Talk:Neil Goldschmidt/Archive 1

message: Moved from the article (good questions, but the article body's not where they should be asked):
*"Has he committed other sexual crimes against children?"
*" Who were the people who assisted in the Rape cover-up?"
-- llywrch 16:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Questions 

message: I'm listing this article as "Start" class, changing it from "B." I think there are too many things missing to warrant a "B" rating, and I'll summarize as best I can:
* Goldschmidt was regarded as the state's most influential politician/power broker for several decades, with both populist appeal and ties to big business. The reasons for this are not explored very thoroughly in the article.
* His time as Transportation Secretary is not discussed, nor the notable aspects of his time as governor.
* His initiative to extend the Park Blocks is not discussed, nor any of his attempts to shape Portland after his exit from elected politics.
* His relationships with other notable Portland and Oregon figures is not discussed.
* There is no "electoral history" section at the end.
I'm no expert on Goldschmidt, but my sense is that his influence on Oregon ties in with the subject matter of many other Wikipedia articles, and that should be drawn out better. I hope others will chime in, as I'm sure my list is incomplete. -Pete 00:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article status 

message: As happens so often on Wikipedia sometimes the same concerns come up multiple times. In this case I believe the system worked well and the person checked the talk page, which most people don't bother to do.
Since the topic is come up again, I thought I'd again voice my concern about using this category for this particular person. First, let me state I don't have an opinion one way or another except for the fact that I am a resident of Oregon (though at the time he served I was not voting age) and do remember some things regarding him being Governor of Oregon. 
My concern is that the category (as of the last time I looked) specified someone who was convicted. I believe that we have to becareful assuming admitting to a crime is defacto conviction, when it clearly isn't. There's no doubt that Goldschmidt's reputation has been severly tarnished by the admission of what he did. However, I think in terms of categorizing it the statutory rape category doesn't work well. Davidpdx 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statutory Rape Category Redux 

message: JobsElihu, I think it's important that the introduction to the article give some sense of the massive influence Goldshmidt had in Oregon politics over multiple decades. You may be right that a direct quote from WW is not the best way to do it, but is there another way to phrase it that you think would be more appropriate? Stories from WW, the Tribune, the Oregonian, the Statesman Journal etc. all attest that he was the most influential political figure in the state. It's a fact that the opinion is widespread, and worthy of prominent inclusion in the article. -Pete 03:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree that Goldschmidt's influence, at one time, was massive.  Even the reporter that was quoted, however, admits that Goldschmidt's current influence is weak.  Why don't we just leave it as using the citation for the support, but rewrite the intro so that it doesn't look like Wikipedia is doing cartwheels in support of the admitted child molestor.  The sentence could be simple in that it states, "Goldschimidt, at one time, was highly influential in Oregon politics and business."  That may not be perfect, but it is a starting place. Please feel free to work on it. The quote that we had in the intro was really over the top, though.--JobsElihu 16:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody said that his influence wasn't shot to hell after the crime was revealed. Early '70s plus three decades equals early 2000s. Still, the impact of his influence is still felt; consider that both Saxton nor Kulongoski have ties to Goldschidt, which effectively prevented each from using the issue against the other in the 2006 election, and also the current allegations against Bernie Giusto. Also, claiming that he was extremely influential is not a value judgment, and it's not "doing cartwheels." Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa were influential, so were Adolph Hitler and Joe McCarthy. "Highly influential" fails to capture the sway that Goldschmidt had over policy decisions in Oregon for an extended period. -Pete 20:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I invite you to re-write my sentence, so we can discuss that.  The WW author is a good writer, but this one sentence just seems, out of context that it is, to be too praiseworthy of GS.  Let's work on a creating a sentence with which we both can live.  We both agree that he had huge influence, then the scandal broke, years after the molestation, then his personal influence wained considerably, yet at the same time, many of his former politican/businessmen friends are still highly influential.  I look forward to your re-work of my sentence.  I pointed out before that my sentence was not perfect.  And maybe one sentence is not enough to convey the rise and fall of GS.--JobsElihu 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this: "For the next three decades, Goldschmidt was widely considered the most influential figure in Oregon politics, both in his capacity as an elected public official and as a private lobbyist and policy consultant." (Please note that this is intended to "pair" with the following sentence, which clearly indicates that his reputation took a hit from the revelation of the statutury rape and coverup.) Also, the intro needs to cover the big points, but not back them up fully -- I think it's fine if nuances are left to the sections below. Agreed? -Pete 03:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Great, I will. I hope you'll keep working on the article, too -- it could definitely benefit from your critical eye. Sorry if I was a little snappy in our first encounter. -Pete 03:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goldschmidt's influence 

message: I took a stab at reworking the anon's preferred wording (anon, if you read the edit summaries in the page history, you can see, point by point, how I addressed my objections to your wording). I'm not happy with how the bit in the intro turned out ("thus" is such a stuffy word), so if anyone else wants to make an attempt at clarification please do. I think it has been made clear above that no one is threatening or threatening to "out" anyone, so let's move on and discuss the article as it is currently worded. Anon, if you want to see further changes, post the sentence in question on this page as it is currently worded, and then post the change you would like to see and we can discuss it. WPORE editors, we can use the "Support"/"Oppose" style to comment on any proposed changes, if that works for y'all. If the anon feels s/he is being ganged up on by Oregon editors, we can file an RFC and get some outside opinions. Katr67 13:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Katr67:  Thanks for taking the bull by the horns and doing what I wanted all along:  Specific discussion about the article.   AboutMovies deserves a little credit too for starting a discussion about the article, although there was lots of other stuff that didn't have much to do with the article in his recent post.  And, there was another poster too who actually discussed the article early on  ---thanks!   But, You two guys, Katr67 and Aboutmovies get 3 gold stars and a cup of Java for moving things where they needed to go.  I'm disappointed in some of the other posters. Despite my repeated requests, they would never discuss my initial edits in specific details.   As one poster stated, we were "Wasting our breath" on things that had nothing to do with the article.   I can't understand why there was initially so much discussion about me and very few specifics (actually no specifics for some time) about my edits.   I would urge you guys to learn to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.   One poster threatened me, and then there was response about how it wasn't really a threat.  All of this could have been avoided.   I didn't want an edit war, I didn't want to "choose a confrontation" as one poster stated.   I just wanted to stick to the  article, and improve it.  Something that I feel finally occurred.     At any rate, I'm happy with the article now.   Unless it gets reverted or changed in some material manner, or some news about Neil G. occurs which needs to be added, I'm done here with my edits.  Thanks again Katr67 for your thoughtful edits, and for your skills in resolving this. -- and to everyone here, perhaps our paths will meet again.   71.111.129.39 01:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon, you have a very selective memory. Several times I pointed out how you could lay things out and you refused to even acknowledge my suggestions, much less take them. As to the threats, there are rules on Wikipedia and I recommend you read them. 1) You were clearly in error the way you were going about editing the article in assuming your edits had WP:consensus by stating that other editors should discuss the edits you made AFTER you made them; 2) Someone who is clearly reverting over and over again can be reported and given a temporary ban, which is the direction you were headed had you continued to edit war. This is what I was referring to; 3) You were clearly unwilling to discuss edits and POV pushing (see WP:POV); 4) At least one edit WAS discussed in a seperate section during the time period this all happened, but you refused to contribute. Davidpdx 08:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't deserve any praise--I didn't do much. I think the anon is being disingenuous about his/her participation here, but let's keep further comments on the anon's behavior on the anon's talk page and save this page for discussion about improving the Goldschimidt article.  Katr67 15:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: When you make false claims about what I have done, yes you have a selective memory. If you want to attack me, then sure your going to get slapped back. Davidpdx 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take this off this page folks. You're no longer discussing the article. I have a feeling this back and forth isn't going to get anywhere though, so why don't you both drop it? Thanks. Katr67 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary new discussion section/compromise solution 

message: can we change this???
"The increased scrutiny on Goldschmidt's career, including reporters' difficulties accessing records from his time as Governor,[22] ultimately led to the revelation of a decades-old affair with an underage girl, ending Goldschmidt's extensive career at the center of Oregon politics and policymaking."
Can we change it to something other than "affair"???   "Affiar" sounds like he was just fooling around on his wife.   What occurred was more troublesome.   In particular since the girl was a minor, and the payoffs and such.
71.111.129.39 12:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you suggest? Katr67 21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what the group wants to go with, and you guys are better english speakers than me, but I'll take a stab at it.....  How about...  "The increased scrutiny on Goldschmidt's career, including reporters' difficulties accessing records from his time as Governor,[22] ultimately led to the revelation of sex crimes against a 14 year old girl, which occurred decades before.  This ended Goldschmidt's extensive career at the center of Oregon politics and policymaking."  I ask for comments. thanks!!!  71.111.129.39 01:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any particular problem with your rewrite. I do share the concern that either David or AM brought up before, that there is a limit to how many times it can be repeated that it was a crime, without insulting the reader's intelligence. But my first thought is, this doesn't cross that line. In fact, it may make the sentence marginally more comprehensible; the gravity of the offense explains why it ended a career. And the word "crime" is not already used in that section. -Pete 01:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sounds like a reasonable change, especially because just a couple paragraphs later the article mentions how WW took Goldschmidt to task for characterizing the incident as an affair. Katr67 03:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Katr, excellent job tracking down the statute. Just a side note, I remember that there was a significant difference between the 1970s statute and present law. Don't remember what the difference was, but something to keep in mind. -Pete 05:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. The current statute is on-line, I was too lazy to cite it, and I skimmed ORS 181 for sex offender registration stuff, and that appears to be true, but still needs to be cited. For those who have access to Oregon Laws (per that lengthy discussion on your page a while back), we can dig up the changes to the law (see the footnotes of the law I cited in my edit summary). We can use the citation style we also used at Bull Mountain, Oregon or whatever that was. Gotta run. Katr67 16:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: moved #Sexual relations or sexual abuse section to bottom of talk page, as it's a current discussion. -Pete (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  after leaving elected office... 

message: Why no picture?   I'm sure hundereds of pictures of Neil Goldschmidt exist, and I'm certain many were taken by people who have no copyright issues with having them reposted here.  I've noticed the lack of a picture with other articles too.   Is there some reason for no pictures which goes beyond copyright issues? 71.111.129.39 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 100% about copyright issues. If you can find a free-use picture, feel free to add it, but read WP:COPYVIO and the rest of the copyright series first. Katr67 16:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  another question since I'm new here... 

message: Found this source on the Oregonian article: most comprehensive article I've seen on the scandal. 
-Pete (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  source 

message: this link...
Goldschmidt, Neil. "Statement by Neil Goldschmidt", The Oregonian, May 7, 2004. Retrieved on 2007-07-03.  
doesn't seem to work for me.  A password is required.   not good.  see WP:EL Accessibility.   Does anyone have a working (no password) link for this???  I couldn't find one.
thanks!!!  
71.111.175.59 (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the link in question is to the Newsbank service, which unfortunately seems to only be reliably available if you have a Multnomah County Library account and are logged in. (It's free, but only if you're logged in.) The Oregonian does not maintain a web site that has even a preview or option to buy available. (See User:Peteforsyth/O-vanish for more details.) You're probably right about the guideline; if you want to remove the web link, I'll not revert. Leave the citation though, it's still valid with or without a link. -Pete (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to remember that the newspaper article itself is the source.  The URL is simply a convenience link to an online copy of the source.  Even if the link dies, the source is still valid.  --SSBohio 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dead link  

message: User:Rz0720adfu recently changed the lead. I reverted, as I think it took us away from the fairly balanced lead we've developed through much discussion. However, one element of his/her edit that seems worthwhile is adding "and coverup" to the sex scandal item. The 30-year coverup was indeed a major part of the scandal, and should maybe be added to the lead. -Pete (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change 

message: Martha had this to say, on my talk page:
: I did look over the article, then got interested in the story and got led astray.  It's good to see a listing of things he did, but to the uninitiated it's not always easy for me to guess which things are considered "positive" vs. "negative".  I have trouble with one place:
:: "A rising anti-tax movement gained momentum in that time, passing Measure 5; the state's prison system nearly doubled during his term. He also worked to reform the State Accident Insurance Fund (SAIF), a state-chartered worker's compensation insurance company; these reforms, and his subsequent work as a paid consultant for SAIF, would draw criticism in later years."
: Specifically, it's not clear to me which things "these reforms" are referring to - just the things in that sentence? or things from the preceding sentence?  (Expansion of the state's prison system, too, leaves me wondering why this is (or is it??) a "good thing" - I mean....it implies the need for an expanded prison system (does that imply a rise in crime?) - maybe you get my drift.  I think that needs a little cleaning up, and perhaps also a look at the rest of the page from the viewpoint of - how to say this? - it's possible to be so objective that it's not at all clear what you mean by what you say.  Overall, it sounds to me as if the guy really did do a lot of good things, but probably some bad ones, and one really rotten sexual thing that sort of blew him out of the water. (Maybe I didn't use that expression right? Certainly blew him off the playing field!)  If that's the case, then it seems to me like a very good article.
-Pete (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments copied from my user talk page 

message: Hey Pete...a long article, so I might not get through all of it on in one go. Here goes...!
* (moved to Commons; WP version may be deleted when AM approves or after a few days -Pete (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * No, it's saying the opposite: first, he used his political acumen to critique the party; second, his time in DC furthered the development of his political acumen. I'll admit the phrasing could use a little work though, and would welcome a little help! -Pete (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Aaah, I see! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: * All this stuff took place very rapidly in 2004. Rather than just adding the year to this one date, I'm trying to think of a good way to make the generally tight timeframe clearer. -Pete (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

text: * I added an introductory sentence to the section, stating that a rapid series of events in May 2004 is the subject of the section. Does this adequately address your concern? -Pete (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah, that's much better. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Passed; good work! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GAN on hold

message: There is no mention of the very public event that is widely documented where Margie Goldschmidt divorced Neil Goldschmidt at the end of his first term and subsequently married Bernie Giusto who had been serving as a state police body guard to the then Governor.  This fact needs appropriate citation, but it was a very notable event that should be documented in the article. 71.193.198.58 (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   Katr67 (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found a few articles, and added a sentence to the article. I think the notion that Giusto and Goldschmidt were married is in error, though -- the source I found said they dated openly following the divorce, but does not mention them getting married. (It's a pretty thorough article, so I doubt this is mere omission.) -Pete (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No - It is a very well established fact that they were married, I am certain of it.  I will go and investigate and add a citation.  Thanks for your help. I am somewhat of a beginner here.  So, I will try to contribute, not just ask others. 71.193.198.58 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce of Margie Goldschmidt 

message: This is a possible image of Neil Goldschmidt.  It is Creative Commons licensed.  The image itself isn't coming up for me, but the description seems to indicate it's the right thing.  Perhaps someone would like to check it out? --SSBohio 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a photo of the official governor's portrait of Goldschmidt that is in the capitol. I would imagine that would fall under fair use. It's actually a kind of triptych, so if we wanted to use it for the lead image it should be cropped. Katr67 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. It's by our own Jmchuff. Katr67 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey Katr, you oughtta know that fair use ain't no good for living persons! We really should get a better photo for this article, though. I've been thinking about sending out a mass email to 50 or 100 public figures linking to the stuff on our blog, to encourage them to send portraits in...maybe should add the Gov to the list? -Pete (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the photo is CC.  What it comes down to is the status of the portrait itself, since the photo is a derivative work or a faithful reproduction.  I previously researched governors of California, and their official portraits are generally in the public domain.  I'll try to check on Oregon.  --SSBohio 18:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, portrait, as in painting. Does that make a difference? So apparently the copyright of a photographic reproduction of a two-dimentional artwork lies with the artist, not the photographer. I don't know if the Oregon portraits are in the public domain. But can use of the photograph be justified under fair use? Even thought this is a BLP article? Katr67 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, yes and no. No as just a picture of him (presumed replaceable as he is still alive). Yes if you were actually providing commentary on the painting. On a side point, the picture isn't that great of quality and it would be difficult to get a decent cropped part of just one of his heads. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point AM, I didn't really think that through. SSohio, any research would be most welcome! We're doing our best to learn about the State's various policies on copyright. Also feel free to share any findings at User:Peteforsyth/leg, the more centralized place where we're keeping track...I really should get on moving that out into project space. -Pete (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible image 

message: There appear to be two distinct ways of thinking regarding how to treat this subject in this article:
*Some (including me) believe the activity meets the definition of child sexual abuse, so it should be described as such in the article.  
**NPOV -- The term relationship sets the wrong tone.  The power imbalance makes this a case of abuse, not a relationship.
**BLP -- This must be identified as abuse in order to write compassionately and accurately about the victim and about what Goldschmidt did.
**V -- Based on the sources' definition, this is child sexual abuse.  Not mention ing that is effectively a choice to be less informative.
*Others believe that describing what happened without identifying it as abuse is the way to go.
**NPOV -- It expresses a non-neutral value judgment to call this abuse.  It's better to describe the situation with basic facts and allow the reader to draw their own conclusion.
**BLP -- This article shouldn't be seen to accuse Goldschmidt of something.
**V -- If we say this is abuse, we're not being conservative about only using verifiable information.
I think we can achieve consensus on this, since we're all trying to improve the article.  --SSBohio 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of the issues raised 

message: A 14-year old is not legally a child in several developed nations. Sex with 14-year olds can, at best, be regarded "sexual abuse", but not "child sexual abuse" in those nations. I will take Germany as a concrete example, because it is the largest Western country where this is the case.
If you look at the German article for child sexual abuse  (Sexueller Missbrauch von Kindern), you will see that the term is clearly defined, both legally and medically, as sex with minors under 14 years of age.
Consensual sex with minors aged 14 or older is legal in Germany, unless the minor is younger than 16 and decides to press charges. And even then it is not legally considered "child sexual abuse", but "adolescent sexual abuse". 
So if Neil Goldschmidt had been in Germany at the time of this incident he would probably have broken no laws whatoever. And remember, this is Germany we are talking about, not some crummy, obscure little third world country with a culture vastly different to the US. 
Ok, so he broke the law in the US, and according to US law he did commit "child sexual abuse". But so what?
The Wikipedia article child sexual abuse should represent a world wide view, not a view limited to the US and UK.  The age of consent is 14 or younger in all of the following places: Most of South America (including Brazil), China, Japan, Mexico, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Hungary, Estonia, and several others.  Remember, only about half of the English Wikipeida readers are located in the US
When linking to child sexual abuse, we are linking to the general definition of the word, not the US legal definition. Note that the article does not specify an age. A large chunk of the developed world does not consider his actions "child sexual abuse" so I say, let's give it the benefit of the doubt, so as not to violate WP:BLP.--Foreverdamaged (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not writing an encyclopedi8a about either the US or even the English speaking world (not even remotely) but this article is clearly US centered and the CSA issues are not even alleged to have taken place outside the US so the AoC in places like Latin America and Europe are not relevant, FD you seem to be offering a semantic argument. IMO of course we should use the US definition of CSA and not an international wikipedia definition. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: World wide view

message: ====Professional literature====
The meaning of child sexual abuse is that stated by organizations like the U.S. National Institute of Justice, the British National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the American Psychological Association, the University of Oklahoma Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, and the National Institutes of Health.  I trust that their definition of a term central to their work is an accurate one, particularly since it's been subject to peer review.  In other words, my opinion is that verifiability and sourcing criteria have been met with regard to defining child sexual abuse.
Child sexual abuse is defined by multiple sources as occurring whenever an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification.
*Child has multiple definitions;
**Traditionally, a child is one who has not yet reached the age of consent, but has passed the age of reason.  That is how childhood is differentiated from infancy at common law.
**Black's Law Dictionary's first definition of child is a person under the age of majority.  
*Child sexual abuse is a term with its own meaning, distinct from the meanings of its constituent words.
**Sexual activity involving . Most often perpetrated by an adult, such activities include rape and molestation, pornography, and exposure of children to the sexual acts of others. -- The Sexual Exploitation of Children, Chart 1: Definitions of Terms Associated With the Sexual Exploitation (SEC) and Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) (p. 4), University of Pennsylvania Center for Youth Policy Studies, writing for the U.S. National Institute of Justice in August 2001 and quoting the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information(1996).
**Sexual abuse is when a child  is pressurised, forced or tricked into taking part in any kind of sexual activity with an adult or young person. -- What is child abuse?  From the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
**Child sexual abuse is a term with its own meaning, distinct from the meanings of its constituent words.  Here are some definitions:
**Q: Who are the Victims of Child Sexual Abuse?  A: Children  … appear to be at approximately equal risk for sexual victimization. -- Understanding Child Sexual Abuse - Victims. American Psychological Association.  2001.
**Child sexual abuse is the exploitation of a child  for the sexual gratification of another person. -- Child Abuse And Neglect: An Overview, Barbara L. Bonner, Ph.D., Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. 2003.
**Child sexual abuse is the deliberate exposure of  to sexual activity. -- Child abuse - sexual - definition, Leisha M. Andersen, M.D., Pediatrician, in MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. 22 January 2007.
These are the relevant definitions I've found in [[WP:RS|professional literature, along with their sources.  --SSBohio 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Provided some examples of lay use of the term to refer to the sexual abuse of teenagers.  --SSBohio 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Referring to this as child sexual abuse

message: The meaning of child sexual abuse is that stated by organizations like the U.S. National Institute of Justice, the British National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the American Psychological Association, the University of Oklahoma Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, and the National Institutes of Health.  I trust that their definition of a term central to their work is an accurate one, particularly since it's been subject to peer review.  In other words, my opinion is that verifiability and sourcing criteria have been met with regard to defining child sexual abuse.
Child sexual abuse is defined by multiple sources as occurring whenever an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification.
*Child has multiple definitions;
**Traditionally, a child is one who has not yet reached the age of consent, but has passed the age of reason.  That is how childhood is differentiated from infancy at common law.
**Black's Law Dictionary's first definition of child is a person under the age of majority.  
*Child sexual abuse is a term with its own meaning, distinct from the meanings of its constituent words.
**Sexual activity involving . Most often perpetrated by an adult, such activities include rape and molestation, pornography, and exposure of children to the sexual acts of others. -- The Sexual Exploitation of Children, Chart 1: Definitions of Terms Associated With the Sexual Exploitation (SEC) and Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) (p. 4), University of Pennsylvania Center for Youth Policy Studies, writing for the U.S. National Institute of Justice in August 2001 and quoting the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information(1996).
**Sexual abuse is when a child  is pressurised, forced or tricked into taking part in any kind of sexual activity with an adult or young person. -- What is child abuse?  From the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
**Child sexual abuse is a term with its own meaning, distinct from the meanings of its constituent words.  Here are some definitions:
**Q: Who are the Victims of Child Sexual Abuse?  A: Children  … appear to be at approximately equal risk for sexual victimization. -- Understanding Child Sexual Abuse - Victims. American Psychological Association.  2001.
**Child sexual abuse is the exploitation of a child  for the sexual gratification of another person. -- Child Abuse And Neglect: An Overview, Barbara L. Bonner, Ph.D., Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. 2003.
**Child sexual abuse is the deliberate exposure of  to sexual activity. -- Child abuse - sexual - definition, Leisha M. Andersen, M.D., Pediatrician, in MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. 22 January 2007.
These are the relevant definitions I've found in [[WP:RS|professional literature, along with their sources.  --SSBohio 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Professional literature

message: *Child sexual abuse includes teenagers.
**An Episcopal bishop accused of concealing his brother's sexual abuse  decades ago twice walked in during the abuse. -- Church trial begins for Episcopal bishop from the Associated Press, 9 June 2008.
**Arraignment set for suspect in child sexual abuse: … Sources said that Kearney knew both of  at the time the incidents began in 1997. The abuse allegedly occurred intermittently through the year 2001 … -- Arraignment set for suspect in child sexual abuse from the Tidewater News, Franklin, Virginia, 4 June 2008.
Some lay sources would be useful as well.  --SSBohio 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Provided some examples of lay use of the term to refer to the sexual abuse of teenagers.  --SSBohio 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lay sources

message: *No one can say with certainty how much of the arc of the woman’s life was shaped by  starting when she was 14. -- The 30-Year Secret: A crime, a cover-up and the way it shaped Oregon. Nigel Jaquiss. Willamette Week. May 12 2004. Cover.
*Jeff Foote, the lawyer who represented , also attended the meeting. -- Ibid.
*Bachman (Goldschmidt's attorney) said the statement would refer to  and the contrition he felt about it.-- The 30-Year Secret: A crime, a cover-up and the way it shaped Oregon: The Background. Nigel Jaquiss. Willamette Week. May 12 2004. Cover.
*"In cases where girls have been abused, they often don't come forward until their 30s or 40s," says David Slader, a Portland lawyer who has brought sex-abuse cases against the Catholic Church. -- Ibid.
*Public-records searches identified court documents in Washington County and Seattle that described  in great detail, without actually naming Goldschmidt.-- Ibid. (N.B.: "Susan" is a pseudonym given to Goldschmidt's victim by the Willamette Week.)
*One of the many unanswered questions about  is how he kept it a secret for 29 years. -- The 30-Year Secret: A crime, a cover-up and the way it shaped Oregon: How Gov. Goldschmidt Aided One Man Who Knew. Nigel Jaquiss. Willamette Week. May 12 2004. Cover.
*"Our records indicated that ," (Jeff Foote) says. "It happened, and it happened over a sustained period of time." -- The 30-Year Secret: A crime, a cover-up and the way it shaped Oregon: Months? Or Years?. Nigel Jaquiss. Willamette Week. May 12 2004. Cover.
Here are some quotes where sources refer to Goldschmidt's sexual abuse as sexual abuse.    --SSBohio 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific to Goldschmidt 

message: *The issues raised by not describing this as child sexual abuse are:
**It is not a question of what state laws Goldschmidt may have violated, but rather one of what activity he engaged in, and what terminology describes that activity.  "Sexual relationship" is simply innacurate terminology for what he did, because it diminishes what happened.  Child sexual abuse accurately describes the situation.
**Calling what Goldschmidt did "a sexual relationship" is less specific than calling it child sexual abuse.  It makes ambiguous the question of victimization.
**NPOV calls on us to present the facts fairly and accurately.  By definition, Goldschmidt sexually abused a 14-year-old girl.  Until the definition of child sexual abuse changes, that would be the most accurate description.
**This adult, at the time roughly triple the age of the 14-year-old girl he had sex with, did not have a "relationship" with her (in the common sense of male-female relationships);  He could not, since she couldn't consent.  By definition, what he did was child sexual abuse.
**Leaving the language as it was denies that the girl was Goldschmidt's victim.  It has overtones of the "she liked it" defense.  The victim is also (presumably) a living person, and we are admonished to "do no harm" per Jimbo.  She deserves an accurate description of what happened to her, and so does the reader.
We simply can't accurately depict what happened without describing it as child sexual abuse, because it meets the peer-reviewed definition of child sexual abuse.  If we don't describe it that way, then we're making the conscious decision that even though this was child sexual abuse, we're just going to keep that information to ourselves.  --SSBohio 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues raised by not describing Goldscmidt's conduct as child sexual abuse

message: page protection for a week due to edit warring. Let's try to talk it out. --Duk 07:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: Again, I'd like to point out that we are trying to reach consensus about the wording of this article. Rather than continuing to discuss editors' behavior, I'd suggest that if anyone feels an editor is being disruptive, that they please just report the user at WP:3RRN or WP:ANI, or file a user- or admin-conduct rfc as appropriate. That way uninvolved editors can assess the situation and the conduct discussions can take place in one of those venues and not detract from the content discussion. Katr67 (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behavior issues 

message: In addition to the above comments I made, it is necessary to address the claim that the terms used by a professional news organization are nonbiased. The Associated Press article was cited above in an attempt to justify using the term "sexual abuse of a girl" in reference to a sexual interaction between a legal adult and a legal minor. Yet in another AP article, the first paragraph is "In a victory for rebellious teenagers, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a mother violated Washington's privacy law by eavesdropping on her daughter's phone conversation."   Do you honestly claim that this article is nonbiased? Clearly, the mainstream media has reliable source issues when it comes to youth-related articles. Agnapostate (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In Addition

message: I've archieved part of the top of this page that has nothing to do with the current discussion. Hopefully it will make it easier to read and respond since the talk page is becoming extremely long. Davidpdx (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the word archieve is in the dictionary. I believe archive is meant. Sorry for the nitpick, but since we're kind of fussy about whether Goldschmidt is a rapist or other criminal or not, I'm willing to extend the fussiness to the spelling. 66.234.222.23 (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's not in the dictionary. Are you being sarcastic? Generally it's considered a bit uncivil to nitpick about people's spelling and typos on talk pages. Feel free to correct any spelling mistakes you see in mainspace articles. I'll go ahead and correct the header of this section, but we don't correct other editor's posts without their permission. Next time, just ask the poster if he would mind if you corrected the spelling in his post. Better yet, just ignore it, unless the typo renders the post incomprehensible. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive