Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)

(ec)I'm adding the template at the top of this page. This is obviously a very controversial topic, and opinions will be very heated on both sides. Let's all remember be civil, and hopefully stay away from the personal attacks. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no WP:SNOWball happening here. This discussion needs to be fully aired out with plenty of community participation and that will take some time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a snowball keep in this instance would be inappropriate. Three months is an appropriate time to wait before renominating something for deletion, and there seems to be enough support for deletion to warrant a discussion. Rray (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not even vaguely snowball, that would be if nobody had agreed with deletion so far. Besides, an early keep would hardly resolve the issue while a snowball would imply there isn no issue except min the mind of the nominator and that simply isn't wahat is happening here. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also a nomination undertaken in questionable faith, but I had previously been giving the benefit of the doubt. There was already a discussion ongoing at the article's talk page, several attempts have been made to short-circuit it and impose one side's preferred outcome, with this being the latest. Only a short time ago, when the article had been moved to adult-older teen sex, you expressed no desire to delete it, Squeak. Now that the article title is back to what it was before, you jump out of the talk page discussion and come over to AfD (once more). Here, you cite a fictitious reason to delete the article; The current article wasn't written by a banned pro-pedophile advocate, only the original version from months ago was. It's hard to get more bad faith than to hang this nomination on a statement you know to be untrue. I've tried hard to assume good faith on your part, but edits like this, this, this, this, especially this, and this call that good faith into question. --SSBohio 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the reasons for a speedy keep apply here. You might try reviewing the legitimate reasoning for a speedy keep again. See Wikipedia:Speedy keep. There are only four listed, and not one of them applies to this AfD. Rray (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that WP:KEEP is descriptive of what we do, not prescriptive of what we must do. I think bad-faith noms should be speedy keepable. Your citing a guideline doesn't actually speak to the validity of my !vote. --SSBohio 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A speedy keep is warranted in the case of a bad faith nomination when it's clear that no one else agrees that the article should be deleted. That's obviously not the case here. If you think that guideline should be changed, you should discuss that on the talk page for the guideline. No one's going to speedy keep this article because you haven't given a valid reason for a speedy keep. There is no reason to not let this discussion run its course. Rray (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I respect your view of what should & shouldn't be a speedy keep nomination; However, I'm free to hold a different view, as far as I know. Considering the pile-on of !votes since this AfD was listed at AN/I, actually speedily keeping the article seems unlikely. However, that remains my sincere opinion as to how this nom should have been closed, as of the time I posted it here. --SSBohio 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that's not myview. That's the guideline for a speedy keep, which represents a community consensus about how we handle these things. A speedy keep would have been unlikely before the mass of delete votes anyway, because none of the reasons for a speedy keep apply here. (Multiple good faith editors have the opinion that the article should be deleted, so further discussion is warranted.) You might consider discussing the guideline on the talk page there. Rray (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• comment a well-rounded discussion of these issues could take place in Pedophilia or age of consent rather than split it into two separate articles just so an extremely fringe, minority perspective can justify itself. Merkinsmum 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And no I'm noot calling everyone who gets a buzz from this article being here a paedo, I'm just saying as a rule, I doubt anyone calls it this except those who are activists for paedophilia. I used to have a friend who was a convicted paedo, so I can be sympathetic, but they don't need to be enabled, encouraged, or have their behaviour justified for them, but be encouraged to get treatment. Merkinsmum 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

When I say 'used to have a friend' I don't mean he's an ex-friend, just that we've lost touch because where he is now, he's not allowed online.:) Merkinsmum 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Comment User:Strichmann and I alone coughed up roughly a hundred peer-reviewed scientific sources of what you call "fringe view", that were ready to be incorporated into the article, plus even more which were still under debate as to what particular point they had to be applied to or whether they might be better of as sourcing other articles, while the other side, apparently far from being erudite about the issues and the scientific literature in the least, just failed for months to back their own uneducated guesses up. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• What article are you reading? The one for nom seems to be from a NPOV, or I would have some objections to the content. I am as anti-pedo as they come, but I am not going to let my personal feelings get in the way of the facts: the topic is notable, the article is written in a NPOV (which could be fixed if it wasn't) and from someone who just walked into this conversation, it looks like a few people have been on a crusade to get it deleted. Pharmboy (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmm, yes but why is it divorced from the pedophilia or age of consent article's content? That is where the POV of it lies, in the POV fork-ism. Merkinsmum 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So the article is written with a NPOV, but you want to delete because it is a POV fork? I am happy to discuss any point in good faith, but you have to make a consistant argument. You make it very difficult to assume you are arguing in good faith and it seem easily appearant that you have no interest in a genuine discussion, and instead want to (yes) bludgeon the process with this nonsense "argument". No thanks. Pharmboy (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• there's also a reason from another perspective on the article- if the article has a lot of attempts to NPOV it towards the reality that this is a crime, then the article is extraneous and unnecessary anyway and should be merged into CSA, age of consent, or pedophilia. Merkinsmum 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Nobody ever intended to deny that Western cultures have put forth legal bans against the behavior, however the focus of the article at hand was never supposed to be merely legal (which is probably what CSA ought to limit itself to), but rather a paramount anthropological, ethological, and biosocial account of facts and the scientific theories relating to them. If you have a problem with reporting on and relating to animals, go complain to sociobiologists such as Frans de Waal or Richard Dawkins. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, nowhere in the article does it do that, also I'm concerned not so much about this version which is a pale imitation of the CSA article at present, but I can imagine what more pro-adult-child sex versions in the past and no doubt in the future will be like. Thhe potential for abuse of the article is higher than in the CSA and paedophilia articles. What've I said about animals? If you're implying the article should cover adult/child sex among animals, I didn't notice that it did particularly, nor does it discuss anthropology and other cultures much. Animals have different lack of conscience and perhaps less potential foor psychological damage than humans. They may of course, like human children, suffer physical injury from it sexual acts while they are still children. Maybe some people are conscienceless like animals, most aren't I hope. I doubt richard .d. has said sex between adults and children is ok, otherwise he'd be even less popular lol:) Also if it is to discuss other species, I'm not sure if the title's accurate as this implies humans a little maybe.Merkinsmum 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • Comment Guess why it doesn't. It did earlier, and the people removing all the well-sourced scientific material are now here to campaign for entire deletion of the article. SqueakBox at one time even agreed with many people that due to the fact biosocial perspectives must be included, the article ought to be renamed to something like Adult-juvenile sex. Guess why we never even got the time simply for that bare renaming. The rest of your sweeping, pre-scientific, numinous musings (physical damage due to non-penetrative contact, for instance?) are addressed in my draft. --TlatoSMD (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about physical damage caused by non-penetrative contact? Merkinsmum 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I very much doubt if anyone did, I certaionly haven't seen anything remotely like that. he may mean oposing child sexual abuse is pre-scientific. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you could find something wrong in my grammar, Tlato, it may be because I went back and summarised my post which was originally longer lol.:) Merkinsmum 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Comment Even though this is dabbling into the fields we've been over and over and over on the actual talkpage, sexual activity by definition includes penetrative as well as non-penetrative forms of contact. As for the word pre-scientific, I use it largely synonymous with ethnocentric, numinous, and reactionary, and I use these terms on those uneducated, non-erudite convictions such as those SqueakBox keeps notoriously referring to as "NPOV" for himself. --TlatoSMD (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You are having a go, mate. You may not have read WP:NPA, if so please do. If you have, I'll just let you gather banworthiness points for yourself for a later date.Merkinsmum 02:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To sidestep the NPA stuff, I wanted to address some of the concerns you raised: 1) Only part of this article could be contained within an article on pedophilia or the age of consent. Pedophilia is specifically about that paraphilia and age of consent is about that particular legal context. This article takes an etic view of adult-child sex that extend beyond the scope of any other single article. 2) As to who uses the term adult-child sex, the article has 13 sources showing use of the term, including The New York Times, USA Today, WorldNet Daily, and the Washington Times, not fringe sources. 3) The article isn't here to justify any point of view, much less a minority one. In any event, that's a content issue that can be addressed by editing, not deletion. I'm happy to discuss this article at greater length, if you wish. --SSBohio 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

SSBohio wrote: "As to who uses the term adult-child sex, the article has 13 sources showing use of the term, including The New York Times, USA Today, WorldNet Daily, and the Washington Times, not fringe sources."

-- The 13 footnotes look great, but they do not show that the term is non-fringe. Nine of them -- including The New York Times, USA Today, WorldNet Daily, and the Washington Times -- are all based on the same two sources: the Rind study, and the Levine book, so those nine sources reduce to only two. Of the remaining sources, two are based on Finkelhor's work, and he specifically states that the term "Adult-child sex" should not be used because it's dangerous to imply that it does not cause harm (his quote is on the article talk page if anyone wants to see it). Then there's a paper by Green, "Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder?" And there's also a movie review of the film "Birth" that uses the term, complaining the movie shows abusive behavior. So what looks like 13 sources is really only 4 or 5, and of those, two equate Adult-child sex with child sexual abuse, and one equates it with some forms of Pedolphilia.

-- So of all those references that do not equate the term with either pedophilia or child sexual abuse, there are only 2 or 3. That's a pretty good description of "fringe". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Jack, they do demonstrate non-fringe use of the term. If the Washington Times writes about a study that uses the term adult-child sex, the Washington Times can still elect to use another term. Beside that, adult-child sex is a term used in multiple published works of scholarship. It encompasses in etic terms the current view (of its abusive nature) as well as the view from other times, places, and cultures. The ethnocentric/chronocentric emic perspective isn't encyclopedic. --SSBohio 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How is the nomination in bad faith? Such a statement is itself in bad faith. The nomination was in good faith. As were my edits today. As have been every last edit I ever made to the ped articles. I bet you don't know the half of what has gone on here since the beginning but you are spot on about wikipedia's reputation, hence my annoyance at your bad faith accusations as I act in what I consider the best interests of the project, and I don't see you are in a position to contradict this good faith path of mine. I have no fight against you. Please don't fight against me either. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith in the sense that you failed to achieve your objective (however noble) by revert-warring to a 11-day-old redirect, so nominated for AfD. The fact that you may actually be right on the content does not make you right on behaviour. The trouble with being too right in these cases is it risks making the other side look good, which I wouldn't doubt you would rather not happen. Re bad faith: in the time since I became involved, you've threatened me with ArbCom, accused me publicly of wheel warring, and various other things - I have had others review my actions carefully and they have come to the conclusion I did nothing wrong. I'd really like the hail of accusations to stop. Orderinchaos 12:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• It would bring "disrepute", are we afraid? If this is the trend then we will have to censor WP to make the site unblocked in countries like china. Rather we would wrap it inside terms like "POV fork" and wash our hands ;) Voiced axix (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes a strong line on paedophilia. This is so close to borderline that many people voting Delete don't believe it's worth the risk. Orderinchaos 12:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We can write about The Troubles. We can right about the Armenian Genocide. We can write about sodomy, abortion, and a host of other topics that are sources of extreme passion. How is this topic different? If Wikipedia isn't censored then content decisions shouldn't be influenced by such external considerations. We don't leave dirty words out of a dictionary, and we don't leave dirty (unclean) topics out of an encyclopedia. The best rememdy for poor-quality content is editing, not deletion. --SSBohio 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT

• Header: "please note that this is not a majority vote"
• SqueakBox: "Twice as many delete votes"
• First AfD: "POV fork" requested by SqueakBox 18:37, 15 October 2007; result Keep
• Second attempt: Deletion Review, as above, requested by SqueakBox 14:51, 23 October 2007]]
• Intermediate edits, talk page warring, and personal attacks throughout the last month-ish are too numerous (from a lot of people) to effectively collate here.
• Multiple others have noted the bad faith going around

The way I see it, FIRST SqueakBox wants to delete the article. His crusade failed. Days later he contests that saying that there were more votes to delete. That crusade failed. Then the article goes through hell, the talk page goes crazy, and anyone not in the SqueakPOV is driven away through attacks of edits, character, intent, POV, etc. Everything that could possibly be said has been. Finally, Administrator intervention is required to put the article back into a readable condition after Squeak's posse literally tore it apart piece by piece (as observable in the edit histories and discussed ad nauseum in the talk page). When some editors decide to work together, collaboratively, on a version of the article in userspace, that page gets a vile MfD attack (read the narrative of the MfD!) that is baseless and harrassing. (Not to mention, SqueakBox states "Delete as an attempt to push a point of view," something he is getting even more famous for, that being POV-pushing.) Now we're here, and SqueakBox and Company want to point out that it's not a vote to delete (even though he earlier in AfD said that it was out-voted to delete).

Crusade seems an apt word. So does Steamroll.

VigilancePrime (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Earlier consensus can change over time. Voiced axix (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it can. But it hasn't. Not in this case. The point is that there is a concerted effort to delete this in spite of consensus, lack of consensus, good faith, or common sense. As shown by the nominator's admitted personal agenda when he states that he has a long-term strategy (for deletion of this article). Yes, consensus can change, but it hasn't. That's all I'm trying to say. VigilancePrime (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with your characterisation of this AfD, and personally I must've missed the first and second ones, probably others did too so this is a good opportunity to get wider consensus. Whether you think it is 'common sense' for this to be up for AfD depends on your view of the article. I think it's 100% common sense for this to go. Merkinsmum 11:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is the second one. The article has been under near-constant discussion at one forum or another for two months. A change in consensus would have been easily detected during the discussions. It was only when Squeak was unable to gain consensus for his preferred name for the article that he brought the article here for deletion. That's what makes it, in the eyes of multiple editors, a bad-faith nom. --SSBohio 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP Comment Adult-child sex is the term preferred today by David Finkelhor, most-quoted North-American scientific authority on CSA research since three decades.[1] Not only is it annoying that this article keeps getting new propositions to delete/merge/redirect pretty much any other day where the people doing so obviously never learn, even constantly trying to do so without any consensus or even without polls, so it's no surpise the article currenty looks the way it does, this topic is just too distinct from other existing articles such as CSA, Age of Consent, paedophilia, child sexuality, or others. It's clearly distinct from Age of Consent because that's nothing but a mostly entirely arbitrary line beyond any actual link to age-structurized attractions such as nepiophilia, paedophilia, ephebophilia, and has also certainly no link to any biological or mental developing processes, that some jurisdictions draw because of cultural, aka moral, issues. It's clearly distinct from paedophilia because that only concerns the attraction of an adult, which according to all legitimate available empiric peer-reviewed studies and statistics (of which I can quote you many) is the least probable cause for Adult-child sex while 97-99 percent of cases are clearly situational offences (lack of availability of an adult partner, social incompetence, curiosity, decreased inhibition or inability to tell the difference such as because of drugs) or due to sadism. It's clearly distinct from child sexuality because attraction towards adults is only one of many within polymorphous-perverse sexuality of children, if any. And it's clearly distinct from CSA that's mostly a very recent legal, and moral, interpretation or construct. In our former polls, one person also made a distinction in that they saw a difference between a behavior and one of its potential outcomes which they called abuse aka mental harm. This is (or at least it's supposed to be, if we'd be getting anywhere instead of constant edit warring) an anthropological, ethological, and biosocial article about a specific form of what to empiric, multi-disciplinarian, peer-reviewed scientific studies (which I can also quote at a high number, while of course nobody claims that's what the majority of cases would be like) seems often mutually enjoyed and agreed upon behavior that is observed on any social level in society, in any era of human history, in any human culture known to mankind, and in most higher vertebrate species on this planet. Even though many legal bans have been put up against this behavior in the history of the West since kurganization, and the behavior increasingly since the Age of Enlightenment inherited the numinous status of ethnocentrically most condescended and feared sexuality from same-sex activities, the ethnocentric and chronocentric label of CSA is entirely alien and unkown to most of those situations.--TlatoSMD (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TlatoSMD (talk • contribs) Note that this is this users second vote. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought everybody is now having another vote now that we're over most arguments? It's what it looks like now that I'm coming back after a few hours of sleep. I'm sorry if I've violated any rules thereby. --TlatoSMD (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm sorry, corrected it now. This is really getting confusing with people commenting on other people's posts, editing, changing, and moving their posts around, and other people once in a while setting breaks where there had none been before. (Also I'd like to note that Martijn was so quick he saw I'd forgot about signing within 10 seconds or so.) --TlatoSMD (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Correction of fact. TlatoSMD wrote: Adult-child sex is the term preferred today by David Finkelhor, most-quoted North-American scientific authority on CSA research since three decades. [2] -- That is incorrect. The link here is to a USA Today article, and it shows the pitfalls of citing popular media on scientific topics. The article may have included an accurate quote, but it's out of context and certainly does not indicate that the term preferred by Finkelhor. David Finkelhor is the Director of the Crimes against Children Research Center. His 150 or so publications use the term "child sexual abuse" extensively, as an example, his book, Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. If anyone wants to research further to confirm this, here are a couple links to his organization with some of his publications online for free: Sexual Abuse Papers, Publications directory. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Finkelhor does not use the term "child sexual abuse" when writing about adult-child sex from an objective perspective, as seen in Chapter 2 of Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research and his response to a paper by Robert Bauserman, among other places. This is identical to Wikipedia's current usage. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Those pages are filled with cherry-picked out-of-context quotes, assembled by a website advocating a fringe activist view. And even in those excerpts, it shows that he uses the term to show it's harmful, for example: "Epidemiological studies show that adult-child sexual contact is a predictor of later depression, suicidal behavior, dissociative disorders, alcohol and drug abuse and sexual problems even when other noxious background factors are controlled for (Browne and Finkelhor, 1986)." He acknowledges that some few children are not harmed by the experience, but states that the risk of harm is "very high". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

After about one day, there have been many votes and arguments put forward, but with a lack of consensus.

The current voting stands at 18 to keep and 21 to delete the article or at least redirect. No one has voted to merge. GrooV (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this not a vote, but a discussion and that decisions are made not based on the number of "votes," but on the merits of the arguments weighed along with Wiki policies. --Strothra (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Its truer to say that the decision isn't entirely based on vote counting but it most certainly is included, if it were entirely based on "the merits of the arguments weighed along with Wiki policies" I seriously doubt the article would be here right now. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's a funny spin on the issue, to say that the votes to keep any ACS related issue would flatter the policy justifications. One would think that with the general hysteria in society and all the hushing up over research papers, it would be much the opposite. GrooV (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A few of us have discussed merging/redirecting, depending on if there's anything in the article worth keeping. Oh another place where some of the article's content is already discussed is Animal_sexuality#Sex_between_adults_and_juveniles Merkinsmum 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mostly already merged... just a comment -- most of the info from this article was merged into child sexual abuse on approximately January 7 by another editor, as part of the prior redirect. Although the redirect was reverted, the merged material was not removed from the other article, as far as I know. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• AFD is not a vote. A majority of one does not actually imply consensus - in fact it implies a complete absence of it, as users are split on what to do. We don't promote admins with majority+1. Orderinchaos 06:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I made it clear in the nomination that I don't oppose merging and redirecting, indeed for me it would be an acceptable solution. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is of course a complete misrepresentation of facts. The vast majority of researchers and clinicians agree the opposite: that adult-child sex is not inherently abusive (in the linguistically correct sense of the term). Before the ACS article was distorted by vested interests, the talk page listed in excess of 100 academic sources confirming that point. There were no scholarly sources listed in support of your misrepresentation, with the vague exception of Finkelhor (who in fact does not support your claim, but concedes that he argues against all adult-child sexual relationships not because they are inherently abusive but based on his (necessarily subjective) personal morality). If there are "thousands of references" supporting your claim in so far as "the majority of researchers and clinicians" are concerned, why were none of them ever presented (despite the request of editors)?

In any event, this discussion is not about the myths surrounding adult-child sexual encounters, but about whether the article is a topic in its own right. The fact that it is an umbrella term for possible interactions between two individuals is self-evident. Concepts such as 'pedophilia', 'pederasty' and 'child sexual abuse' may share some degree of overlap as possible manifestations or constructions of 'adult-child sex', but they are nevertheless separate and distinct.

'Adult-child sex is no more a “POV fork” of 'child sexual abuse' than 'heterosexual sex' would be a POV fork of 'rape'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strichmann (talk • contribs) 09:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true, as rape is a minute percentage of heterosexual sex whereas child sexual abuse describes the entirety of adult-child sex. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strichmann wrote: "'Adult-child sex is no more a “POV fork” of 'child sexual abuse' than 'heterosexual sex' would be a POV fork of 'rape'. " -- an excellent illustration that the title of the article is a problem. The analogy presents the idea is that there is a normal, non-abusive kind of adult-child sex, related to child sexual abuse in the same way as normal non-coercive heterosexual sex relates to rape. That's impossible, since every instance of sex between an adult and a young child is both illegal and harmful to the child. There is no question that's the mainstream view, and that any idea of "normal, healthy sexual relations between an adult and a pre-puberty child" is a far-from-the-mainstream fringe view. There are endless sources and references supporting that distinction. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• The analogy, frankly, leaves something to be desired, for reasons Jack has identified. However, the analogy isn't what's nominated for deletion. The article is. The article title is a factual description of the subject: An adult having sex with a child. Nothing in the title says that such a thing is moral, ethical, acceptable, or even a good idea. It's as though we all have to be reminded that when an adult has sex with a child, it's a bad thing. We're all reasonably intelligent people; We can figure that out for ourselves. Is someone going to read this article and suddenly decide he was wrong all along about the harm done by adult-child sex because the article's title is insufficiently condemnatory? It beggars belief. --SSBohio 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment. I've expounded on the alleged "age muddling" issue further above. The reason why the article currently looks the way it does is least of all due to those people that'd prefer it to stay. As for a "fringe issue", let me quote User:Stevenfruitsmaak above that according alone to Google Scholars "294 scientific articles" use the term Adult-child sex. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Context: compare those 294 Google scholar hits to some other searches:

Google scholar search term: "adult-child sex"; total scholar hits = 294 pages (the initial search mentioned above)

Google Scholar search term: "adult-child sex" -abuse; total scholar hits = 38 pages (omitting the word "abuse" from the 294 hits of "Adult-child sex")

Google Scholar search term: "child sexual abuse"; total scholar hits = 35,600 pages

That's two orders of magnitude more pages for "child sexual abuse" than for "adult-child sex", three orders of magnitude greater for "child sexual abuse" when the word "abuse" is omitted from the searches for the term "adult-child sex". In general, Google tests are not reliable for these kinds of decisions, though these are Google Scholar searches so they're a bit better than just web pages. Even so, it's hard to ignore the huge difference, two to three orders of magnitude... supporting that "adult-child sex" is a fringe term. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Comment. Of course all respectable sources, including the article in debate, must expound on the issue that Adult-child sex is legally and culturally labeled as abuse, so it's no surprise that the figures differ so widely whether you include works with the term "abuse" or not. And even though, as you correctly say, Google mostly catches only a part of available material, especially print material, it still begs the question whether almost 300 scientific peer-reviewed sources are few enough to be glossed over. --TlatoSMD (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't think those sources should be glossed over, but they also should not receive undue weight. There are 100 times more Google Scholar hits for "child sexual abuse". You noted also that respectable sources on "adult-child sex" would mention "abuse". So, OK, it's a minority view, and has validity in that context. The way to handle that, per WP:NPOV, is to mention it in the main article child sexual abuse with the appropriate references and due weight. I'm pretty sure there already is information in that article about the term "adult-child sex" that was added around January 7 by another editor. If not, it can be added; but this separate article is a POV fork; for that reason, and the list of other practical and policy reasons I mentioned previously, it should be deleted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Comment. Jack, with that argument you're getting both ethnocentric, chronocentric, and numinous again, or in other words, you're trying to prescribe morality, which is not what Wikipedia is all about. The only way to avoid that is to not put undue weight on those unreliable and therefore, from a standpoint of legitimate science, actually close to irrellevant sources that are ethnocentric, chronocentric, and numinous. These sources in themselves can however be an interesting research matter for social sciences, just as the ethnocentric, chronocentric, and numinous Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Just as with the overwhelming majority of intentional fiction compared to non-fiction when it comes to print (or, for instance, the internet), this a case where affirmative opportunism and howling with the wolves is not necessarily about NPOV. --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• TlatoSMD wrote: "unreliable and therefore, from a standpoint of legitimate science, actually close to irrellevant sources that are ethnocentric, chronocentric, and numinous. " -- Are you referring to sources like the American Psychological Association and the National Institutes of Health? The arguing for keeping this POV-fork article on the basis that it's "chronocentric" is clouding the issue. And your closing note in that comment: ", this a case where affirmative opportunism and howling with the wolves is not necessarily about NPOV." -- Of course it's about WP:NPOV, that's the core of the whole project. And that's why WP:NPOV#POV forks are contrary to policy. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I stand by what I've said below: There's very good reasons to not apply sophisticated labels such as "empiric", "science", and "research" to such opportunistic "majority" sources that you mention, no matter what fancy degrees their authors might hold, or how positively their careers were influenced by conveniently publishing such strictly affirmative, uncritical material compatible with ethnocentric values. --TlatoSMD (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• An adult using a little child for sexual gratification is abuse, not matter what culture it's in,and whether or not that culture considers it abusive. Should the attitude of the culture about it be presented with references? Sure, but not in a POV fork article. Same with history; just because in the middle ages adults used children for sex routinely does not change the fact that the children were harmed by that. They felt all the fear and pain and suffered later all the same suffering that happens to children today resulting from those acts. That's not chronocentric, it's just history, the history of child sexual abuse. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. You're doing nothing but confirming my assertion that you're using "popular opinion" laced with sensationalist, paranoid, anti-intellectual, and ethnocentric language to justify the current POV fork state of the article on CSA. --TlatoSMD (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Strichman writes 'The vast majority of researchers and clinicians agree the opposite: that adult-child sex is not inherently abusive'- well that's not been in anything I have previously read on the subject- which has all said that it is very abusive. I also disagree that sex with someone in early adolescence and late childhood shouldn't be dealt with in the same article- it's the same thing, it's still a crime and abusive taking advantage of someone who can't give full consent.Merkinsmum 13:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where he's reading these researches- Paidika or something like that?Merkinsmum 14:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack, since the article itself says that adult-child sex is a form of abuse, how is it appropriate to exclude the term "abuse" when searching? Also, might I suggest taking such an in-depth discussion to talk:adult-child sex? --SSBohio 14:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

SSBohio,... Ospinad brought up a related point a couple comments below here. I've replied there at time stamp 19:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The peer-reviewed scientific material that Strichmann talked about can be found here. As you can see, only two of those sources happened to be also, among other editions, be published in Paidika, which was indeed one peer-reviewed scientific journal as you can see in its own article. The first edition of the one source (Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88) was in the sociological journal Der Monat founded by Melvin J. Lasky (on that photo in his article, you can even see him with an issue of that journal) and by that time had as editor-in-chief Michael Naumann, then also publisher of Die Zeit and today running for SPD mayor of Hamburg to be elected in a few weeks from now. The other source (Sandfort 1994) was one of many follow-up reports on Sandfort's governmentally funded long-term research study. --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the innumerable peer reviewed researches saying adult child sex is damaging? None or hardly any of that is in this article. Which is one of the many reasons why it is a misleading POV fork. Merkinsmum 16:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• The list of sources TlatoSMD posted may look impressive, but with a few hours of work many times more that many can be found showing that those sources are WP:FRINGE views. Those that show historical or cultural considerations can be added to a history and cultures section in child sexual abuse, a large topic with plenty of room for sources showing all its dimensions without making a separate POV fork article. Also, many of those sources are in German and can't be used without reliable translations; and, if those sources are added to any article they can't just be dumped in in groups, they'll need to be vetted individually according to whatever text they support. Just listing sources at this time does not support the keeping of the POV fork article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To Jack: You are assuming that with this search: "adult-child sex" -abuse that you are finding only the sites that don't describe adult-child sex as abuse. But if a site said something like, "adult-child sex is not abuse" then you would be eliminating that one too. In other words, that search will eliminate "adult-child sex is not abuse" as well as "adult-child sex is abuse". For example, "adult-child sex" -"child sexual abuse" doesn't eliminate nearly as many. Ospinad (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Google is a digression and was not the basis of my !vote, but I'll address your point for clarity. The purpose of excluding the term "abuse" was only to find out, how many pages use the term "adult-child sex" in a context that does not involve a discussion of "abuse". But Google tests are not a good method, so I didn't mention Google, until someone replied to my post by bringing it up. So then I showed the other searches to indicate the overwhelmingly huge mainstream view that all adult-child sex is child sexual abuse. Regarding taking it to the talk page, that's not needed for now. The article should be deleted because it's a WP:FRINGE WP:POVFORK, that violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Jack, now that you've been refuted on trying to justify your position on the modern equivalents of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by calling them "science", you're trying to steamroller the poll into your direction by means of just as unreliable "popular opinion" that is mostly only relevant for social sciences looking into these kinds of mass-scale, aggressive public paranoias. --TlatoSMD (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• TlatoSMD, I have absolutely no clue what you mean by that. I didn't respond at all to your mention of Protocols of the Elders of Zion - I found it off-topic and simply ignored it. So when you say I called it science, that's your own creation. And regarding your comment that mainstream sources are "unreliable "popular opinion" that is mostly only relevant for social sciences looking into these kinds of mass-scale, aggressive public paranoias" - wow, how thousands of mainstream sources can all be paranoid, that's another comment I don't understand, and it seems to me you are directly supporting the description of "adult-child sex" as WP:FRINGE by setting it off from mainstream consensus science, by calling mainstream science "mass-scale, aggressive public paranoias". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I repeat that there's a number of good reasons not to call "science" what you cite as "mainstream sources" as these are, to quote Feierman and echo many other scientists and scholars, nothing more than representations of unreliable, numinous, local "narrow ethnocentric preconceptions of our times". As for thousands of individuals exhibiting paranoid, absolutely horrified and disgusted thought and behavior, that's a culture for you. Religious scientists researching into the Numinous, such as Mircea Eliade or Rudolf Otto, or Enlightenment legal scholars and philosophers such as Karl Ferdinand Hommel could have a field day when examining the only thinly veiled irrational ethnocentric reactions of horror, disgust, and paranoia in sources such as Finkelhor or the APA when it comes to Adult-child sex and desire for it. Referring to those mentioned authorities, Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg did so in 1978, 1985/88, 1986, 1989 among other occasions, she as a founding member and member on the board of the German Society for Sociological Sexology, as well as the head of the stately-funded West-German AIDS research commission came to a conclusion similar to that of Dannecker & Reiche 1974 focusing exclusively on homophobia, finding that the most convenient and common trigger of public, often aggressive and even violent paranoias in the history and present of the Western world is sexual deviance, whose common symbolic, allegedly "purest and most outrageous form" formerly was same-sex activities and desire for them, since the Age of Enlightenment increasingly replaced by child-adult sexual interactions and desire for them, and that most other ethnocentric prejudices towards specific other out-groups (she mentions, among others, racism, anti-Semitism, the Medieval witch-hunts, prejudice and discrimination towards physically or mentally disabled...) are most likely mere disguised derivations of that. She thus referred to homophobia and similar reactions to child-adult sexual interactions and desire for them as "resembling an obsessive-compulsive neurotic disorder". --TlatoSMD (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Merkinsmum, as for "majorities", see what I said above about the lack of reliability of ethnocentric, chronocentric, and numinous sources. There's very good reasons to not apply sophisticated labels such as "empiric", "science", and "research" to such opportunistic "majority" sources that you mention, no matter what fancy degrees their authors might hold, or how positively their careers were influenced by conveniently publishing such strictly affirmative, uncritical material compatible with ethnocentric values. Also I'd like to repeat what Strichmann said, for months people failed to bring up any of your "innumerable" unreliable sources when confronted with differing peer-reviewed scientific sources in a three-digit range even though they were repeatedly asked about such. --TlatoSMD (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see a total lack of consensus here. Hence the article should not be deleted.Biophys (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that a vote. There are still several days to go though I agree that right now there is no consensus, for some of is even that is a step forward given the history of the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)