Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 5

message: Are we attempting to make any distinction between the ages of the people under 18 involved?  I see a huge difference between a 15-year-old boy fooling around with a 22-year-old girl, and a 40something-year-old man raping an 4-year-old girl.  I know people who have been in both of these situations.   The girl was (and is) devastated.  The teenager was psyched and went back for more.  As far as I know nothing magical happens overnight when you turn 18.  Are we making any account of that in this article?  It sounds like some people think that people under 18 are sexless beings who do not (or must not) have any sexual experiences at all.  That just doesn't jive with the recalled high school experiences of almost everyone I know.  Almost everyone I know personally enough to talk about it with was sexually active on some level after the age of 16 or so.  Many were younger when they began having sexual experiences with peers.  Must we lump normal sexual development in with pathological rape and abuse of prepubescent children?  They're not the same thing!  Joie de Vivre 02:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree personally, but this kind of generalization is standard. we could add information on criticisms of the child sexual abuse over-definition, though that might piss off the all or nothing editors here... ~kinda 02:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could pull in some statistics on the ages when people have their first consensual sexual experiences... that might help with the dichotomy surrounding "what people 'should' do" versus what they actually do.  The dismal failure rates of abstinence-only education in high school might have a place here, too; they might help shed some factuality on the general stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach American society, at least, takes to human sexual development.  I do think adults should keep their hands off of youths, but it's ridiculous to go from that to suggesting that teenagers don't have sex drives.  Joie de Vivre 03:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Studies reflecting age differences would certainly be relevant.  -Jmh123 14:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CSA in the United States is defined as sex between an adult and a minor, or sex between minors with an age difference of more than 5 years.  The age or developmental status of the victim of abuse (e.g., pre- or post-pubescent), the relationship of the victim to the abuser, and the degree of physicality all contribute to the assessment of the severity of the abuse.  As you can imagine, severity therefore spans a wide range, as Joie points out.  The legal and therapeutic responses to substantiated abuse are supposed to match the severity (e.g., criminal charges range from misdemeanor to Class A Felony).  The problem of assessment is therefore crucial.  However, all CSA is abuse, meaning a violation of the victim's human rights:  the abuser is leveraging a power imbalance to another person's disadvantage.  Our society has determined that children are especially deserving and in need of special protections against abuse.Vendrov 09:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction 

message: I propose that the "effects" section and the "positive and consensual cases" sections be combined into one "effects" section.  Both concern the same subject, that is, how child sexual abuse affects children.  The "effects" section is NPOV, discussing effects regardless of 'positive/negative'.  Rind's study is discussed in both sections, to make the same point.  The idea of the experience being reported as positive appears in both sections.  Therefore, it seems to me that the separate 'positive' section serves only to accentuate a certain POV.  I also noticed that Rind's meta-analysis of 59 college studies has been changed to 15 studies in one section, but continues to be 59 in the other--citation to the same publication.  What am I missing?  
In 'effects':
One study found that most men formerly involved in woman-boy sexual relations, however, evaluate their experience as positive upon reflection.[17]
Wakefield and Underwager note the difference between CSA experiences of males and females, where more males than females report the experience as neutral or positive, saying that "It may be that women perceive such experiences as sexual violation, while men perceive them as sexual initiation."[18] The research by Rind et al. suggests that this difference was present in 59 college studies on the issue, suggesting that males who claimed that their abuse was consensual were not significantly less well adjusted than the norm.[5] 
In 'positive...':
Several studies have indicated that some children regard their sexual abuse positively.[39][40][41] Boys have a tendency to experience the sexual contacts as positive more often than girls. A meta-analysis by Rind et al. of 15 studies found that boys reacted positively in 37% of the cases while girls reacted positively in 11% of the cases.[5] The Rind study is criticized by other researchers on a number of grounds.
Adrian Coxell examined the effects of child sexual abuse in a sample of 2474 men in Great Britain and found that of those who had a sexual encounter prior to the age of 16, over half of the experiences had been consensual. (The mean age for first or only experience of abuse was 11, with a standard deviation of 3.) [42] An examination of the main effect of harm showed that the consenting children had no more problems than the control group.[43] Rind stated that the normal perception on child sexual abuse is based on an incest model where father-daughter incest serves as a model for child sexual abuse cases. He says that this view may not provide an accurate model for the effects of consensual experiences.[40]
What is "the main effect of harm" referred to here?  "An examination of the main effect of harm showed that the consenting children had no more problems than the control group."  Shouldn't we be told specifically what that main effect is?  Did the analysis of other effects, not the "main effect" indicate that there were more problems?   -Jmh123 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: a merge would be fine. rind et al. (1998) examined 59 studies, but the reaction section only used data from 15 of them. the "main effect" concerns whether the men studied had experienced a psychological problem for at least two weeks in their life. on your last question, i'm not certain, but probably. ~kinda 18:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: i already added what you're talking about: "There is evidence that children who initially report positive feelings will sometimes go on to reassess their abuse in a negative light. 38% of the 53 men studied by Urquiza (1987) said that they viewed their experience as positive at the time, but only 15% retained this attitude." and i just balanced the section out with some other stuff. if jmh wants to merge it with the section above "neurological differences" he can now. ~kinda 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: good job!  -Jmh123 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I wont restore the weasel tag for now, but would like to see some other talk page input before we remove the NPOV tag, SqueakBox 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the weasel tag does belong, but I'll leave it out.  However, I do not support removing the NPOV tag...RalphLendertalk 20:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Def. leave the POV tag up there. DPetersontalk 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal 

message: all we have is vague complaints, so--suggestions? ~kinda 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the disputes was over the existence of a separate 'positive' section.  This appears now to be resolved.  -Jmh123 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for fixing my mistakes. ~kinda 00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure all editors agree with that. DPetersontalk 00:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what? ~kinda 00:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how could this article be neutralized? 

message: squeakbox was interested in this, so i may or may not write it. somebody should write it. here's my suggested sources:
*Bornstein et al. (2007). "Child abuse in the eyes of the beholder: Lay perceptions of child sexual and physical abuse," Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 31, Issue 4. (bbornstein2@unl.edu; the author might send you a copy)
*Neuilly, M., & Zgoba, K. (2006). Assessing the Possibility of a Pedophilia Panic and Contagion Effect Between France and the United States
for a historical perspective, this website has an pretty complete bibliography. ~kinda 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  perceptions of child sexual abuse 

message: Someone bring that part back. That's a very important part. 80.167.84.86
:I have to disagree. RalphLendertalk 21:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that children are unable to consent to sexual relations with adults is incorporated into the majority of legal systems in the world and absolutely believed by the majority of people in the world. Its an extreme minority belief that children can consent to sexual relations with adults and thus fails notability and thus has no place in this encyclopedia, SqueakBox 21:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, the fact that it is illegal underscores the point that there cannot be consent by a minor for sexual relations with an adult.  This concept is further enshrined in law in many other areas, including informed consent to treatment (parents not children must sign). DPetersontalk 21:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: SqueakBox and DPeterson: Until the late 20th century, in much of the United States and in some other countries, gay men were incapable of consenting to sex with other men and white women were incapable of consenting to marriage with a black man.  Anti-gay-sex laws still exist in some countries.  Would 1950s-era Wikipedia editors cite the law as grounds to be non-NPOV on such issues?  Maybe they would, and maybe the community consensus would back them up, but it would still be non-NPOV.  If you are going to claim "extreme minority" as reason to not allow certain material and are claiming your position is "representative" of the masses, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you are taking a non-neutral position.  By the way, this isn't the only topic where "extreme minority" positions are not well-tolerated at Wikipedia. I haven't researched it but I assume that non-orthodox theories of 9/11, the JFK assassination, and similar events receive the same could shoulder treatment in the "main" articles about those subjects.  The editors of those articles should also admit that their POV reflects the masses and is not necessarily neutral.  Dfpc 22:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, no human being is totally neutral.  As Wikipedia editors we should realize this and most or all of the time put our personal biases behind us.  It's a rare editor that is 100% successful at maintaining a NPOV all the time. Dfpc 22:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What you are saying is irrelevanmt. We've actually made progress and realised that adults do consent to sex. The idea that children should be forced to consent to sex merely to satisfy the perversions of a tiny minority of trollish adults will never be accepted in a civilised society. I absolutely do not accept I am not taking a neutral stance, indeed that is my only interest in this set of articles, SqueakBox 22:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues should be evaluated on facts...not what might be.  Even if we accept Dfpc's argument, which I do not, it is still irrelevant as sex between adults and children is now illegal and that is the basis for stating there are no positive aspects...If we accept Dfpc's arguement, then at some point in the distant future, children can be said to be able to consent to having sex with adults, the article can be edited at that point....For now, children cannot consent to having sex with adults, it is illegal and not a postive thing. DPetersontalk 22:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are excellent points that can be written about in the legal section where it belongs. Nandaba Naota 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You all deleted it, simply because you didn't like the facts said in it. That's not a constructive way to edit. bring it back. 80.167.84.86 13:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it was merged into the "effects" section as proposed.  To have a separate "positive" section implied advocacy.  No "facts" have been deleted.  Read the discussion on this above, please. -Jmh123 14:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was merged without consensus and information was removed in the process. Nandaba Naota 21:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It was without consensus and should had been discussed first, as stated in earlier discussion. Interview material was "lost" in the process. Nandaba Naota 21:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was discussed and agreed upon by the participating editors.  The change was effected by User:kinda0. The material you reinserted was not lost.  It was determined to be anecdotal.  We could counterbalance this with anecdotes of less pleasant experiences of child sexual abuse, but my opinion is that we stick to research here and not story-telling. -Jmh123 23:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The removed text is research material and source for it was provided. Who ever claims otherwise simply doesn't know what he is talking about, which is evident when reading the source. Nandaba Naota 23:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems ok as long as it remains in the legal section and is not confused with other areas. Nandaba Naota 03:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: please attribute this circular argument to someone who has made it. (though i'd rather we find an argument that isn't so weak and tautological.) ~kinda 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good and I would like to see it in the opening, it would go some way then towards resolbving real POV concerns, SqueakBox 22:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive_and_consensual_cases 

message: So, are you (Nandaba) supporting the addition of something like the following into the legal section? Sexual relations between children and adults is illegal.  As such, children cannot consent to sexual relationships and all such contact is illegal and by definition, abusive.  
DPetersontalk 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems ok as long as it remains in the legal section and is not confused with other areas. Nandaba Naota 03:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: please attribute this circular argument to someone who has made it. (though i'd rather we find an argument that isn't so weak and tautological.) ~kinda 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good and I would like to see it in the opening, it would go some way then towards resolbving real POV concerns, SqueakBox 22:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Removed false statement:
American age of consent laws may or may not apply to emancipated minors, particularly married or divorced individuals under the age of consent. Emancipated minors, including married or divorced teenagers, are legally adults. A 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case (Lawrence v. Texas) implies that adults have the right to sexual relations with other adults. Whether or not a 40 year old man having sex with an underaged divorced woman is legal is untested. Likewise, incest between emancipated minors and other adult family members is also legally untested.
In the states where emancipation is allowed, statutory rape and age of marriage laws still apply.  An emancipated minor is not a status equal to that of adulthood.  The laws are listed here: http://www.jlc.org/index.php/factsheets/emancipationus.  Lawrence v. Texas has no bearing on sex with minors, and not having tested a law does not make  the law of questionable application.  ZeroZ 07:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, ZeroZ DPetersontalk 13:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emancipated Minors 

message: To use the latest tag you need to fill atleast one criteria (which is does not at this point): 
    
* it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
* it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
* in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
* it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic. 
Nandaba Naota 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well at least one of those criteria has been met and I didnt use the disputed tag but the totally disputed tag, SqueakBox 23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one and what evidence do you have? Nandaba Naota 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a tag that does reflect the controversial and contested nature of material in the article.  It must remain. DPetersontalk 00:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular tag requires some criteria to be filled, since this is not the case, it should be replaced with the ordinary NPOV-tag. Nandaba Naota 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you dispute this assertion, I suggest you hold an informal poll as most editors here seem to disagree with you. DPetersontalk 01:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if you could fill one criteria then you would had already done so, voting about it won't change that fact. Nandaba Naota 01:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, if you dispute the conensus here, you can always file an RfC or RfM to resolve the dispute....but your view does not represent consensus and so won't be reflected in the article. DPetersontalk 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is built together, you can't have consensus without me, and I can't have consensus without you. Nandaba Naota 03:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, that is not so.  If you read the article on consensus, one editor cannot hold hostage consensus....it means a preponderance of editors.  DPetersontalk 10:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a voting system either, it's about working toward agreements, and this should be done by arguments rather than deciding it by who can gather the most friends to vote for him. Nandaba Naota 12:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy 

message: I have put tags on to lessen pov and those who are increasing pov with a misguided defence of pedophile criminals, can you please back off? We need an NPOV article not a pro pedophile rant, SqueakBox 03:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you have candidly admitted that you're here to ensure this article reflects your personal pov. i, on the other hand, want this article to include all relevant and notable information for people interested in learning about child sexual abuse--the information i add is not necessary in accord with my OWN opinion. please stop being destructive in your self-admitted pov pushing. ~kinda 03:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Claims of POV and NPOV don't have much weight. What matters is the product. Let's just make sure our edits are neutral.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: :::We are not here to promote pedophile activism. Can the people who are trying to do so please stop,SqueakBox 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: shut up, [censored]. can the people who don't know anything about child sexual abuse and mistake the p[romotion of mainstream science for "pedophile activism" please leave or at least bother to learn mainstream science before bullshitting about it? ~kinda 21:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remain civil. Calling me an idiot isnt a way to get your POV across on wikipedia, quite the opposite. I argue that it is pedophiles know nothing about this subject, SqueakBox 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your {Kinda} comments are offensive and are Personal Attacks.  Consider this a friendly reminder and please stop and focus on the issues being discussed, not the editors.DPetersontalk 21:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if you didn't notice, the only time i don't focus on the content is when squeakbox accuses others of being pro-pedophile activists. why don't you tell him to shut up instead of me? ~kinda 21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.  DPetersontalk 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: um, most of the material i've added has supported the contention that child sexual abuse is linked independently to negative effects. this is my personal POV. i just don't support censoring opinions contrary to that, unlike you. i guess that makes me a "pro pedophile activist?" ~kinda 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucky you. And what was calling me an idiot based on? that anti pedophile activists are idiots cos they just dont understand? SqueakBox 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it was based on your total ignorant of the literature. ~kinda 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your perception, SqueakBox 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No point denying it, just give it up. Nandaba Naota 21:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations 

message: I deleted the following from the intro as I don't think it belongs there.  Maybe other editors can comment on if it belongs at all, and if so, where: The term have been criticized for implicating negative effects although empirical research have shown that this is not always the case. The use of negative terminology can have a negative biasing effect on how adult-nonadult sexual contacts is perceived.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. 
 DPetersontalk 21:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, SqueakBox 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to explain why... "I don't think it belongs there" just isn't enough to remove material. Nandaba Naota 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment and lets see what other editors think. DPetersontalk 22:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop deleting stuff without discussing it first, it only leads to edit wars. Nandaba Naota 22:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: On checking some of the material that was deleted I agree that it contains dubious assertions. In one case there's a verbatim quote that does not appear in the linked source, Wakefield and Underwager. In other cases assertions appear to be promoted that don't reflect the overall findings of the sources. This section seems intended to prove a point rather than to neutrally summarize sources.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This applies to the whole article if we use the same reasoning. Nandaba Naota 23:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are aware of another verbatim quote that is mis-sourced then please bring that to the attention of editors.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 23:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have done no such thing. Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. Nandaba Naota 23:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. Nandaba Naota 23:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal attacks? Where? SqueakBox 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You accused a fellow editor of lying. Nandaba Naota 23:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: the material should be restored, per arguments already made. squeakbox/dpeterson are the ones who need to discuss it on the talk page. ~kinda 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may need to assist in these matters. (They have used this tecnique before in order to make oponents restore more than 3 times to get them blocked). Nandaba Naota 22:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you know about that? Making bad faith false claims of gaming the system re Voice of Britain are out of processs and clearly not true, please desist, SqueakBox 22:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is discussed above. DPetersontalk 22:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted material 

message: SqueakBox just deleted a large chunk of text:  with no clear reason as to why. This must stop, you can't just remove things like that. Nandaba Naota 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the material should be restored, per arguments already made. squeakbox/dpeterson are the ones who need to discuss it on the talk page. ~kinda 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may need to assist in these matters. (They have used this tecnique before in order to make oponents restore more than 3 times to get them blocked). Nandaba Naota 22:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you know about that? Making bad faith false claims of gaming the system re Voice of Britain are out of processs and clearly not true, please desist, SqueakBox 22:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is discussed above. DPetersontalk 22:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lots of material deleted without proper reason

message: How about we blank the article and start over. This time we plan everything very carefully and base every decision on peer reviewed research. A work group with 4 serious editors would suffice. 
Make new version
* Nandaba Naota 22:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not relevant, as you arent giving any decent options. We could restart and make sure we get an NPOV article based on ad populum. 4 serious editors could be me, Will, DPetersen and JonesRD but actually this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit so your proposal is a non starter, SqueakBox 22:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: KEEP This article is needing work, but has much in in its favor.  However, if you wish to create a new article on your talk page, I'd look at it as a proposal. DPetersontalk 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep. This article is the product of consensus. The proposer hasn't given any specific reasons why this article should be stubbed.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 22:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep.  That doesn't make sense.  Come up with an outline for the changes you want to make and post a link to a version of it (i.e., User:Nandaba Naota/CSA-Newversion).  Joie de Vivre 22:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep. A lot of work has gone into this version.  I don't believe a "new" version under the circumstances we're working under here would be an improvement.  -Jmh123 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Radical" idea 

message: I and anothe editor (Will Beback) requested and were granted page protection on this page because of Nandaba's edits.  I continue to have concerns regarding Nandaba's Personal Attacks, for example, toward SqueakBox. DPetersontalk 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, SqueakBox 23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hopefully this will keep DPeterson and SqueakBox from continuing to violate the 3RR rule. Nandaba Naota 23:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, SqueakBox 23:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Account blocked as a troll account, page is now unprotected. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 02:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! DPetersontalk 12:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: "Sexual relations between children and adults is illegal. As such, children cannot consent to sexual relationships and all such contact is illegal and by definition, abusive."
problems with this: sexual contact is illegal because they cannot give informed consent, rather than they can't give informed consent because sexual contact is illegal. a prepubescent child's incapacity to give informed consent is a proposition established through logic, not an axiom. this argument is an unsourced mockery of the argument against child sexual abuse, so i'm going to replace with it finkelhor's well-known opinions. ~kinda 18:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the line should remain.  Sexual conduct is illegal NOT ONLY because of the informed consent issue.  It is illegal because it is repugant to the vast majority of people.  DPetersontalk 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know what Finkelhor said nor do I know what you mean by "argument against child sexual abuse." I do know that the legality of an action as determined by the law is a separate concept from why the people wanted the law passed. --Gbleem 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  law 

message: "Pedophilia is a term often used to describe the acts of perpetrators and is a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-IV-R[2]." This is a confusing sentence. Could someone rewrite it? --Gbleem 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewritten as "Pedophilia, a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-IV-R[2], is a term often used colloquially to denote acts of child sexual abuse." --Askild 09:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reference to the colloquial definition I don't think it refers to the individual acts but the practice. Maybe? In reference to the diagnosis it's not clear if we are saying it's a diagnosis for the adult or a diagnosis for the child, particularly in context to the discussion of psychiatric damage in this article. --Gbleem 11:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How about "The psychiatric term pedophilia is often used colloquially to mean the practice of sexually abusing children." That still doesn't sound right though. --Gbleem 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Pedophilia is a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-IV-R[2]; the term pedophile is often used colloquially to denote a child sexual abuser"? Herostratus 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Best!  I'll make the change. RalphLendertalk 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sex act sentence 

message: I find the section on "Variation in cultural practices, norms and research findings" problematic.  The first couple of sentences are not well-written at all.  In the second two paragraphs there's a lot of appealing to the ancients, and I know from my own research in another field that ideas about what "archaic cultures" did are often speculative.  A couple of the sources in the second paragraph--globalgayz and glbtq are not scientific sources.  There's a list of cultural practices in the second paragraph, but only a few can be related to child sexual abuse.  I understand the point of making a statement about culture relativism, but in my opinion this section is rather poorly written and vague.  -Jmh123 16:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you make a suggestion for comment below...I've created a section in which a proposal can be floated. DPetersontalk 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Is cultural universalist an accepted term or just descriptive?  Relations between boys and adult males were not limited to monks in feudal Japan.  How often it was coerced is another question perhaps not relevant here.  I don't know what the impoverished cultures sentence is referring to, and there is no citation.  Thailand is a country that comes to mind in this regard, but it isn't clear how the culture as a whole regards this practice.  For now, I've left that sentence out, pending a citation or addition.  The Green article can be found here: .  His list looks like a hodge-podge of anthropological reports of varying rates of reliability.  The article itself is on the topic of DSM classifications. I've included an all-purpose phrase to hopefully cover Green. I also changed the section title. -Jmh123 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not support the proposed change. RalphLendertalk 18:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the article is about sexual abuse and DSM issues, I'd opt to delete the entire section.  I will make that proposal now, below. RalphLendertalk 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: OK by me.  Not sure that as written it says much of relevance.  -Jmh123 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, let's delete it. DPetersontalk 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, delete. We are getting too far afield here. It's beyond what this article can reasonably address. Herostratus 04:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  -Jmh123 05:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent. ZeroZ 12:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Progress! RalphLendertalk 16:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another section that needs some work 

message: There is no consensus as to whether past or present cultural practices in Western or non-Western societies can be defined as abusing either general universalistic human rights or special universalistic rights of minors. Cultural relativists argue that it is not right to condemn the practices of other cultures, even when repugnant to one's own; others may point to slavery as an example of a cultural norm of the pre-Civil War American South that was nearly universally rejected by others. 
Some of the sexual or sex-related practices sanctioned by cultural norms in different cultures include cutting and bleeding of the genitals, female genital cutting, circumcision (of males), castration, infibulation, sexual relationships between adolescent boys and adult men sanctioned by the state and sanctified by religion in ancient Greece, sexual relationships between adolescent boys and adult males in feudal Japan, and adult-child sexual relations in a variety of tribal cultures.  
: Is cultural universalist an accepted term or just descriptive?  Relations between boys and adult males were not limited to monks in feudal Japan.  How often it was coerced is another question perhaps not relevant here.  I don't know what the impoverished cultures sentence is referring to, and there is no citation.  Thailand is a country that comes to mind in this regard, but it isn't clear how the culture as a whole regards this practice.  For now, I've left that sentence out, pending a citation or addition.  The Green article can be found here: .  His list looks like a hodge-podge of anthropological reports of varying rates of reliability.  The article itself is on the topic of DSM classifications. I've included an all-purpose phrase to hopefully cover Green. I also changed the section title. -Jmh123 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not support the proposed change. RalphLendertalk 18:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article is about sexual abuse and DSM issues, I'd opt to delete the entire section.  I will make that proposal now, below. RalphLendertalk 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed revision of section, "Variation in cultural practices and norms"

message: I propose that the entire section be deleted. Please indicate your support or opposition belowRalphLendertalk 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK by me.  Not sure that as written it says much of relevance.  -Jmh123 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, let's delete it. DPetersontalk 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, delete. We are getting too far afield here. It's beyond what this article can reasonably address. Herostratus 04:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  -Jmh123 05:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent. ZeroZ 12:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Progress! RalphLendertalk 16:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed revision of above section

message: There's nothing here about the physical effects of child sexual abuse.  I changed the title of the "effects" section to psychological effects, as that is the topic of that section.  I believe an additional "physical effects" section would be appropriate. -Jmh123 20:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the section describes the psychological effects.  I don't know that a section on physical effects is necessary...I wonder what other editors think??? RalphLendertalk 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no point in a Physical Effects section. But is someone has a compelling argument I'll change my mind. DPetersontalk 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously there are many variables: age, degree of force, type of sexual activity and so forth.  Perhaps there's too much potential for contention or abuse from those who want to minimize all negative effects, but child sexual abuse can cause bodily harm and the entry doesn't state that. Another route to take would be to change the title back to "effects" and begin with a short statement saying something along the lines of, "Depending on age, size, and degree of force, sexual activity between children and adults may cause infection, sexually transmitted diseases, internal lacerations, damage to internal organs, or, in extreme cases, death.  Psychological damage may occur even when physical effects are absent." And then continue with psychological effects. -Jmh123 22:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, now I like that.  It is succint and clear.  I support your (Jmh123) proposal.  DPetersontalk 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I'm going to go back and rephrase this slightly.  Check to see if it's OK with you.  -Jmh123 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In googling this, I discovered some research that indicates that the degree of physical damage correlates with severity of psychological damage, but I don't feel comfortable including studies myself without a comprehensive knowledge of the literature on this subject.  Just a suggestion for anyone else who is interested.  -Jmh123 23:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look.  What did you google?  I'll look at the citations.  BTW, I like what you did.  Very nice work. DPetersontalk 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This all looks positive, SqueakBox 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  DPetersontalk, I googled "'physical effects' of child sexual abuse" with the quotes around only "physical effects" in the search. This  was a long and interesting Ph.D. research proposal that has some references which could possibly of use: "The use of physical force during CSA incidents (Finkelhor, 1979; Fromuth, 1986; Herman et al., 1986; Russell, 1983, 1984), and a longer duration and greater frequency of CSA are also associated with poorer psychological and sexual outcomes in adulthood (Bifulco et al., 1991; Binder, McNiel, & Goldstone, 1994; Briere & Runtz, 1988b; Herman et al., 1986)." Adult sexual dysfunctions are another effect the entry doesn't yet cover. -Jmh123 00:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  The following may be useful:
*Penelope K. Trickett & Frank W. Putnam, "Developmental Consequences of Child Sexual Abuse," in VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY AND THE COMMUNITY (Am. Psychological Ass’n, 1998) (longitudinal studies of sexually abused children showed high incidence of abnormalities in development. These abnormalities resulted in greater levels of emotional stress, greater risk for later behavioral and psychological problems [in particular anxiety disorders, inappropriate sexual behavior, and delinquency], poorer educational achievement, and poorer career achievement, in comparison to control group of nonabused children);  
*Terri L. Messman-Moore & Patricia J. Long, "Child Sexual Abuse and Revictimization in the Form of Adult Sexual Abuse, Adult Physical Abuse, and Adult Psychological Maltreatment," 15 J. INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE 489(2000). (Abuse during childhood puts people at a higher risk of being victims of crime in adulthood [particularly of rape, battery, and intimate violence]); 
*Cathy Widom & M. Ashley Ames, "Criminal Consequences of Childhood Sexual Victimization," 18 CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT 303(1994) (Adults sexually abused during childhood are at higher risk of criminal arrest [particularly for drug abuse and prostitution], compared with those who were not so abused).  
The changes of the last couple of days look really good. ZeroZ 12:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The line present is fine...I will add the above as references to support the stmts.  RalphLender talk 16:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RalphLender talk, I think the other change you made sounds off simply because it's a no-brainer that the effects are going to vary from individual to individual and the effects will also be correlated with other causes, as children who are sexually abused often experience other forms of abuse.  Let me try a variation and see what you think. -Jmh123 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking back I see I wrote almost exactly what was there before, but removed that word "though" which was carrying a sub-text. I think the real issue is that there is still an undue weight towards the "positive" side in the entire effects section, which can best be countered by adding additional studies, not just footnotes, but actual discussions of studies and their implications.  I've made some suggestions, and the anon IP made some good ones that got lost in the VOB/Naota meltdown:    -Jmh123 18:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree...there seems undue weight in that area.  RalphLendertalk 18:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something missing 

message: I'm going to take a whack at rewriting the entire section and present it here for discussion within 48 hours.  ZeroZ 12:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rewrite is up on my user page. -ZeroZ 12:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws on CSA 

message: My uncited/unverified edit to this page with the section "sexual mistreatment of minors" was removed due to exclusionism due to the page being controversial.  What do you think of the separate definition of "sexual mistreatment" of minors that involves exposing minors to sexual material/pornography and corrupting their mental, emotional, and psychological state?  Is this topic already covered in this article or in sexual abuse, does it merit an article/stub article of its own, etc.?
See my original edit. --
Wykypydya 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  Thanks for bringing this to Talk as I requested.  Can you find some citations to scientific research to support your edit?  Try looking at this research proposal I linked above .  You may find a reference to this topic there.  Also look at this book which is on line, full text, especially this chapter, beginning on this page: .  I think your idea would be a good addition to the topic, but we need to discuss where it would be placed too.  -Jmh123 22:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual mistreatment 

message: I recently added:
Nonetheless, many women are married before the age of 15, often to older men, without their consent, and with financial motivations: up to 20% in some nations and 50% in some regions.  In some regions the arranged marriage of the Prophet Muhammed to a six-year-old girl, consummated at the age of nine,Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3310Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88, is taken to illustrate the virtue of the practice.
In reference to a speedy revert I deleted a somewhat peripheral comment that the practice is vigorously defended, with reference to Submission (film) and murdered filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, which admittedly is somewhat more relevant to my POV than to the article.
Nonetheless, the overall statement is very important.  The article currently gives the clear impression throughout that child molestation has been universally marginalized and occurs only in a criminal context, when in reality it remains the law of the land, and of God, in many places. 204.186.20.137 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, your comment was added to the head of the article, which is not an article on cross-cultural marriage practices, but on child sexual abuse.  Presumably, if a culture permits child marriage, then within that culture, the practice is not regarded as child sexual abuse.  Therefore your statement is not relevant to the article, and particularly in this location, which creates a misleading sense of the content of the article.  Second, your comment does not contradict the statement, " Although these laws differ in detail, all set an age - typically falling somewhere between the typical onset of puberty and the age of majority - under which all sexual contact with adults is deemed abusive and illegal."  This statement clearly states that the laws set an age under which etc etc.  Clearly if a culture which permits a marriage such as the one you describe, then the age determined by that culture is met--and again, you are talking about sex within the context of a marriage, which is therefore legally sanctioned.  Thirdly, Muhammed lived a long time ago; the reference pertains to current practices.  Fourthly, your comment follows a statement on incest.  None of the material you added is relevant to incest.  -Jmh123 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: on this subject i am wondering if in these supposed countries that child molesting really is the law of the land or if like every where else they have an age of consent, that sex with who ever is illegal outside of marrige and if they have a legal marrital age. I do not believe that anybody can go around legally violating children's human right to a childhood, control over their own bodies or believe that a child can make informed consent. If they do not have child abuse laws they must have rape laws etc. I do not believe that in any country doing what you want to someone is allowed as 204.186.20.137 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevalence of child marriages 

message: "Fear literally arises from the core of the brain, affecting all brain areas and their functions in rapidly expanding waves of neurchemical acticity...also important is a stress hormone called cortisol.", p. 64.
not only does this not explicitly support what it claims to, it appears to be speculative rather than empirical. i have never encountered any study supporting the claim made there in my research, and if a book just claims that rather than a study having found that, the statement should be either changed or removed, especially since empirical observations contradicts it. ~kinda 23:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for the supporting quote and it has been provided.  It adheres to the Wikipedia standard of being Wikipedia:Verifiability and therefore is appropriate.  If you think it is not, cite the specific Wiki policy or standard it violates.  DPetersontalk 00:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the issue is that the quote DOES NOT support the statement. i am quite sure that NO study has ever found  elevated cortisol in csa survivors. you have not provided support for your claim that "studies" have. ~kinda 00:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is verifiable and meets standards...unless you can provide another policy it violates, it stands. DPetersontalk 00:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: However, I recognize that I may be wrong, so let's see what other editors think and leave the article as it is untill we receive comments and build a consensus. DPetersontalk 00:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: isn\t there a policy against adding misinformation? you still haven't provided any evidence csa survivors have elevated cortisol. ~kinda 00:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: quote provided...let's see what other editors say. DPetersontalk 00:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: uhh.. the quote says cortisol is important. that's all. it does not support the statement. ~kinda 00:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: in fact i agree that cortisol is important in some way, seeing as csa victims are significantly _lacking_ in it in comparison to controls. it indicates that some part of the hpa axis has been damaged just as much as elevated cortisol. ~kinda 00:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should apply the same standards all around.  Just because it's in a book doesn't mean that it is true, and I don't think Wikipedia policy makes that claim.  Let's use our brains and investigate.  Is the author of the book a reliable source on neurochemistry?  What are his/her credentials?  Is there science to support/negate the statement?  And so on.  -Jmh123 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: his speculation is theoretically reasonable, but none of the empirical research i have read supports it and some of it contradicts it. (though i do remember reading one study about [neglected?] orphans who were found to have elevated cortisol.) ~kinda 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Perry is a MD & Ph.D., (psychiatrist and psychologist) who has publised extensively about the effects of trauma on the brain and brain neuro-chemistry.  He's treated the Branch Davidian kids and been called into many other prom cases. He has extensive research in this area, citations in his book. DPetersontalk 00:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote doesn't say whether cortisol is lower or higher; it just says it's important.  Does Perry reference any studies?  The statement to which the quote has been added, and which the footnote to Perry follows, says that "other studies have been found." Can we cite studies he refers to? -Jmh123 01:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Dumb questions: Do cortisol levels determine the size of the hippocampus and corpus callosum?  Is the following part of the same argument, or an alternative hypothesis?  "The authors hypothesized that the development of brain regions which myelinate over decades (such as the corpus callosum and hippocampus) may be disturbed by stress, because stress hormones such as cortisol supress the final mitosis of granule cells and thereby the production of the oligodendrocytes and Schwann cells that form the myelin sheath.[59]" How much of the "Neurological differences" section is directly related to this cortisol issue? Part of the problem, to this lay reader, is that the information is not presented clearly.  -Jmh123 01:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: cortisol is just involved in some explanations for the observed differences. "Do cortisol levels determine the size of the hippocampus and corpus callosum?" more research is needed to answer this. ~kinda 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Read [] and read the text and read the citations on the website.  That is enough for now.  It is all verifiable and meets the wikipedia policy standards for inclusion...but if you disagree try an RfC.  DPetersontalk 01:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that page does not contain the word cortisol anywhere. and you're yet to give any verifiable study to support the statement. ~kinda 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the book and the page does have the work and quote...DPetersontalk 01:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also see [], [], [], [] []  DPetersontalk 01:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote 

message: Under Effects (middle of third paragraph) it states:
:Their examination of a small sample of CSA-discordant twins also supported a causal link between child sexual and adult psychopathology
:Did the author mean to say "between child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology"?
:Viper2k6 02:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (From the Who Moved My Cheese Dept: "Effects" section is now titled "Effects of Child Sexual Abuse" and is located at section 2.1 of the article.) -ZeroZ 13:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, Viper.  -Jmh123 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Effects" - question about one sentence 

message: #It's my understanding that the typical child sex offender is situational - someone who (1) is horny, (2) has no character or impulse control, and (3) has control over a child such as access to their girlfriend's daughter or whatever. And the person is perfectly capable of enjoying relations with a grown woman, and so is not a pedophile. And is not mentally ill, unless one wants to hold that criminals in general are mentally ill.  Herostratus 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is the case.  Do you have any citations to support that statement?  My experience is that child sex offenders have a history of molesting children long before being caught.  DPetersontalk 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What about the suggestion above by "J" that what we need is more material...This is a complex issue and maybe a paragraph is needed instead of a line or two?  What would you think about doing that...expand the material with the explainations you and I have written? DPetersontalk 15:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, and Jmh123's point about avoiding adjectival description is well taken.  I am going to rewrite that part of the intro now and add in the citation from our explanatory material. -ZeroZ03:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; see my comments below, at section entitled "Intro". -ZeroZ 11:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DO NOT SUPPORT CHANGE

message: This line: The relationship between child sexual abuse and its attributed symptoms is contested,[30][45][46][47][48] because child sexual abuse frequently occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment.[49] may not be accurate.  The last study, #49, does 'not' reach the conclusion that, "The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects." DPetersontalk 13:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete, definitely. -ZeroZ 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. I'm tempted to start a new section to do this, but that might be too much.  Zero, the work you've done is fantastic!  -Jmh123 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK...BTW, I don't mean to imply in any way, shape, or form, that I don't like the amazing work ZeroZ has done here...It is great.  Now that the article is in better shape and we can focus more, I am finding a point or two that we might want to futher clarify.  DPetersontalk 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the concern to get it right is a good thing.   -Jmh123 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the last study supports the fact that csa is often confounded with other factors. that is why it is cited. and this methodological issue is widely known and many researchers are now considering it in their studies. keep, definitely. ~kinda 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't what the study concluded, see my quote above. DPetersontalk 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what are you talking about? the study is only cited because it reviews some of the other literature, and it DOES support the "child sexual abuse frequently occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment" statement. the line you quoted does not contradict this. "Child sexual abuse is not randomly distributed through the population. It occurs more frequently in children from socially deprived and disorganised family backgrounds (Finkelhor and Baron 1986; Beitchman et al. 1991; Russell 1986; Peters 1988; Mullen et al. 1993)." ~kinda 20:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The point of the study was that, The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects, the damage to these dimensions (trust, intimacy, etc) then lead to the other problems in later life not that those other issues (poor family environ) are confounding variables!  Therefore, the line must go.  DPetersontalk 20:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you did not reply to the content of my response, you just threw out a red herring. the reference does indeed support what it is given to support, that child sexual abuse occurs alongside possible confounding variables often. that this happens does not mean that the negative effects of child sexual abuse in itself are not significant. it is simply recognized by csa researchers that other variables have a confounding effect, and that is why many studies now control for environment. nevertheless, i have changed the reference to a different study by mullen that looks at the issue in depth and indeed concludes that these variables are confounding and frequent. (but not that csa by itself is harmless!) ~kinda 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another line to be deleted 

message: Just reread the intro -- I don't agree with the new line that was added:
For individuals in late adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judement must be used.   
But a person has to be 16 or older for this diagnosis. Persons younger than 16 *cannot* be diagnosed with pedophilia, according to the DSM-IV, because they don't fulfill Criterion C. (Of course, if someone younger than 16 commits child sexual abuse s/he *can* certainly be judged to be a sex offender.) Is there more information?   -ZeroZ 03:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That line is a direct quote from the DSM-IV.  RalphLendertalk 13:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: I have edited the intro along the lines of our discussion here.  Removed the adjectives, added reference material to support the discussion of terminology.  The 11:09am edit was me; got logged out accidentally.  The line I asked about in "Query," just above this section, I left alone until we can reach consensus.  Cheers, ZeroZ 11:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Please stop adding material before consensus has been reached, Kind0.  There exists a consensus to leave out the material you keep adding.  I'd suggest you conduct an informal poll first before you continue on your edit war. DPetersontalk 22:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as i have said, consensus on wikipedia is built through discussion. just as admins here can discount voters who don't explain themself, i do not see three or four people saying "me too" and then refusing to participate in two-sided discussion as the establishment of consensus. i have invited you and those who agree with you to participate repeatedly, and have clearly wasted a lot of energy typing words ignored.  the burden is now on you to try "building consensus," wiki-style: with reasoned discussion. ~kinda 23:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am really tired of all the fighting.  People are treating people who are not enemies like enemies and running them off (Joie, e.g.) and it's impossible to edit or comment for all the edit conflicts because everybody has to get the last word in.  I'm going to abstain from this particular battle and come back in a week or two and see where things stand.  A lot of improvements have been accomplished in this article, and Zero did a fantastic job.  I know there is a history that has put everyone on edge and on the defensive, but this is no way to work. There's too much hostility and not enough communication. -Jmh123 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, take a breath, take a break, and build consensus, not just revert and revert.  Editors may agree and not say more to avoid duplicating cogent arguments already made.  That is what is going on here with others.  A consensus seems to exist. but if you dispute that, the proper procedure is to hold an informal poll and/or file an RfC.  I'd suggest you do both. But in any event, stop reverting as that is bordering on vandalism.  DPetersontalk 23:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments were directed toward kinda, Kind0, 'not' Jmh123...sorry if that was not clear.  DPetersontalk 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just making it clear that I didn't revert anything or vandalize anything, and am certainly not interested in escalating any battles.  It would be helpful if your comments were not so general.  -Jmh123 23:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i have tried to develop consensus as wikipedia policy specifies: "through polite discussion and negotiation." jmh123 was the only person willing to do this, and s/he negotiated what might be a more acceptable version. you have rejected any attempt at two-sided discussion and negotiation, which is the proper path to consensus on wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. please attempt to follow wikipedia policy. ~kinda 23:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So, since you are not happy with the results so far, your next steps can be to hold an informal poll (it does appear most editors diagree with you, but a poll will either confirm or deny that impression) and/or an RfC.  I encourage you to do both.  DPetersontalk 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Build Consensus First

message: You guys had an edit war over the capitalization of sections and subsections?  I think it's fair to say that this article may be doomed ...I mean, come on now. At least argue over something important like the content or possibility of bias in cited research.  Viper2k6 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia editors are anal about their grammar, but it's not that bad. Scroll a little in the diffs, and you'll see that the edit war is over something much more substantial. Someone just happened to fix the header capitalization while the article was in an unpopular state. --Askild 20:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh...my...god 

message: *'AGREE' to delete. RalphLendertalk 12:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've already seen and rejected it. Just clarifying the specifics for my "vote."  -Jmh123 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's good to see there is agreement. I will unprotect the page. Everyone should avoid restarting the edit warring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no agreement yet. 00a00a0aa 14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only you disagree and Kinda...You cannot hold the article hostage to your minority views which are POV and not acceptable to the consensus of editors here. DPetersontalk 15:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You confuse Majority voting with consensus, they are NOT the same thing. As long as there are unsettled factual issues in which there is clear disagreement then there can be no consensus. We are not holding the article hostage, YOU are by not addressing these issues in a constructive way. Voting doesn't make these issues go away. 00a00a0aa 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the wikipedia statement on consensus and you will see that what we have here is consensus.  The issues have been discussed in detail and agreement reached among nearly all/most editors here.  You may continue to disagree, but there is really nothing more to say on the subject that hasn't already been said, hence, time to move on. DPetersontalk 20:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no real responce have been given to either Kinda nor Jmh123 this is clearly not the case. And how many of the voters do even understand what they are voting about? 1? 2? 00a00a0aa 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POLL TO DELETE THIS SECTION

message: How about the following: Some writers argue it is important to control for variables that may be associated with child sexual abuse, such as physical abusele, in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse[40][57]. Martin and Fleming, however, argue that, "in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is due to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects."[60] DPetersontalk 23:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to see there is agreement. I will unprotect the page. Everyone should avoid restarting the edit warring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no agreement yet. 00a00a0aa 14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only you disagree and Kinda...You cannot hold the article hostage to your minority views which are POV and not acceptable to the consensus of editors here. DPetersontalk 15:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You confuse Majority voting with consensus, they are NOT the same thing. As long as there are unsettled factual issues in which there is clear disagreement then there can be no consensus. We are not holding the article hostage, YOU are by not addressing these issues in a constructive way. Voting doesn't make these issues go away. 00a00a0aa 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the wikipedia statement on consensus and you will see that what we have here is consensus.  The issues have been discussed in detail and agreement reached among nearly all/most editors here.  You may continue to disagree, but there is really nothing more to say on the subject that hasn't already been said, hence, time to move on. DPetersontalk 20:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no real responce have been given to either Kinda nor Jmh123 this is clearly not the case. And how many of the voters do even understand what they are voting about? 1? 2? 00a00a0aa 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SUGGESTION FOR COMPROMISE

message: #Yes DPetersontalk 01:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to see there is agreement. I will unprotect the page. Everyone should avoid restarting the edit warring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no agreement yet. 00a00a0aa 14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only you disagree and Kinda...You cannot hold the article hostage to your minority views which are POV and not acceptable to the consensus of editors here. DPetersontalk 15:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You confuse Majority voting with consensus, they are NOT the same thing. As long as there are unsettled factual issues in which there is clear disagreement then there can be no consensus. We are not holding the article hostage, YOU are by not addressing these issues in a constructive way. Voting doesn't make these issues go away. 00a00a0aa 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the wikipedia statement on consensus and you will see that what we have here is consensus.  The issues have been discussed in detail and agreement reached among nearly all/most editors here.  You may continue to disagree, but there is really nothing more to say on the subject that hasn't already been said, hence, time to move on. DPetersontalk 20:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no real responce have been given to either Kinda nor Jmh123 this is clearly not the case. And how many of the voters do even understand what they are voting about? 1? 2? 00a00a0aa 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Go with This?

message: The revision is an improvement, but, in my opinion, it is not as effective as it could be as an topical introduction to the studies which follow in that paragraph, studies which, other than Rind, highlight results in studies in which significant effects are found even when variables are controlled for.  Diminishing the issue diminishes the power of the response.  See below for an alternative possibility.  I have made several changes throughout in attempt to emphasize the topic of the paragraph.  Rather than leading with Rind, I think it is more effective to lead with a general statement about the issue that Rind raised.  -Jmh123 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, three editors are against and many of the yay sayers are just the usual voting crew. 00a00a0aa 09:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not ok...The first proposal above is much better and has the support of 9 of 11 editors.  MarkWood 14:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has no bearing, voting crews should not decide factual issues. 00a00a0aa 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have a consensus and the changes were made per overwhelming agreement on the compromise alternative.  Time to move on to other issues.   DPetersontalk 15:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't acceptable.  There the first proposal above, which has the support of 9 of 11 editors is much better and clearly is the version that has the broadest agreement. MarkWood 14:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Factual issues should not be decided by who can rally up the most friends, it should be decided through arguments and at this point the version of DPeterson is clearly inferior, as shown in discussion. 00a00a0aa 14:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have a consensus on the factual issues here and the changes were made per overwhelming agreement on the compromise alternative, which is balanced and NPOV.  Time to move on to other issues.   DPetersontalk 15:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus on the factual issues and no agreement on the compromise alternative. In fact, the newest alternative proposest by Jmh123 has no arguments against it at this point and thus has more power than your version which has many issues which have been shown already. At this point we should use Jmh123's version as this is byfar the strongest in terms of factual agreement. 00a00a0aa 15:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, and that pesky Jmh123 whom you absolutely refuse to acknowledge.  I don't mind that others don't accept my compromises, but I really mind being "erased" by you throughout this entire discussion.  Looks like the matter is settled regardless. -Jmh123 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not pesky....I've responded when I had something to add.  I'd not seen you vote on the proposal and so I did not know if that meant support, oppose, or abstain.  I am sorry if you felt ignored.  Not my intention. While I may not always agree with your thoughts I don't always disgree either; again, sorry if my actions/inactions were a bother to you. DPetersontalk 16:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative proposal

message: kinda Accusations of me as a "sockpuppet" are clearly a Personal attack.  I ask you to stop immediately and apologize for making a knowlingly false statment.  DPetersontalk 22:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a red herring. ~kinda 22:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very serious offense and I do deserve and expect an apology.  Personal attacks are quite serious here on Wikipedia. DPetersontalk 22:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did not make a personal attack. I expect you to either discuss the methodology issue or stop removing it. ~kinda 22:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For future reference, comments which are not germane to improving the article may be removed from article talk pages. Comments about editors and their behavior should be placed either on their talk pages, or in forums set up for user discussions, like RfC.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Will. I gotta say I'm over my head here. I've never been attacked by a member of my own "team" before. I think it's time for some more experienced folks to step in and try to do something about this mess. -Jmh123 03:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's all try to be on the same team: the Wikipedia team.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  Trying to be.    -Jmh123 04:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP PERSONAL ATTACKS 

message: 00a00a0aa, do not delete other editor's comments on talk pages, that is considered vandalism and there can be very serious sanctions for that.  DPetersontalk 22:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, comments which are not germane to improving the article may be removed from article talk pages. Comments about editors and their behavior should be placed either on their talk pages, or in forums set up for user discussions, like RfC.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Will. I gotta say I'm over my head here. I've never been attacked by a member of my own "team" before. I think it's time for some more experienced folks to step in and try to do something about this mess. -Jmh123 03:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's all try to be on the same team: the Wikipedia team.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  Trying to be.    -Jmh123 04:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not delete others talk page material

message: When people are trying to remove material that have major impact on the research area while claiming that it is undue weight to even include it, then we have major problem. It doesn't matter if it is ignorance or in bad faith, it just isn't possible to edit this article under such conditions. Let's settle this in ArbCom and get it done already. 00a00a0aa 00:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the Wikipedia dipute resolution documents.  The proper steps would be first to hold an informal poll, then work toward compromise, then, do an RfC, then, if all else fails, you can file a request for Mediation.  AbCom would reject any request at this point as premature.  So, if you really want to reach consensus, let's start with an informal poll and see where various interested parties stand and you could also file an RfC.  DPetersontalk 00:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the idea of polling this shows how serious the matter is. 00a00a0aa 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ArbCom very rarely handles content disputes.  ArbCom states: "The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes."  While this does appear to be an interpersonal dispute, you are a long way from the point where they will be willing to take your case--I doubt very much that even the Mediation committee would take this case at this point.  Their policy states that "a genuine desire on the part of the parties to find a positive solution to the dispute and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives" is expected. -Jmh123 02:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So lets not. To be honest 00a00a0aa you would be the last person I would expect to want arbcom attention, SqueakBox 03:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say your section title is very Spanish! SqueakBox 03:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's move along to ArbCom already 

message: I propose to integrate the new South AfricaChild_sexual_abuse#In_South_Africa material into our layout more thoroughly.   The first paragraph, which discusses South African law, certainly should remain where it is, in the Legal section.  But I would like the other two paragraphs, discussing incidence and the "virgins/AIDS cure" offender rationale, moved to the Medical section (perhaps to the Epidemiology and Offenders subsections, respectively).   -ZeroZ 09:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. MarkWood 14:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can support that. DPetersontalk 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. South Africa edits are done. -ZeroZ 13:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa 

message: Rind et al.'s[47] controversial 1998 meta-analysis of studies using college student samples concluded that the relationship between poorer adjustment and child sexual abuse is generally found nonsignificant in studies which control for these variables.[55] Other more current studies, however, have found an independent association of child sexual abuse with adverse psychological outcomes.[56][40][43] 
Does the other "more current" studies control for those variables? I skimmed through Levitan and did not find that it was the case in the study. I could be wrong so before I do anything drastic, feel free to comment on this. 00a00a0aa 09:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope Kinda will be returning to explain why he/she posted, then deleted the quotation from Levitan that verified controls for other variables.  -Jmh123 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, I read the study title from the above section without checking the author, so I quoted the wrong study. I will try to verify levitan... ~kinda 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  -Jmh123 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Other, more current studies have found an independent association of child abuse with adverse psychological outcomes see references 56, 40, 43, et. DPetersontalk 12:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they do not control for the variables, why are they written as a response to the first statement? I guess you won't mind if I make it more clear then. 00a00a0aa 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 00a00a0aa, your edit creates a contradiction in terms.  DPeterson, if you know the literature, please respond from that knowledge.  Repeating the text of the entry back does not respond to the question asked.  Those with the POV that child sexual abuse is not harmful are well-versed in studies that support their POV.  What we need at this point is argument from the research literature of mainstream psychology. Argument from that literature will be the most powerful response in these situations.   00a00a0aa, just because you checked one study doesn't mean the others didn't control for those variables.  Until that is indicated, I will remove Levitan rather than use your revision.  -Jmh123 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 00a00a0aa, it is important that this entry not put undue weight on the POV that sexual abuse is good for children, as that is not the mainstream scientific view on this topic.  Please refrain from making edits to bring the entry closer to that POV.  You are not operating from consensus in this matter.  -Jmh123 15:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is claiming that. but it is mainstream view that some children do not experience any negative effects and thus we should bring forth that research. 00a00a0aa 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is already stated in the entry.  How many times should it be stated is the issue.  -Jmh123 17:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the problem lies in the sentence because it gives a explanation on why some say its positive, but it offers only one viewpoint and this is a problem. So feel free to rewrite the sentence or re-include the Sandfort study. Btw, when you say that a study is old, you should be well aware that it is very common to cite studies that old among professional researchers, so beware of making such mistakes again. 00a00a0aa 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to get a lot of detail into an edit comment.  If a study is twenty years old, it has either revolutionized the perspective of the discipline on this issue, or it hasn't.  It has either spawned further research to confirm or deny, or it hasn't. In either case, there would be more recent cites available.  Therefore, using a study that old to support a controversial statement just won't cut it.  -Jmh123 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that new laws have come to place which makes such research almost impossible nowadays. Since the research in methodologically good and cited in pro-literature there should be no problem. 00a00a0aa 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I cite Judith Miller's NY Times articles on WMD on Wikipedia?  The Times is a reliable source, after all.  But her reporting on this issue has since been discredited.  You have provided no cites in recent neutral, scientific literature to support your argument. Besides, as I have already stated, there is material in the entry to support the general view you wish to support.  Enough is enough.  -Jmh123 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I will remove or rewrite the line as it is now, because it is biased. The age of an article is only a problem if you have more current research that have advanced the field beyond the old, since this is not the case, you have no argument there at all. 00a00a0aa 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe that there has not been subsequent research in this area. Please allow time for a response.  Thanks.  -Jmh123 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your time, I hope you don't mind if I restore the source meanwhile. 00a00a0aa 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I do.  You know that you don't have consensus.  I will request page protection if necessary.  -Jmh123 22:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You stopped being rational now, I will way a few days until you calm down. 00a00a0aa 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectly rational and calm, thanks.  The study is already cited--see the beginning of the paragraph in which you tried to cite it again.  The point, as I said, has been made.  There is no need to include another reference to the same study repeating the same idea.  -Jmh123 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please dont make persoanl attacks against people you disagree with, SqueakBox 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal attacks by 00a00a00a are really uncalled for and not the point here. DPetersontalk 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Jmh123's edits are fine.  The studies cited find an independent association of child abuse with adverse psychological outcomes...what else do you want?  DPetersontalk 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue at hand is if they also control for family environment which is the key issue here. If they don't then they should not be used as a counterargument against Rind, as they are now. If they don't control then the issue is separate and should be separated from the Rind conclusions. 00a00a0aa 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you demonstrate that none of these studies did control for family environment?  "Independent association" indicates that they did. Look, I'm not going to hang around here arguing back and forth with you all day--not my style.  I can ask for the page to be protected if you prefer.  You know perfectly well these are controversial issues that have been debated ad nauseum on talk page after talk page after talk page.  Your POV is expressed in the entry.  If you try to use the entry to give undue weight to that POV, it will be removed.  You are using your extensive knowledge of research that says what you want to hear to try to bias the entry in favor of a non-mainstream POV. -Jmh123 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are dealing with a very difficult area here, how do you actually give correct weight to different areas of the research? The usual solution is systematic approaches which are possible to duplicate by other researchers, and we could try such an approach here. The problem is that it may not work for very long on wikipedia since even if we make a good version, it will get hacked to pieces as usual in a short amount of time. We could try to make the readers aware of the larger ideological approaches that researchers have to this area, basically the victomological approach versus the "liberal" approach, which I think describes the two sides pretty well. We coukd inform the readers of the methodological problems of this area and so forth. Basically giving them the tools to make better values, rather than relying on us to make them for them. Just some ideas, we both want a good article so lets try to find a good approach that works for both of us. 00a00a0aa 19:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The studies cited address the methodological issues and make the point just fine that child sexual abuse is a very damaging event in the life of a child, irrespective of other issues and dynamics that may also be occuring, despite what Pedophiles and Pro-Pedophilia advocates may wish for. DPetersontalk 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levitan 

message: Edit warring over "however" is pitiful. Let's first figure out, here on this talk page, what we want to say and then let's say it, rather than the other way around. I've protected the page for a couple of days to give us all a chance to take some deep breaths and carry on.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  BTW, I wasn't rem the "however," merely restoring a prev version and that word got deleted in that move by mistake...I actually agree with Jmh123 on the inclusion of that word in the text...DPetersontalk 12:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not edit warring over "however".  This was the passage that was added and removed multiple times: "Sandfort concludes that there are children whom, without many problems, enjoys friendship and sexual experiences with adults." ref to Sandfort, T. (1987). Boys on their contacts with men: A study of sexually expressed friendships, New York: Global Academic Publishers, 1987. I agree that edit warring is pitiful--just didn't want to see this particular one mischaracterized.  Thanks.  -Jmh123 13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's always a "good" reason to revert. IN any case, it's been found that the two editors with whom you were editing were in violation of Wikipedia policies and their accounts have been blocked. I've removed the article protection. Without that disruption I expect editing to be much more productive.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks...that's my expectation too. DPetersontalk 18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There certainly are deficiencies in the article. If editors get a break from those who assert that child sexual abuse is a good thing then they have a better opportunity to address those deficiencies.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone over the effects section to try to smooth over the discontinuities caused by merging the "positive" section into this section awhile back.  I deleted no studies, just did some rearranging, approaching this from the point of view of a writer and editor. In my opinion, there were areas that leaned a little too hard towards a POV, and I did some rephrasing in those areas.  The only sentence I deleted was the final one.  The sentence immediately prior makes the same point, but doesn't get on a bully pulpit about it.  -Jmh123 14:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In the epidemiology section there were three references to websites.  One was a copy of a scholarly paper, and I replaced that with the actual reference.  The other two were links to sites where self-published books are advertised, so I removed these.  I don't think that the statements themselves are controversial, so I didn't delete them, but others may disagree or may wish to find better support for them. -Jmh123 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Productive editing 

message: Addressing Viper2k6's comment: while I am sure many sorts of information can and should be included in the article, there are excellent reasons to begin with and to include thorough information on the legal issues around child sexual abuse.  
First, because child sexual abuse constitutes a set of crimes, a clear statement about the acts that constitute those crimes is useful for readers. Most people are unfamiliar with the method in which such crimes are reported by law enforcement nationwide, and definition of the terms provides a common language.  
Second, earlier versions of this article tended toward weasel language in describing the nature of the criminal acts and their punishment. An argument I have seen advanced for that weasel language was that state laws differ in their specifics. That argument, however, badly misrepresents the relative uniformity in the elements of child sexual abuse law and in the trend toward increasing sanctions for adult perpetrators.  Therefore, a discussion of certain legal commonalities, such as the inability of minors to consent, provides basic information for persons consulting the article as a general reference.  
Third, modern inquiry into medical issues, such as prevalence, or sociological issues, such as risk of victimization, proceed from recognition of the crime of child sexual abuse in local, national, and international laws. The most complete discussion of offender motivations cannot describe the elements of a crime, or the legal response of a community or nation in addressing criminal acts.  (As an analogy, a complete description of kleptomaniac motivation cannot substitute for information on the crime of robbery.)  Medical information is vital in illuminating sequelae of child abuse, and psychology offers information on the motivation of some offenders. But these disciplines do not speak to, and cannot substitute for clear statements about, the fact that our culture, our laws, and the laws of other cultures judge sexual activity with children as crimes.  Whatever else may be added, clear information about child sexual abuse as a set of criminal and civil offenses constitutes a basic requirement for this article. -ZeroZ 10:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on this.  Can we begin improving the article with the additon of this material now?  DPetersontalk 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché...that was very well thought out.  I guess...if anyone wants to add sections on the topics I mentioned, I'd be obviously be in support of that too.  Where in the article it should belong, may be up for debate. Viper2k6 12:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have suggested some useful additions.  Why don't you dig up some sources and do some writing yourself?  You can propose new sections here on talk to get feedback from other editors.  -Jmh123 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The importance of information about child sexual abuse laws 

message: Done. Moved the "virgin/AIDS cure myth" material into the Epidemiology subsection.  It now follows (in a new paragraph) immediately after: female sexual abuse of males is often seen as 'desirable' and/or beneficial by judges, mass media pundits and other authorities.  Of course, if it works better elsewhere within the Medical section, do move it. Cheers.  -ZeroZ 13:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa edit