Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 6

message: I deleted Questions have been raised on the issue of the indiscriminate use of value-laden negative terms to describe all child-adult sexual contactsOkami, P., “Sociopolitical Biases in the Contemporary Scientific Literature on Adult Human Sexual Behavior with Children and Adolescents,” in Feierman, J. (ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 91-121. as "it is not scientifically sound to assume that violation of the social norms lead to harm for the child or adolescent".Rind, B., & Bauserman, R. (1993). Biased terminology effects and biased information processing in research in adult-nonadult sexual interactions: An empirical investigation. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 260-269, p. 260. It has been shown that the use of negative terms have a negative biasing effect on how people judge child-adult sexual contacts.Rind, B., & Bauserman, R. (1993). Biased terminology effects and biased information processing in research in adult-nonadult sexual interactions: An empirical investigation. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 260-269.  because this material is pedophilia POV.  One reference is clearly not empirical and the other is by a highly disputed author.  Generally, because of the conflictual nature of this article, substantive additions are discussed here first (SEE THE HEADER TO THIS PAGE).  I suggest other editors comment on this added block by new editor User:Drogheda.  DPetersontalk 18:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are based on empirical research and the topic is relevant and the issue have been raised by many scientists over the years. Your complaints are clearly wrong and POV themselves. Drogheda 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same old, same old.  This POV is represented already in the entry.  There is a section in "effects" regarding possible biasing effects, and Rind is already cited multiple times to support everything under the sun.  There is no need for this additional section.  -Jmh123 18:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This deals with the terminology, a clearly needed addition since its absent here but highly debated issue in research. Drogheda 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am deleting the offending section.  Discussion can continue here, but already two editors want it out. If you (Drogheda) continue to revert, you may face sanctions per wiki policyDPetersontalk 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place for Pro-pedophile activist beliefs, they should if appropriate go into that article but not this one so I support the deletion, SqueakBox 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll just request that the page be protected again.  -Jmh123 18:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Step 1, Stop deleting relevant and material that has peer reviewed sources. Step 2, Repeat step 1. Drogheda 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that isnt a solution. if you re-add the material then based on this page and the material you are re-adding I would revert it myself and so given the consensus is to keep the material deleted I recommend we do nothing other than continue discussing here if appropriate, SqueakBox 18:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just requested page protection.  -Jmh123 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page protection is ok for now...but I think an RfC or something else ought to be filed on this disruptive editor, maybe an incident report?  In fact, I think I will do just that if it continues.  User:Drogheda this is notice that I will be filing an incident report on your disruptive behavior if it continues.  SamDavidson 19:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: God damn...just when I thought it was over.  *sigh* butterscotch... Viper2k6 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted section as POV and not relevant 

message: take the This topic contains controversial issues box and move it to the top of the talk page....cause apparently people aren't too familiar with the idea of posting changes on the discussion page first.  I don't have a problem with introducing controversial concepts with regard to terminology and presumed psychological harm, but at least discuss it first so we don't get into this whole clusterf--k over pro-pedophile agenda ... I watch enough politics as it is. Viper2k6 19:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The individuals who are doing this know exactly what they're doing, and are not interested in policies or procedures.  We just have to work around them as best we can.  There are ways to get your new section added, even with page protection, so try to keep focussed on that.  It's very annoying, I agree.  -Jmh123 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jmh123 here.  They know precisely what they are doing...witness the large number of banned users who return in other guises.  However, to put the box on this talk page and the article page (both places) can't hurt. DPetersontalk 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All clear for now.  The new user has been indefinitely blocked.  I don't think putting the box on the article page is a good idea--wouldn't make any difference anyway.  Let's just get back to improving the entry.  -Jmh123 01:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me.  You are right that it would not make a difference.  I was trying to be accomodating and hold a small olive branch out....working to improve this will be better now. DPetersontalk 01:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we.... 

message: I switched the order of paragraphs 3 and 4.  It seems to flow better; now the definition of pedophilia immediately precedes the colloquial use of the term pedophile.  However, if there are objections, let me know and I will switch them back.  Good work on staying on top of the newest batch of vandals, everybody! Cheers, ZeroZ 09:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back due to a revert, you may reorder the paragraphs again as far as I am concerned. Thomas Wiederman 16:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of a revert is to return an entry to its state before a particular edit has been made.  Once subsequent good edits have occurred, a reversion is no longer advisable.  In other words, it is not good practice to ask someone to redo good changes because you have reverted back to before their change.  -Jmh123 21:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please.  RalphLendertalk 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Pedophilia is not a disorder in any objective sense (nor is any other orientation), all we can claim is that it is classified as such by some people. Thomas Wiederman 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong.  By definition it IS a disorder per the DSM and ICD-9.  DPetersontalk 13:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is some people, and there are plenty who disagree. The way it is written now signals that there is an innate propertie in pedophilia, which is far from the case as far as science goes. Thomas Wiederman 19:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The APA's opinions do not dictate reality, so we should not present them as such. We would for example not label gender variance a disorder, or try to claim that homosexuality was a disorder during the period it was listed as one. Dyskolos 21:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains that it is a disorder per the DSM-IV and so the statement is true, and verifiable. DPetersontalk 00:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that the DSM lists it as a disorder is "true, and verifiable," so why do you object to deleting that information? What policy elevates the opinions of the (controversial) DSM above Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Dyskolos 00:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that the currently bold POV statement that "Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. A person who fits.. etc.." is misleading. It should be changed to "Pedophilia is described as a paraphilia by standard diagnostic manuals, including the DSM IV and ICD-10.". This would be more consistent with the NPOV policy, because when it comes to controversial fields such as this (psychology), it is mostly a matter of prevailing opinion rather than "facts". Opinions change with time and social norms. The same has happened to "diagnoses" such as "homosexuality", "hysteria", "nostalgia", "drapetomania", etc. If the DSM one day decides that homicide is a "mental disorder", would the Wikipedia editors introduce statements such as "Murderous intentions is a psychiatric disorder. A person who fits.. etc.." in the homicide article? We could just as well state that "Pedophilia is a sin and is due to a demonic possession..", since this is the main position of Christian insitutions with more than 1.5 billion adherents (and thus obviously the "majority" opinion, ie. homosexuality = sin vs. homosexuality = disorder prior to 1973 - the same is true for all the other sexual attractions). I think Wikipedia ought to remain more objective in these matters, no matter what we personally may feel about the subject. 193.217.55.223 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedophilia 

message: "Controversial" looks like it has been added to slander the article. "More current" is also in the same vein, since they study different things this is not appropriate. Thomas Wiederman 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is controversial and the other studies are more current, check the pub dates. DPetersontalk 13:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rind carries a lot of weight in the entry.  It is cited repeatedly.  Rind is a controversial study--controversial enough that there's a Wikipedia entry about the controversy.  It's a case where NPOV requires, as a balance to all the weight that it's been given, that the reader be aware that it's a controversial study, and that subsequent research has not supported Rind's conclusions on this issue. -Jmh123 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rind could be replaced by studies with similar findings, but why? It's the most notable to date. Dyskolos 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As said earlier, it is many things, why state one particular when there is already a link to more information? Subsequent research has not either supported nor the oposite as most research do not poke into the question of consent which is very important in the Rind study. Actually, the only study that does has been in clear favour of the Rind study. At the end of the day, we should not add value-terms when we can avoid it. Thomas Wiederman 19:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why state it?  For the reasons Jmh123 eloquently delineates.  It is not a "value" term.  The controversial nature of the study is factual. DPetersontalk 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, there is no indication that the study you want to add is a study that has controlled for confounding variables, which is the topic of that paragraph.  -Jmh123 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with using other peoples work (copying from The Leadership Council) is that you lose the understanding of the material, which is clearly the case here. It is true that the topic of the paragraph is on confounding variables, but once you pitch the Rind study against the 3 others you have a problem. This is because they study quite different things and try to explain different things. I will clarify the problem in the article. Thomas Wiederman 07:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't an original comparison. Richard McNally, already cited on this page, has before contrasted Rind with Kendler and Nelson. But the other unrelated study should be removed. Dyskolos 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you will take a moment to read the tags on the article and talk page, you really should put your proposed "clarifications" here to build consensus first. DPetersontalk 12:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there something you do not understand? Just let me know and I will explain it to you. Thomas Wiederman 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic of that paragraph is the need to control for confounding variables such as abuse and poor family environment.  The variable of consent is a completely different topic.  I think we need to delete Rind, as I've been arguing for weeks. -Jmh123 14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem fixed in my last version, the consent issue was clarified without medling with the main topic in the paragraph. Deleting Rind is not needed nor wanted. Thomas Wiederman 15:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rind etc 

message: Why not just move all legal material to a separate article and link to it? It feels out of place now. Thomas Wiederman 08:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to the earlier discussion of this question under heading The importance of information about child sexual abuse laws. -ZeroZ 08:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  section is nicely done as is. SamDavidson 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving legal section 

message: Dyskolos added the following to the Medical section, immediately after the definition from the American Psychological Association.
I reverted the change and have placed the material here for consensus. 
Studies of the effects of child sexual abuse often define it as including invitations or requests to do anything sexual, sexual kissing or hugging, touching or fondling of the genitals, indecent exposure, and attempted or completed sexual intercourse. (ref-Martin, J., Anderson, J., Romans, S., et al  (1993). "Asking about child sexual abuse: methodological implications of a two-stage survey," Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 383-392.)
Is this material not redundant, given the clear information in the Intro?  Please comment here. -ZeroZ 11:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes by Dyskolos 

message: Does anyone have knowledge pertaining to childhood sexual abuse prevention or child advocacy groups. This would be a nice addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.250.255 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 19 July 2007
:CSA is undoubtedly a multimillion grossing industry, based upon finding, making, taking advantage of and sometimes helping real and imagined victims. Some have resorted to prevention programs, again - as a way of making money -
:http://www.childluresprevention.com/
:http://www.clantonadvertiser.com/articles/2007/04/28/news/c-news.txt
:The second is pure comedy, but I suppose that we may need something to lighten up a dull article ●Farenhorst 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: There appears to be a disallowed hyperlink on this page. i am unsure which one it is apparently this triggered it www.s . I was attempting to move this symbol ) from the intro as i believe it is vandalism to look like a smile. e.g. .)      This cannot be allowed but since i have had a disallowed hyperlink problem and i am unaware of which link it is i am leaving this note for someone else to change it in case it is a prob with my computer rather than this page. Delighted eyes 14:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disallowed hyper links 

message: The beginning of the article states:
Child sexual abuse is an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses in which an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification.
Then, under the "Medical responses..." section, CSA is redefined with:
The American Psychological Association defines child sexual abuse as contact between a child and an adult or other person significantly older or in a position of power or control over the child, where the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the adult or another person.
These two definitions are significantly different, and the entire article consists of references to numerous studies, many of which have different operational definitions of CSA.  Such inconsistencies discredit much of the article, leaving considerable room for misrepresentation of cited figures, thus making this an important issue to address.
--Gotaro 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fundamentally, the two definitions address different contexts.  The APA are specifically defining the term as it relates to psychology, where the definition in the lede is more general in scope & intent.  --Ssbohio 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We could try to work out higher standards for inclusion of sources in this particular article. By wiki standard the current article is fine, but by any other standard its horrendous. I suggest a section where each cited study (in discussion) also provides cites from the article showing their exact definitions, samples, method and results. This makes scrutiny and comparison between studies much easier for everyone (since far from all sources are easily accessible and many have been included just to win an argument rather than for the good of the article.) Völund Smed 07:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion on the definition of "child sexual abuse" 

message: Etymologically, there appears to be more than one way to view the term.  Child sexual abuse can be analyzed as rooted in sexual abuse but differentiated by involving a child, rooted in the term child abuse but differentiated in that it's sexual in nature, or rooted in child sexuality but differentiated in that it's abusive.  Each one logically yields a part of the meaning of the term.  Perhaps in arriving at a consensus definition, we should look at the components of each root and how they are modified to form this term.  I feel it would move the discussion away from the term's impact and intent and focus on the term itself. --Ssbohio 00:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: See Talk:Adult-child sex#Merge for the initial discussion. It sems peop[le are happy to merge adult-child sex with this article but there is a strong disagreement as to whether the merged article shoul;d be called child sexual abuse or adult-child sex, SqueakBox 04:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I do not think it is appropriate for the article to state (within the section "Perspectives") that child sexual abuse is "often referred to as pedophilia." It is important to point out that this is the colloquial use of the term "pedophilia" and not the appropriate scholarly or medical one. I recommend that the word "colloquially" be reinserted into this phrase, so that the final product would be: "often colloquially referred to as pedophilia." This is especially important because there are many misconceptions about what pedophilia actually is. Besides, since a wikilink is provided for the Wikipedia article on pedophilia, it would make sense to adhere to what is stated in that article - that this use of the term is colloquial and not scholarly or medical. ~ Homologeo 03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the word colloquially because it was used in reference to "adult-child sex"... There is nothing about "adult-child sex" being referred to as pedophilia that is colloquial. Unless by child, we also mean 17-year-olds, or situational offenders when we say adult. What I mean, of course, is that colloquial means incorrect/informal, as you know. It's not incorrect to call "adult-child sex" pedophilia...unless that "child" is a 17-year-old or such an adolescent (or we're talking about a situational offender), as the pedophilia article points out that sometimes a person is incorrectly (colloquially) called a pedophile. The section Perspectives is focusing on actual children, not mid-to-late adolescents. I don't object to pointing out that child sexual abuse is the colloquial use of the term "pedophilia"... But stating or implying that "adult-child sex" is colloquially called pedophilia? Yes, I object to that. Also, the way that part was worded, it stated that child sexual abuse is colloquially referred to as pedophilia. If anything, that should be worded the other way around, since it is pedophilia that is colloquially referred to as child sexual abuse. Flyer22 05:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: having read both arguments I agree with Flyer, SqueakBox 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked six dictionaries and glossaries that were readily available (5 online, 1 off), and I'm not finding a definition of colloquial as incorrect.  Colloquial simply denotes vernacular speech, rather than formal speech.  In a formal setting, I would not refer to a child sexual abuser as a pedophile unless I knew he were one.  Informally, the terms are closely linked to the point of conflation.  --Ssbohio 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely say that the word colloquial can mean incorrect, and usually does — that's what I meant by stating incorrect/informal, with the slash in it. It's not just informal (though informal can mean incorrect). For instance, as I stated above, sometimes a man who has had sex with or is sexually attracted to a 16-year-old is wrongly called a pedophile, such as Mark Foley. It actually aggravated me a great deal to see the media referring to him as a pedophile. I'm not a fan of Mark Foley, but it was their colloquially calling him a pedophile that was incorrect. And it was humorous to hear Judge Judy, when talking about Mark Foley to Larry King, say that an adult who has had sex with or is sexually attracted to a 17-year-old is also a pedophile. I mean, really, Judge Judy? So all those men, both average and celebrities, who found Britney Spears sexually attractive when she was age 17 are pedophiles? And we can tell a 17-year-old apart from an 18-year-old by just looking at them? Colloquially using the word pedophile to refer to any adult who has or has had sex with someone under age 18 is definitely incorrect. Basically, as an example, that is what I meant/mean by the word colloquially meaning incorrect (that it does mean incorrect often). Flyer22 02:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inaccurate use of the term pedophile is rampant in the media and popular culture.  I agree with you and share your frustration at seeing the customers of a then-17-year-old Justin Berry's website being called pedophiles.  However, I'm finding nothing that supports defining the term colloquial to mean incorrect.  It mainly means that something is common or vernacular usage, rather than formal usage.  Judge Judy might informally call Mark Foley a pedophile, but an officer of the court in his case would not.  It's a colloquialism to call Foley a pedophile, even though he doesn't meet the specific definition of the term. --Ssbohio 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I completely understand what you mean about that, Ssbohio. I wasn't suggesting that you would find the term colloquial to be truly defined as meaning incorrect. Like a quote from jstor.org states at the bottom of a page, "Any quiz that confuses acceptable colloquial English with incorrect English is a nuisance from an educational point of view.". But what I am talking about is colloquial matters more so as incorrect. I mean, even the article here on colloquialism states, "Words that have a formal meaning may also have a colloquial meaning that, while technically incorrect, is recognizable due to common usage." And that's what I mean. Sure, saying "Get real" which is a colloquialism for "I don't believe you" or "You can't be serious" is correct. But the word "isn't" is often colloquially referred to as "ain't", and we all know ain't is not correct. However, both words (isn't and ain't) mean the same thing in this case, even though one isn't actually a word, and I get what you mean there. But the word pedophile does not mean the same thing as a man having sex with or being sexually attracted to a 17-year-old, of course. Thus what else would we call a person being colloquially referred to as a pedophile? If a person is colloquially called a pedophile, it means they are not truly a pedophile, or else there would be nothing colloquial about it. I wasn't suggesting that the real definition of colloquial means incorrect, only that a colloquial meaning is often technically incorrect as well. Flyer22 07:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Great post, Homologeo. Would you mind finding some other way to re-word that part? I mean, with the "term" adult-child sex in that part, I'm still (of course) not comfortable with stating that child sexual abuse is colloquially referred to as pedophilia, considering that as I sated before, that section (with adult-child sex mentioned there) is basically saying that "adult-child sex" is also colloquially referred to as pedophilia as well. I don't see "adult-child sex" being referred to as pedophilia as colloquial. With child sexual abuse, it may include adolescents due to a judge using that term to refer to a man who has committed statutory rape, but the adult-child sex article (which is what that part is in this article) focuses more on technical children than a 17-year-old. If it meant adults having sex with adolescents of those ages as well, then I'd see the need to state that adult-child sex is colloquially referred to as pedophilia. But not as it is. Flyer22 03:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there another word that relays the meaning of "colloquially" in the sense of "layman" and "common" usage that is not necessarily in accordance with scholarly use? Currently, I can only think of "colloquially" adequately relaying this meaning, and do not fully follow the reasoning behind avoiding the use of this term in this particular context. However, if someone could think of another word that relays the meaning this sentence calls for, then I have nothing against using that term. Still, currently, I'm not sure what other word would fit this purpose. ~ Homologeo 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind you using the word colloquially in getting across the point that you mention on this matter. It's the way that that part was worded that I had the bigger problem with. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind re-wording it some other way, while still using the word colloquially (or colloquial), of course. Flyer22 03:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referring to "Child Sexual Abuse" as "Pedophilia" 

message: Because this article discusses sexual relations between an adult and a child, I was planning a separate article for child-on-child sexual abuse.  I know there is an article on child sexuality, but that is more about a human's psychological maturation, whereas this deals with kids assaulting other kids.  This seems to be a very little known but very ugly occurance, and I have to deal with it so often in my work, but few people seems to have heard of it.  I don't want to put my foot in my mouth (foot in my keyboard?) though, so is there an article already that covers this?  Legitimus (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that there is. I saw you preparing to write an article about this. I'm sure people are aware of minor-on-child sexual abuse, such as a 16-year-old sexually abusing an actual child...a 10-year-old, etc. Is that what your article is going to cover, or just include? If it's more about adolescents sexually abusing children, then I would prefer the article be titled adolescent-on-child sexual abuse, or teen-on-child sexual abuse (if using the word "teen" isn't seen as too pop culture of a term). If your article is more so about actual children, for example...10-year-olds sexually abusing younger children and such, then I can see why more people are unfamiliar with that. People of those ages are not called pedophiles, of course, and it isn't really in the news often, or at all in some parts. If you are covering the topic of children sexually abusing children, as well as adolescents sexually abusing children, then I'd prefer the article be titled minor-on-minor sexual abuse, but either way "this article of yours" will prove to be interesting. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Child-on-child" is the term used in medical arenas (for example ), and yes it most frequently means both victim and perpetrator are prepubescent (like 12 and under or so), though sometimes I hear it used to refer to young adolescents perps (about 12-15) on very young victims.  And yes I understand, they are not pedophiles, indeed they likely don't even realize what they are doing.  It's not even certain if it's a crime, per se.  What struck me as interesting is that the damage to the victim is almost the same as with adult perps.  I realize this is a touchy subject, so I am trying to step lightly.  I just need a few more references. Legitimus (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know that the use in medical arenas is Child-on-child, but like you say, it usually means prepubescent youth. Thus...I felt that if you were addressing adolescents sexually abusing children, it might be best to title it as one of the above I suggested. But since it usually means prepubescent, I suppose I don't see anything wrong with having the title be Child-on-child or if you include a few adolescent-on-child cases within this article. Oh, and I know that you're aware that actual children sexually abusing children wouldn't be called pedophiles, and you are right, of course, that this topic is very interesting...and touchy too. Even with its touchiness, however, I actually cannot wait until you create this article. I feel that it will serve as a good educational read. It's normal for a child to be harmed mentally by an adolescent sexually abusing them as though the person is an adult, but a child, especially close in age to the child sexually abusing them, being mentally harmed in the same way by the sexual abuse carried out by that child, as though sexually abused by an adult, is something to gain knowledge in. You definitely have my blessing to create this article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is up, but has been flagged for deletion!  Blast!  The grounds is that it is either should be part of this article or that it not notable (despite lots of academic references).  But this article starts out by specifying adult with minor, so that doesn't make sense.  Legitimus (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having experienced sexual abuse by two children on or about my own age at that time (6-8 y/o), I can attest to the fact this is a real problem, and may be considered a bit taboo. I'm no expert, but, it seems as if this is more common than many may think. Any kind of coercion and/or forcing others to do sexual acts should be characterized as abuse, and this is no exception. Children may not even realize they're doing it, yes, but there's a definite control/domination aspect to this form of sexual abuse, just like any other, even in young children. Many folks may not realize that, yes, pre-pubescent children can have psychological problems, as well as exhibit bad behaviors which are normally associated with older children. Children are sometimes abusers, and child-on-child sexual abuse is no exception. It goes way beyond natural curiosities children have about theirs, and others', bodies, and mirrors adult-on-child sexual abuse.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moparboy (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I support treating this very real topic, which unquestionably occurs, merely to do so in this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  child-on-child - splinter article 

message: It's difficult to find.  I think one of the articles on the web which references it might be used as a source as to what it contains.  However, it appears to have been a journal published with primary langages other than English from 1983-1997 with  (although our ISSN search can't find it) and/or , Karolinska Institute library catalog entry followed by the English language journal Scandinavian journal of sexology (1998-2001), . library catalog entry
The journals seem to have been published by the Nordic Association for Clinical Sexology Kinsey Institute on Danish sexology 
— Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that work. I too tried to find the text of the source and wasn't able to.   I did find some books/papers that referenced it, but they didn't include exactly the specific statement that's in the article.   There might be a source somewhere that quotes that part of the paper, I guess we need to keep looking.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Nordisk Sexologi'' source verification 

message: I removed a reference from the article because it was a link to a personal website project of someone who self-identifies as a pedophile.  The website quotes many references, some of them from studies; and some of those original studies may be usable.  However, when sources are not quoted in full, there can be out-of-context cherry-picking by the author of the website, therefore those quoted sources are unreliable.   To use the studies, the originals must be located so they can be verified with full context.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement on Wikipedia is: "[..] This often contradicts data from studies investigating the psychology of contact sex offenders, which shows that most contact child sex offenders are not primarily or exclusively attracted to children." Therefore, I provided a reference which quotes a study stating such. The quote is clear and could not be taken out of context. Barry Jameson (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The text footnotes one study, not multiple studies.  Therefore this phrase "This often contradicts data from studies" is overly general; the wikitext needs to reflect that it was one study, and avoid WP:WEASEL WORDS like "often contradicts", when that is not what the one study stated. Also, the study was quoted only in part, in a self-identified pro-pedophila website, without complete context.  To use a study, we need a way to verify its full context, or, we need quotes about the study that are themselves stated in a reliable source. The text might be correct, or it might be wrong, but the version you quoted above does not accurately reflect the reference and needs to be improved.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am confused by the reason for editing. Is it because the editor has some kind of gut reaction to paedophiles, or because of the more rational reasons he followed up with? GrooV (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding your question.  Would you clarify which of the edits or comments you are asking about?  Thanks... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You appeared to remove a reference because the site on which it was hosted was controlled by a pedophile. Is this your justification? Is this not rather subjective? GrooV (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not why I removed the reference.  If the site had included the full text of the study, then it would not matter if controlled by a person who states that he is a pedophile (as long as the original publication of the original material could be verified, as with any source).  The reason I removed it is that he did not quote the full study, he only included excerpts.  That's what I meant by "cherry-picking".  Without the full text of the study, there is no way to know if he chose only those excerpts that would support his beliefs.  It's possible that the same study included other statements contrary to what he included, but because he has a stated bias, we don't know if he purposfeully omitted those statements or not.  That's what makes the source unreliable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-reliable sources 

message: This is the reference that was used in the sentences discussed above in the section #off-topic in the intro:  
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ECE6P/html/pedophilia_2.html
It's possible that some articles on that website might be valid sources, I'm not sure, and the site is used in at least one other place in the article.  But this particular page on that website does not look like WP:RS, because it does not state either its author, or its sources.  The reference claims that "most sexual offenses against children are committed not by pedophiles, but by non-pedophilic men."  The word "most" in this context has not been established by science or law enforcement and is an open question.  That  overly strong statement to make without any supporting sources brings the neutrality of the source into question. If there were an author listed,  and references quoted, that would be different, but there are not.  So that source does not seem to me to be usable.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is written by Prof. Dr. Erwin J. Haeberle 1 of Humboldt University. Mystery solved Barry Jameson (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In light of the above, I have no objection to the source. GrooV (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had not found the authors name on that website.  Now that I see it, I will re-evaluate the source.  However, even if it is used, the author's statement is overly broad and he does not cite references, therefore, it's his opinion; yet the wikitext is written as if it were a generally accepted fact.  The actual fact is that there are many studies that have tried to determine what proportion of child sex abusers are also pedophiles, and what proportion of pedophiles act out their desires by abusing children, and the various studies do not all agree on those proportions. Some pedophiles abuse children, some do not.  Some child molestors are pedohiles, some are not.  Beyond that, there are no generally accepted numbers or percentages to indicate the amount of overlap.  It's a complex area of ongoing research.  Prof. Dr. Erwin J. Haeberle has his opinion about that, but he's just one person.  The sentence that refers to his document will need to be made more specific in this regard. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  questionable source 

message: Here are some alternatives for compromise, and some hopefully helpful perspective.  This is a more difficult question than the usual laundry list or EL situations because it involves information that might actually be what some people are looking for when they read this article.  We know that "wikipedia is not a how-to-guide", but according to various of the quoted guidelines, both external links that are directly related to the topic and further reading sections are acceptable in moderation, ie,  WP:EL advises minimizing external links, but also mentions that "Adding external links can be a service to our readers".  These are style guidelines, not policy, and that means "While it is not policy, editors are strongly advised to follow it. As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense."  Exceptions are not forbidden by policy, so it's up to consensus to determine the best approach here.
In light of the above, I suggest a few compromise options:
*A termporary start could be to include some of the external links and further reading, but reduce the number of them to focus on the highest quality and most useful.  That way, the resources would be available for readers, but the article would not be unbalanced by a long list of links at the end. Perhaps we could start with around half of them and see how the article looks that way. 
Whether we agree on that temporary compromise or not, the list of links and books can be moved to the talk page, for use in the following ideas.
*Some of those links and books seem to expand on info already in the article. They can be used as references to improve existing  sections on "Epidemiology and prevalence", "Types of child sexual assault",  and the legal issues section - for example, the "incest loophole" is discussed in one of the links, that could become a footnote in the "Intrafamial child sexual abuse" section.  
 
*We could create a new sections in the article for "Treatment of Child Sexual Abuse" and "Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse" with some of the further reading and links used as references, but not as a laundry list, with actual text summarizing the sources, supported properly by footnotes. If these sections became too large, they could be shortened to paragraphs and directed to new separate articles on those topics.  There is much to be written on each of those topics, perhaps too much for this article.
Of course, any links or books used as references would need to meet WP:V for quality, and would need to be used per WP:NPOV.  It would take some time to check the sources and do the writing, but the result I think would be a better article and a chance at actual consensus rather than polarized positions.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These are the very suggestions I would make - right now the links and books reference nothing other than that they exist; I don't think this is valid or encyclopedic, nor do I think it adds anything to the page.  The only thing that paragraph does is keep a large volume of deleted links and books in the page.  Your suggestions aren't a compromise in my mind, they are the appropriate use of the links and sources.  The only consideration I think you've missed out on is that any external links should be of maximum use world-wide.  This means that state, provincial, and even country-specific links aren't really a good choice.  The best choices are international agencies like the WHO or UN, even full US agencies aren't the best choice since they may be much less useful for anyone not living in North America.  Even as a Canadian with NAFTA and extradition agreements they may not be that useful to me.  WLU (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section as a laundry list.  If the book/report/publication is reliable enough to be mentioned, it should be used as an in-line citation.  If it can't, because we are unaware of the contents, it shouldn't be cited.  The page is quite long, it does not need padding.  WLU (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: some new options to consider

message: Physical damages section is short compared to mental, while mental damages are questionable. Physical damages include
# Rupture of walls of vagina on intercourse, which may cause death.
# Lack of vaginal fluid before puberty, when vagina exposed to sexual acts has more risk of picking up infections.
The section needs to be expanded. Voiced axix (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as appropriate referencing is provided, please feel free to expand this section. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical damages 

message: Should be he linked from this page?222.225.224.42 (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he? Should he be? I don't fully understand your question. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad ibn Abdullah 

message: In my voluntary work as a victim counsellor, I have encouraged and helped many children who have been pressured and brainwashed into denying the abusiveness or even the occurence of their sexual traumatisation, to realise their true status as survivors of horriffic Child Sexual Abuse. Rachel Cragg (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like to mention that I am perfecting my theory of "moral blinding", in which the Paedophiliac offender causes their victim to rationalise their abuse as fundamentally non-abusive. Only through counsellor-facilitated mental healing, can a child come to understand that what has happened is in fact abnormal and highly exploitational. Only when a child realises that they have been harmed almost irrepairably, can the healing process begin, because if there were nothing to heal, there would necessarily be no healing process. Denying this process undermines the paedophile's horriffic crimes, and should not be allowed in a modern, civilised society. Rachel Cragg (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first comment is still irrelevant to improving the article, and the second is WP:OR until "you" are published.  For the record, I generally agree with you, but child sexual abuse is not identical to "child abuse by a paedophile", making this a little off topic.  However, false accusations of child sexual abuse, which can be encouraged by what some people call "counsellor-facilitated mental healing", is not particularly helpful to the "victim", and is harmful to the alleged purpetrator.  We must be careful.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is formal paperwork to support this assertion as well, but yeah it's OR until corroborated. Don't worry, I will try to dig those studies up, so they'll be along later.  There is also the issue of "labelling" that some people point out, but of course proper treatment works around this through correct techniques, just as correct non-leading techniques must be used in the interview process to avoid false positives. Legitimus (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expertise? 

message: Perhaps this section already exists, and I missed it, but I think this article does not place enough emphasis on who commits child sexual abuse.  Is it usually a parent?  Is it usually a relative?  Is it usually a teacher?  Is it usually a stranger?  I think a pie chart would be useful.  Is this information in the article?  If not, does anyone have this information? 98.217.44.253 (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who commits child sexual abuse? 

message: My first addition to wikipedia, silly that its this article. but i see a blatant typo that include is said twice in the first paragraph. "include include". i dont know how to change the page or where this should go. so please ... someone who knows... fix it.
:Thanks for pointing that out.  Looks like somebody fixed it.  Since you are new, when you add a topic to a "talk" page (especially a busy one like this), use the "+" at the top to add your post at the bottom of the page as new heading.Legitimus (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: This paragraph removed from the article for two reasons: (a) other than the last sentence, the source is unreliable - it's a review of Finkelhor's paper with no authorship attribution, that's on a self-published website that establishes no qualifications of the people who run the website and/or write the content, and the website is not a neutral scientific source, it's a support site for adults attracted to minors.  If Finkelhor's work is to be cited, it needs to be cited directly, or if through a third party then that third party must be established as a reliable source themselves. 
And,  (b) the text was used in the subsection on "opposing arguments", within the section on effects of child sexual abuse.  But it presents no opposing arguments about the effects, the text is a philosophical argument about why adult-child sex should be prohibited.  That's off topic, even if the reference was reliable, which it's not. The one sentence directly cited to Finkelhor at the end of the paragraph does meet RS if it's an accurate quote, but that sentence is certainly not an "opposing argument" regarding effects, it's a discussion of the ethical basis for prohibiting adult-child sex that doesn't directly address any of the substance under discussion in the article.  If a philosophy section is added to the article, it could be used there, but not in the "opposing arguments" section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  unreliable source and misinterpreted reference 

message: The controversy section following the scientific studies of the effects of child abuse should include only scientific studies (which have been controversial).  The sections it follows do not pose pro-con arguments to be rebutted, they are a report of the studies.-PetraSchelm (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should the controversy section only include scientific controversy? After all, this article does talk about political and other viewpoints as well. If information is pertinent and properly sourced, it should stay. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: moved from controversy section

message: Again, I do not see how this is relevant to child sexual abuse. I could see scientific controversy following a report of scientific studies, but the fact that 2,000 or so people belong to pro-pedophile organizations is not relevant. The "summary" is longer than the summary of the pedophile article. Also, this is mostly a repetition of stuff about Rind. -PetraSchelm (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The authors listed here are not just some random pro-pedophile activists, but actual legit experts. So, I'm not clear as to why this is inappropriate for this article. After all, if there's academic debate on whether or not sexual relations between adults and children are inherently harmful, then an overview of the main talking points should be provided. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is other information in the article to address the topic area you mentioned, "academic debate on whether or not sexual relations between adults and children are inherently harmful".  The the above section however discusses a different subject, pro-pedophile activism; that's off-topic and not needed in this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pro-pedophile activism already has it's own article anyway.Legitimus (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: moved from pro-pedophile activism section

message: This off-topic section "age of consent"] has also been deleted,  on the same basis as the above listed sections, as explained at #failed merge from another article.
One paragraph with a summary of statutory rape was moved from the deleted section into the section on international laws. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: moved from age of consent section

message: All of the material list above in this talk page section about "adult-child sex" and "pro-pedophilia activism" was moved into this article a few months ago as a result of an attempted merge from an article titled "Adult-child sex".  The redirect was later undone but the added material was not removed. That other article was eventually deleted after a long series of AfD debates.  The material that was left here during the failed attempt at redirect and merge is not needed in this article and is appropriately removed as has now been done.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it was me who moved it in a failed merge attempt and whoever reverted adult-child sex was feeling too torpid to fix this article too. I strongly support removing this material which is only here by error and should certainly not be here now the afd ended up with a delete not a merge SqueakBox17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah so that explains it. Ok, sounds good to me.Legitimus (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that all this information is out-of-place here. Even if some of this text ended up here as a result of a failed merge, there's no reason to simply delete it. There are some parts that should remain, and I have posed a few preliminary comments above to get discussion going on these recent deletions of information. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a matter of WP:WEIGHT.  Rind is already mentioned here. A duplication of large parts of the pro-pedophile activism article gives undue weight.-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: failed merge from another article

message: One research website cites three papers that may shed light on the controversial disparity between rates of positive and neutral reaction in different studies of the topic. It is argued that "reliance on clinical and criminal samples and generalizing their results to larger populations" is a common problem in researching the issue. (reference - http://mhamic.org/problems/summary.htm) 
Mhamic is not a reliable source. Selectively citing the literature is a violation of SYN and OR. "Reliance on clinical and criminal samples" is a general limitation regarding the research on pedophilia--what are you saying it sheds light on, and who says so, with reference to this?  Also, there is not a "controversial disparity between rates of positive and neutral reaction"--that's overstating it more than a bit.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an attempt to find a possible cause of the controversy. Rind-type papers tend to emphasize the population sample, whilst those he opposes use clinical data, legal anecdotes, etc. In that sense, I am not using MHAMIC to prove any point, but rather offer a possible interpretation. However, it is telling that you jump to the accusation of "selectivity". Lambton T/C 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Selectivity is the reason MHAMIC is not a reliable source, that's why I mention it--it's an advocacy website maintained by a layperson who synthesizes and interprets studies to further an agenda in an in-universe way that doesn't reflect the depth or breadth or consensus of the literature. It helps to reinforce a skewed perspective in the way 9/11 truth websites do, homeopathy websites, etc.  People seeking confirmation of a fringe view go to those websites and get the mistaken impression "it are fact/science is on my side," when it's not the case at all.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed that MHAMIC does not meet WP:RS.  If they quote a reliable reference on their site, then rather then citing the MHAMIC link, the source can be cited directly.  Any information they present that is not directly attributed to a solid source is just their opinion and doesn't qualify as reliable for Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are victimology sites (The Leadership Council, Reisman Institute, Government funded etc) that are just as agenda-driven as MHAMic. What they should be used for is to give different perspectives, not absolute measures. FarenhorstO (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, reliability of sources is not determined by their perspectives.  Each source must be vetted on its individual qualifications to determine actual reliability.  MHAMic is a self-published website of one or two people's opinions;  they are not experts or notable in any way; the site fails WP:RS.  In contrast, the Leadership Council is a "nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, and public policy analysts." -- their advisory board includes approximately 50 respected scientists who have written approximately 80 books.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mhamic 

message: Anybody who uses the term "it" to refer to a large body of conflicting research in their field of study really should take a broader look at the issue. Lambton T/C 03:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lambton wrote: 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Lambton wrote: 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm confused - which "it" are you referring to? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That used to describe a vast chunk of the literature as opposed to a policy. Lambton T/C 03:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It"