along with all images that fall into that boat. We should clearly define what that boat is. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. I can't find every NSFW image that may be gratuitous, but I've found this one, which I think is and, therefore, is not appropriate for the page. jolielover♥talk 17:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jolielover Completely agree, I will take a look and see if I find any gratuitous images on en wiki, that may also not be appropriate.

A quick side note. For comparison, Hokusai's (1760–1849) The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, is a historical example that should definitely not be lumped anywhere near that boat. That being said, where is that line between images such as the czu file? Are we just going by common sense or an actual guideline to separate them. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jolielover On the Lolicon, article there is File:Hakurei Shrine Reitaisai in Taiwan 3 (1).jpg, it appears to be a photograph of a pornography stand at a conversation, in the photo there is visible cartoon nudity.

Also, while I don't think File:Furry little snack english ver.png (not explicit, just really strange NSFW art) is not gratuitous, I found it odd on the Fetish art article. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Look, I'm actually not interested in spending more time than I have to looking at NSFW images of controversial nature. Please don't ping me as I'm not interested in pursuing these. jolielover♥talk 17:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jolielover, Appreciate your input. I completely understand that very reasonable position. Once again, Thank you for your participating and your contribution in this RFC. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Definite No to both (changing my vote per Snow Rise's comment below) I agree that the second image is a pedophilic representationthe shit one. I don't have anything to add beyond what has already been written. I don't love the other one, either, but I have no opinion on whether it should be included. Slava570 (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Yes to the Czu image, no to the coprophilic one. As @Gial Ackbar mentioned, not every reader knows what actual clop looks like; the suggestive Wikipe-tan image on the article, while perfect as the primary image, is not representative of real clop. Frankly, the concerns over the Czu image are overblown as it is neither pedophilic nor zoophilic (as the creator of the article and the one who brought it to GA status, please read the actual article if you actually believe this). –GM 18:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I can't speak for everyone of course, but I did read the article and am very aware of the elaborate mental gymnastics and folk psychology that some in that subculture have gone to in order to rationalize their desires such that they can have their cake (openly celebrate their paraphilias) and eat it too (suppress their anxiety over the attached social disapprobation and stigma attached to those paraphilias).

  But here's the thing: just because those individuals have engaged in that convoluted rationalization to an extent that reassures them and has even achieved a degree of memetic social cache and perceived legitimacy within that subculture does not mean that the plain and commonly accepted meaning of the actual clinical terms changes for the rest of the world. And it certainly doesn't magically evaporate the deep implications such content has under our policies and under common sense regarding the impacts upon the typical reader. The image is zoophilic because it presents a highly sexualized representation of animal. It doesn't change the analysis on wit for the average person reacting to that image if you tell them, "Oh, but it's supposed to be a really, really smart pony!"

  Likewise, the image is pedophilic because it is meant to represent a variant of a character that is overwhelmingly presented as a child. And since there seems to have been some confusion about this for some FRS respondents above, let's make this crystal clear: this is the original and most common presentation of the character (, ). That is a child, my friend, or at least a character that has been very obviously generated with a very chidlike presentation; no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts' about it. Even the affix "-tan" in the name is a japanese nominal affix that is meant to imply baby talk and childish quality. This is not an edge case.

  Besides which, even if every person here had previously accepted and internalized your reasoning for why this "isn't really X or Y", it would still be irrelevant to both the safety issues and the analysis under our offensive content policy. Because what really matters for the former is how a child would perceive that content: and the consensus of research and practice of child psychology is not remotely divided on this question: when a child sees an image sexualizing a child or childlike character, it is deeply harmful, with more or less certain impacts running the gamut of all manner of lasting emotional and behavioural disregulation, lifelong impacts on mental framing and perception for appropriate targets for sexual interaction, increased susceptibility to grooming, and a slew of other profound psychological effects so great in volume, I can't even summarize them here without tripling the length of this post.

  Now, you may not believe or accept the existence of that harm as scientific fact, but this community does, and beyond that, the WMF requires us to act as such. So even if you feel secure in your "it's not really that" logic--indeed, even if we all felt comfortable with it--it wouldn't change the facts on the ground for the safety concerns, because the impact on a child's developing brain will not be based on that kind of framing.

  For that matter, the same reasoning also fails to get you past the WP:offensive content threshold. Because the overwhelming majority of our encyclopedia's readers are going to find either of these images absolutely disgusting, if not emotionally disturbing, and it is therfor deeply inappropriate (and completely contrary to any educational purpose) to thrust that kind of content upon them without their consent. As others have explained in detail above, not only is that highly unethical, but doing so will also not encourage the average reader to engage with the information in this article, but in fact, quite the opposite.

  And I'm sorry, I usually try to be more charitable and less strident and absolutist in my descriptions on this project of positions I feel do not hold water (build bridges where possible, is my typical philosophy here) but the idea that either of these images is somehow critical to explaining this topic and cannot be replaced by a textual description is about as risible and easily dismissed an argument as I have ever seen in my almost two decades on Wikipedia. For at least two super obvious reasons:

  • First, it is not like this is a graph of a fuel-to-lift ratio for the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, or a visual representation of the molecular bonds of a strand of RNA used to transcribe a protein, or any other such complicated concept where a visual shorthand is immensely helpful or even essential to capturing the concept for a typical reader. All you would need to capture the essence of the "czu" image is to say "For example, a work of clop art may posture a pony in a sexually provocative pose and heavily exagerate and focus upon the character's genitalia and anus, with facial and anatomical details suggesting that the pony is sexually aroused." And bam, educational purpose of that image achieved through alternative means, as directed by our policies. The idea that the typical adult reader is not going to have the cognitive and mental visualization tools to understand what we are talking about from that description is absolutely ludicrous.
  • Second, even if the above were not true, finding content to illustrate exactly what clop consists of is the single most straightforward and easily achieved task for any adult on whole of the internet. I'm not even exaggerating for effect there: typing "my little pony porn" into google will achieve one of the most robust sets (if not literally the largest) of returned content in the history of the open web. Within seconds of showing an interest in the specifics of this kind of material, any adult reader can have more examples at their fingertips than they can ever make their way through in a lifetime of intensive effort. So why do these images need to be up on an a general purpose encyclopedia article, where they will disturb our typical reader not expecting to see it, and do harm to our child readers who happen to stumble upon it, because this subject matter arises out children's media? Obvious answer: they don't need to be up here at all, and no vague appeal to free expression justifies them in light of the negative consequences of placing them here.

  At the end of the day, we are not here to validate or otherwise engage with the bronie/clop art communities in their attempts to normalize what appeals to them sexually. The internet is full of safe spaces for that purpose. But this is just not one of those spaces, and this is just not appropriate content for a general audience encyclopedia. I'm sorry if that makes anyone feel excluded: I doubt that is any responding editor's express purpose here. But there are larger issues at work here with regard to this project's priorities, safety obligations, and duties to its readers. Issues with cotent likely to end up in front of children with harmful effect, with regard to expectations and good faith behaviour relating to what we shove in the face of our readers without warning, and with the project's legal and reputational liabilities from not taking those duties seriously. Those considerations must take priority. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise, This ping and comment/question is a tad off topic for this RFC. Firstly, I would like to say, thank you for your continued years of service and contributions on Wikipedia as a whole. I agree with the vast majority of things you point out. Other points I am not completely sold on, for instance your rationale regarding the tan suffix among other things. That being said, I have expressed (above) how the exclusion may set a precedent for future image guidelines. What are your thoughts specifically on that? Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  My view is that any time one presents a sexualized image of a child, or a character which might reasonably be taken as a child by either an adult or an actual child--whether that determination be reasonably made on the reason of plain presentation, derivation from an actual child or an established child character, or through additional context--that image is per se inappropraite for a Wikipedia article. That would include images of children or unambigously childlike characters that are transformed into animals in addition to the resulting design being sexualized. There cannot be flirting with the edges on this issue. As to content that is "only" zoophilic in nature, I believe that too is proscribed for largely the same reasons, as discussed above, though obviously the child-oriented stuff is the greater of the concerns.

  Beyond those discrete areas, I don't believe that a strong binding influence should to be extrapolated from this one, very fact specific, case. Even on the zoophilia issue, I would expect that our articles on the topic probably have examples of historical art depicting the act, so where the encyclopedic line there between neolithic paintings and furry porn is, is a matter for further debate on other articles. I do believe any artwork of a sexualized subject will probably always be considered inappropriate for this article, because of its close relationship to children's media, and because of the mixed nature of the content produced by the involved communities.

  However, believe it or not from my firm position on this occasion, I am generally not precious about explicit material. There just have to be some non-dispensable proscriptions, and this is one of them. A few here want to say "But this isn't the way everyone engages with the art, and to me, this is non-offensive." That mistakes the nature of the concerns being raised, the most serious of which are unrelated to general social censure over their sexual interests. The fact of the matter is, depending on their age, a child is operating on mixed, to little, to essentially no broader social or ideological subtext when they see a sexualized image of a child. That's just not how a child would process that visual stimuli. Rather, when children see another child, or a character they relate to a child, presented as a highly explicit target for sexual interest, there's just no way to overemphasize just how deep and lasting the consequences can be when they model or internalize those concepts, particularly at certain developmental levels.

  I do appreciate not everyone has a professional or personal background where they are familiar with just how ugly the fallout can be in those terms, but I feel like its a matter of general common sense to broadly understand it is a very bad thing. Certainly we recognize that to the extent we permit fringe art on the topic, you don't leave that shit out in any place where you can reasonably expect children to be. Including Wikipedia articles relating to My Little Pony. And anyone fixated on whether they (or others) should be judged for their particular sexual predilections are missing the focus of concern.

  Lastly, thank you for the kind words--that was nice of you to say. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise I think the best course of action is to try and build consensus and I personally have stated (above), that this specific image is not all that important. But it's exclusion is. I see your concern regarding CHILDPROTECT, yet, I am not completely sold on all your points and have expressed where dissent on that view point.

  Regarding, Zoophilia lets all be honest this is in some way kinda is. There are sources that say otherwise so I personally will not argue that point.

  I brought up that pages such as historical examples of zoophilia and see why they images are okay. Thus, some of it is common sense, however, I am trying to see where, (as I put it above), to lump such content in witch boat and where that line is. the lolicon, article there is File:Hakurei Shrine Reitaisai in Taiwan 3 (1).jpg, it appears to be a photograph of a pornography stand at a conversation, in the photo there is visible cartoon nudity that could be interpreted way more childlike then this image. If the issue here of removing the czu image then that file on the lolicon article would definitely be affected.

  (While I don't completely agree with everything you have stated (specifically this specific image). We are all adults and can be civil and speak about this in a conversation that is productive to build consensus.) Issac I Navarro (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Also, I there under Wikipedia:Advice for parents or guardians there is Help:Options to hide an image. Issac I Navarro (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   If anyone is interested, you are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lolicon Removal of File:Hakurei Shrine Reitaisai in Taiwan 3 (1).jpg Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I believe consensus is already clear on this matter: the large majority of editors who have contributed an !vote so far have been clear that both images raised in this RfC are entirely inappropriate, for a bevy of serious reasons implicating numerous community and WMF policies and other important considerations. And I would not anticipate that ratio changing as more FRS respondents reply, except to perhaps become even higher. As to the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, if you are asking for my perspective, I would have to look at the image in question in that other article and reply there. But it wouldn't change my mind (and doesn't directly impact the local consensus) about the editorial determinations on this page, which I believe are ultimately clear cut, for the reasons summarized in my last couple of responses. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise To be clear, I wasn't using the lolicon article specific image as an argument, I was pointing out that if this image was to be removed for that reason, that one on the lolicon article should definitely be removed as well. (In my opinion, the one at the lolicon article is wrose because the drawing in the photo look like kids.) Issac I Navarro (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think you are very arguably correct about that, but it's a discussion that has to be held on that article's talk page. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ooooooh, your concerns are more about the Wikipe-tan use rather than the ponies looking like children. That makes more sense. I wonder how well would an image of two clearly adult OCs having sex at an angle that does not expose genitalia would work, although that would still raise concerns over MLP being for children. -Brainulator9 (TALK) 17:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Brainulator9 I never been sold on the tan suffix per @Chess enjoyer rational at Talk:Furry pornography/Archive 1#Hidden page revisions (given that is for a completely different image that is nowhere near as extreme as this one) and the conversation at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 228#Inappropriate content involving fictional children Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see Chess Enjoyer addressing the "-tan" issue in that thread, but regardless, I can assure you that the suffix is unambiguously connected with the concept of babytalk and extremely young children in Japanese. When their articulation is developing in the very first years of speech Japanese children (as with children everywhere) cannot properly enunciate the voiceless affricate in -chan, so they voice it as a voiceless plosive--hence "-tan". This led to the development of a 'cutesy' honorific/nominal suffix -tan, to be applied to extremely young children.

  That said, I'm slightly confused why you have focused on this one factor, since it is not the only, or even the major, indication. The most powerful indication is simply that the original and most common design for the character is unambiguously an illustration of a child, or a character with a child's body, however you want to put it.

  I appreciate that the borders on these things get blurred in moe and kawaii art appreciation, but this is not an area where Wikipedia can afford to play fast and loose with the cleverdick "But is it reeee-ally a child? Are you sure!?" games that some 'appreciators of the form' want to engage in. If the character is a child or might reasonably be perceived to be a child, then it should be treated as such for purposes of proscribing sexualized content of that character. We cannot afford laissez-faire application on this issue. However, the case is frankly not even remotely a close call when it comes Wikipe-tan's typical presentation, in any event. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise, they may have been referring to my comments in this deletion request on Commons, which was for the image being used in the article's lead. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise, over at Commons, Cheese Chess Enjoyer also raised a similar point at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MLP clop fanart of a pony version of Wikipedia.png.

  I would like to ask: if the concern is that the image does not reflect Wiki-tan's typical presentation, how is that standard being applied consistently? For example, File:Wikipe-tan Commission 2 by SpagMushrooms.png depicts Wiki-tan (looks aged up from the original) completely different. Illustrated to be in a suggestive style and wearing fetish attire. That file is on the Rule 34 article.

  If deviations from the character's standard appearance are not, by themselves, grounds for exclusion, why would not apply here. It is a cartoon pony drawn in a lewd way. (As you noted, the age-related concern is not the only issue with the file; however, that is where I personally dissent)

  The relevant question should be whether the image serves an encyclopedic purpose within the article. (It appears from the majority of other editors !votes they agree it doesn't).

  While the DYK is going on I have removed the image, so there wouldn't be any concern on that end of things. Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't not enjoy cheese, but that isn't my username, @Issac I Navarro :) Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Chess enjoyer Apologies, I am using mobile and auto correct keeps popping up. Thank you for your edits and contributions. Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  (To note: That image in the lead is completely different then this explicit file and rational (on Commons) for that may not completely apply).

  Personally, I do not wish to debate the degree of explicitness of the file itself. It is pony porn there really isn't anything more to say.

  I am trying to understand the underlying rationale being applied here. If the file is being excluded because it is considered too extreme or how you/others put it, what implications does that have for other files that are very similar in their explicitness. That is the perspective I am comeing from. My concern is less about defending this particular file and more about whether the standard being applied here could/should also be applied consistently across comparable cases. Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Whatever, honestly. I don't really care for the "loss" of educational content because it's not really lost. Regardless of what happens to the images in the article, they're still on Commons, so they could still be used in the future if consensus changes. That, and I don't want to dedicate my time to discussion of pony porn of Wikipedia. Unsubscribing from this thread (should have done this a long time ago). Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 13:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

No to both (they're both very much "hardcore" and obviously so!), no to sexualized images of children even if they are fictional like lolicon, and no to sexualized images of fictional children's characters like My Little Pony. "Last best place on the internet," eh? We don't need an illustration of every depraved concept covered by the encyclopedia. You don't need an illustration to help people understand what "erotic fan art" is, the words are sufficient to describe the concept. Levivich (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, the cartoon horses are not real, and my understanding is that the horses are not themselves children (the property of being a child is not transitive). They are anthropomorphic characters that combine some animal elements and some human elements. I appreciate the desire to tell people online that you aren't a sicko (I'm also not a sicko), but it is important to be realistic. By the same token, most people do not describe Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse as engaging in bestiality (despite being mice) or child molestation (despite mice reaching sexual maturity at an age when such activity would be inappropriate for humans). Rather, they are usually described as being cartoon characters, so there is not really an ethical issue with a drawing of them "doing it", other than that it may be strange or offputting. jp×g🗯️ 11:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

No. If there are already enough illustrations to get the point across, there is not really a point in adding a huge number more that are extremely explicit. If someone wishes to peruse the subject, it may be smart to link a Commons category, but I really don't think that a cartoon horse's glistening asshole belongs in an article that is not specifically about cartoon horses' glistening assholes. There is a lot of stuff we could use to illustrate the article pornography, but if you look there, it is mostly normal stuff, and not people shitting in each other's mouths (although that is certainly a notable subtype of it). jp×g🗯️ 11:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, if there were an article about "cartoon horses' glistening assholes", would this not be it? Norahqueen (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia's job is to inform, not to titilate or offend. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• No per WP:GRATUITOUS, as both images meet MOS:SHOCK.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 20:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m leaning towards Keep on the Czu image per WP:NOTCENSORED, probably not on the scat image.

One could argue that the Czu image might be something that you probably could expect to illustrate an article explicitly about My Little Pony Pornography. I highly question Snow Rise’s conduct in this RFC, as in several points I would feel that they’ve gone beyond WP:AGF, especially with comments like At the end of the day, we are not here to validate or otherwise engage with the bronie/clop art communities in their attempts to normalize what appeals to them sexually..

This sets a dangerous precedent towards how we handle image removals on Wikipedia and it seems to hinge upon the tried and true “Protect the Children” argument.

The character depicted is a fictional cartoon horse. Considering the subject matter is explicitly explicit, kids shouldn’t even be on this article to begin with. There is a legitimate reason as to why it could be included (to depict the subject matter). And lest we forget WP:NOTCENSORED

Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content.

MOS:SHOCK is explicitly about the lead image, so it wouldn’t apply here. Also note that I’m currently on holiday so I’m probably not going to respond promptly to this thread.Padgriffin (Squawk) 04:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I highly question Snow Rise’s conduct in this RFC, as in several points I would feel that they’ve gone beyond WP:AGF, especially with comments like "At the end of the day, we are not here to validate or otherwise engage with the bronie/clop art communities in their attempts to normalize what appeals to them sexually."

A) You've taken my comment completely out context, and I believe you are ascribing to it a note of condecension which is not in the text of the observation, especially when you read the statements immediately before and afrer it. B) I believe I have been completely civil through the duration of this discussion, as indeed I think all parties have been, despite strenously disagree on the facts of what some very important polices require here and the potential consequences for getting this one wrong. I think your comment probably falls farther afoul of WP:AGF and needless personalizes this dispute more than anyone else has so far. C) Regardless of whether you accept that analysis, an article talk page is not the place to raise such issues; I am open to hearing your concerns on my talk page, but while here, please WP:FOC; loading what is already a difficult and bloated discussion with this sort of commentary speculating on what you perceive to be the bad faith of other editors, is not helpful and is contrary to policy.

This sets a dangerous precedent towards how we handle image removals on Wikipedia and it seems to hinge upon the tried and true “Protect the Children” argument.

You say this as if that is some sort of histrionic attitude relating to a moral panic. We're not talking about parents freaking out about satanism in Dungeons and Dragons, or senators scoring political points on the back of violent video games, here. We're talking about children being exposed to pictures of other children, and animals, as objects of sexual gratification. That is orders of magnitude more serious than you seem to be implying it is, and this community just cannot afford to do that, from an ethical, liability, and reputational perspective. This project is not all thigns to all people, and there's no shortage of places where any single adult human being with an internet connection can find this kind of content within seconds, without us hosting it somewhere where it can do serious harm. And this community and this project very expressly does have a "Protect the Children" policy. As does the WMF.

Considering the subject matter is explicitly explicit, kids shouldn’t even be on this article to begin with. There is a legitimate reason as to why it could be included (to depict the subject matter)

I'm sorry, but that turns all logic on the context here on its head. Children are likely to land here because the underlying subject matter is a children media franchise. Whether we want them on this article or not, they will be here, and the notion that they should know better than to be on this article is nonsensical for at least two reasons: First, any number of them might end up her incidentally through external or internal links. And second, even if they did have some sense of what this subject matter is and followed a non-blind link here...they are, you know, children, and thus not expected to behave in a perfectly appropriate or predictable fashion?

Of course, for any given child trying to research this franchise, there's a decent chance of them stumbling upon this kind of content somewhere online. But it doesn't mean Wikipedia should be in the business of springing such deeply inappropriate content on them (or for that matter, dropping it in front of the eyes of the vast majority of adult readers who also don't want to see it without their having actively sought to see it).

What kind of bemuses me about the position that we absolutely must push this kind of content on a Wikipedia article is that all indications are that the communities that produce this content have themselves evolved to a point where they take very active steps to make sure children (and adults who don't share their fetishes) don't just randomly stumble upon it. Because they recognize both the optics and the moral implications of letting children see the content, and the concept of consent for adults who aren't looking for it. Bluntly, if we were to do less to protect children and the disinterested from having art of sexualized children and animals shoved into their faces than are forums on 4CHAN, that would be a pretty strong indicator that we are in a bad place. But thank goodness, consensus here is clearly against inclusion.

In any event, I think you're very selectively quoting WP:NOTCENSORED there by cherry picking very short bursts of verbiage that seem to indicate full-throated support, and ignoring the actually more nuanced guidance of that guideline, which makes clear that the principle is far from absolute, and directs the reader to the exact same policies on offensive content which the overwhelming majority of respondents here have quoted in their oppose !votes. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't mind editors !voting for the removal of the image from the article if they deem it unnecessary, but something rubs me the wrong way when the editor in question continues to insist that the Czu image is pedophilic and zoophilic when it certainly is not, as universally considered by both bronies and subject-matter experts. Over half of all bronies find explicit pony content to be a valid form of self-expression, so it rubs me the wrong way that by insisting that an explicit drawing of a fictional cartoon animal is pedophilic and zoophilic, they are essentially implying that over half of all bronies are pedophilic and zoophilic. It raises the question: furry pornography is very intimately intertwined with the furry fandom and the LGBTQ community; would they also find furry pornography to be pedophilic and zoophilic as well? Their comment of very aware of the elaborate mental gymnastics and folk psychology that some in that subculture have gone to in order to rationalize their desires such that they can have their cake (openly celebrate their paraphilias) and eat it too (suppress their anxiety over the attached social disapprobation and stigma attached to those paraphilias) doesn't help their case that they insist that they aren't being condescending. –GM 18:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I just seen @Thryduulf, response at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC at Talk:Clop (erotic fan art) and I think they stated the grievance that I have with this whole matter best: "(I have not expressed an opinion on that and don't intend to), I just feel strongly that the decision should be made based on what the images actually depict and the manner in which they depict it rather than matters that are not relevant to the discussion." — Thryduul. My, whole issue is we keep talking on and on about if the cartoon horse is a child or the fact that it steams from a child's cartoon. Among other matters not relevant to this discussion.

I have expressed multiple times that I have interpreted the ultimate question to be asking, if the images are encyclopedic and educational for this article. I strongly feel that is what should be discussed. If it is deemed that they are to be excluded, then answering why. The coprophilia image is worse in quality and is more extreme then the czu image, thus WP:GRATUITOUS, would apply. I have a very week keep for the czu image, though it is the only other explicit pony file on Commons that illustrates clop (erotic fan art).

Despite my personal opinion, I attempt to approach every article I edit with strict neutrality. While I naturally hold opinions on the topics that I choices to edit, haveing both positive and negative feelings. My stance is to maintain NPOV by relying strictly on what the provided reliable sources state. As @GregariousMadness pointed out, the source material explicitly indicates that this specific topic is not zoophilia. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You are taking this way too personally. As has been explained ad nauseum above, this is not about social condemnation or judgment of the paraphilia or those who identify with it, no matter how selectively you quote comments that were merely a part of this discussion to begin with to respond to those who insist that the manner in which bronies internalize this content somehow, in and of itself, defines whether this is offensive, harmful, or otherwise probelmatic and inappropriate content. Because that assertion is clearly pablum.

Look, first off, you're kidding yourself if you think there's any claim to "universal" perspective on that issue, either within bronie communities, and certainly without. But you know what absolutely is a matter of pretty legitimately universal agreement within a relevant scientific domain? The consensus of every contemporary expert in child behavioural psychology that exposing children to images sexualizing children or characters they might reasonably interpret as children has profound and often lasting psychological consequences.

I don't think it's helpful to get into those specifics again: if you don't happen to be aware of those realities, they are discussed above. And beyond that, the obvious truism of that kind of exposure being a profoundly bad thing is easily verifiable with a minimal amount of research into the topic. Though it does unnerve me a little that this is something that some here seem to need convincing of. I genuinely would have thought it to be nearly unavoidable common knowledge in this day and age.

The point being, it doesn't matter how bronies conceptualize this material, or whether we, in our off-project personal opinions, think of those positions as rationalization, a matter of perspective, or something else entirely. The point is, when children see characters that are also children or presented in a very childlike manner in children's media, characters with whom they associate, in circumstances where those characters are presented as objects of sexual gratification or engaged in explicit sexual acts, it is damaging to the child. That is not up for debate, as I see it.

So, the only bronie perspective (or perspective being suggested on their behalf, anyway) which truly causes me any concern here has nothing to do with whether or not their views on their own psychology are legitimate: it's the myopic inability to see beyond that issue to recognize that it is utterly immaterial to the impact the content has on others. And again, as this very article notes, many of communities that produce this content long ago had a reckoning with that fact and shifted to a more discrete, child safety-oriented, and consent-based manner of putting their material into the world. Why some feel Wikipedia should do less than that, I am struggling to fathom.

Look, like you, I am ultimately happy to have this issue resolved on the WP:GRATUITOUS issue. And I think it is very likely that is the low hanging fruit the closer will hang the result on. But if you are determined to insist that I am somehow being uncivil, unreasonable, or even just uncharitable by continuing to insist that there is also a significant safety issue here (and far less important, and yet still massively important, a liability issue for the community in both legal and reputation terms), don't expect me not to push back against that. Nothing I have said has been animated by malice or even judgment, but rather the belief that there are deeper concerns here than the labels bronies apply to their desires and what we think of them. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to see if we can lower the temperature here. Note that this reply is directed at multiple editors above, not just to SnowRise. We aren't making much headway with this particular facet of the discussion so I suggest we let it rest. In that spirit, I won't expand on my assessment except to say that, per WP:NPOV, we must balance concern for respectful coverage of the bronie community without unduly ignoring perspectives from outside the community. The child pornography and pedophilia aspect of this RFC has been discussed to death and a great many editors have offered opinions that cover and assessments of policies and guidelines that have nothing to do with these particular concerns. Editors repeating themselves on this issue is unlikely to helpful at this time. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, particularly as regards the fact that any further dispute on these points is likely to merely duplicate points already explored at length above. I would only reiterate that at no point have a felt particularly "heated" here. I have here and there been concerned about some of the dismissiveness of the issues, but everything I have said has been focused on the editorial issue. Indeed, up until the chain of posts that started with Padgriffin's accusation yesterday, I had regarded this discussion as remarkably controlled, given the subject matter and stark differences of opinion between the proponents for this content and the larger community's response. There's a reason we don't permit speculation about the rhetorical opposition's supposed biases on article talk pages, and this situation is it. Clearly I do have a strong position on this matter, or I would not have been nearly as vociferous as I have been in sharing it. But I'm here ultimately as a bot-summoned, un-involved, randomly-selected FRS respondent, and I am approaching this from a policy-oriented, neutral point of view.

In short, I have no burning disdain for any of the communities involved--these two images are merely inappropriate for inclusion in the article, under multiple community and WMF policies. It is ultimately as simple as that. If anyone feels that my comments have suggested disdain, they remain free to approach me on my talk page and I we can have a dialogue. Because while this discussion has forced me to be quite blunt in places, that is not the same thing as being uncivil, and I don't wish the one to be taken for the other. If anything, I think I have a reputation on this project for favoring a search for the middle ground. But sometimes there is no available middle ground and the concerns are so significant (and the consequences for getting the call wrong are so potentially disastrous) that you have to speak from the shoulder in explaining to a small but vocal minority why the result they want is never going to fly here. Respectfully, this has just been one of those cases, but there is nothing personal in any of it--not for me anyway. That said, I think it's time to take a pause for the cause and let newer respondents share their perspectives. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)