Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Child sexual abuse (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 > 7 >>

Contents

Page numbers?

The following sources lack page numbers (I assume they are books and thus page numbers needed):

  • Developing Mind, Daniel Siegel, Guilford Press, 1999
  • Perry, Bruce (2007). The Boy Who Was Raised As a Dog. ISBN 0465056520

Clarification?

"Furthermore, some children who have been sexually abused show measurable negative changes in brain functioning and development."

Were the studies that determined this cross-sectional or longitudinal? Could this claim be made more specific like the rest of the section? -Jillium 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The text should be removed for the following reasons.
  • It has already been covered by better sources.
  • They are book references but lack page numbers.
  • The one who added this text had not read the sources (which is bad enough in itself).
  • The text is written in very unclear way which could mean almost anything. V.☢.B 10:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight issues

The whole neurological section is byfar the largest covering of a single topic among effects, yet it is perhaps the area with the least prominence in the literature, and many results are quie debated and new. There is simply too much weight here. I recommend that we either sum it up with less text giving the main ideas sofar in research and also work towards adding more on positive and neutral sources (which are about 50% and should thus cover about that much of the text). V.☢.B 10:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be more productive to balance the article by adding information instead of taking it away. IMO, the only parts of it that might be better removed are the "Teicher et al. (1993) used the "Limbic System Checklist-33 ..." paragraph (already summarized in the opening) and a few of the weird general statements in the last paragraph ("that traumatic stress, including stress from sexual abuse, is associated with notable changes in brain functioning and development," "children who have been sexually abused show measurable negative changes in brain functioning and development") -Jillium 18:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the effect area lack overall structure and balande, not to mention focus. BUT I will leave it, I came here for damage control and I will stick to that. Thanks for the comments. V.☢.B 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Offender section edit problems, please assist me

Content in question:

Offenders are more likely to be relatives or acquaintances of their victim than strangers.[1]
Historically, most researchers have claimed that men have a virtual monolopy on child sexual abuse (Finkelhor 1986). The percentage of incidents of sexual abuse by female perpetrators is usually reported to be between 1% and 4% (Denov, (2003). However, in a study of sexual misconduct in US schools female sex offenders have been reported at rates as high as 43% by several credible researchers in what is a direct contrast to the earlier studies data (Shakeshaft 2004). In studies where students are asked about sex offenses, they report higher levels of female sex offenders than found in adult reports (Educator Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature, p22).
For female perpetrated sex offenses, there is the myth of innocence: sexual scripts and the recognition of child sexual abuse by female perpetrators. The Journal of Sex Research, Vol, 40, No, 3, 2003: pp. 303-314.</ref>, though this low figure may be distorted by under-reporting of sexual contact between women and minors.[2] This under-reporting has been attributed to cultural denial of female-perpetrated child sex abuse.[3].

I tried to add and clean up content as shown above in the Offenders section but was unable to edit this article. I used Charol Shakeshafts authoritative (2004) USDE report entitled Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature here. Could someone explain why I am unable to edit this section? The content I added is hidden beneath the original content in a very strange way. Please try editing this talk page section to see what I mean and to see the changes I made to the content. 128.111.95.12 01:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You left a ref tag open after 1 and 4%. -Jillium 01:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Footnotes to cite sources instead of using Harvard references. -Jillium 02:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I intend to use the correct citations as soon as I better understand how to. ([4]) Please be patient as I clean this up.128.111.95.12 03:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Offender section

I added content from a USDE report entitled "Educator Sexual Misconduct" (online) which shows student sex abuse by educators...a new scandal that seems to rival the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases in terms of prevalence rates. Charol Shakeshaft made number of good points here that could be helpful to us as we develop this section. I for one would like to see data on incidence for the whole population that mirrors what Shakeshaft did on the school population...eg occupation, sex, age and same-sex offender statistics. Does anyone have sources for this.128.111.95.12 03:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence rates can vary alot depending on how the research is conducted. I suggest we use literature reviews rather than single studies because there is too much room for political bias otherwise. V.☢.B 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Positive and consensual section issues

I added some balancing content to this section which I ask interested editors to discuss. I have a number of issues with this section.

  • We need to define what 'consent' definition the researchers shown used to distinguish their concepts of 'consent' from the generally accepted social and legal definitions of consent. To imply that a child or teen is able to offer INFORMED consent to a sex act with an adult is different from other forms of 'consent' which are often attained by grooming, deception or covert coercion by the adult offender. I suggest interested editors watch the film [Babel] to see a potent example of child sexual aggression handled by a compassionate adult. Clearly, this young woman needed nice men to say no to her seductions as many boy children need nice women to say no their seductions too. To say that just because a child consents to or even initiates sex we have a case of consensual and positive sex is to simply absurd.
  • Child sexual abuse often involves what seems like positive effects to an innocent child. However, the damage done by child sexual abuse often take decades of deep trauma transformation to become conscious in the survivor. This is especially the case where the victicm was treated in 'loving' ways by their adult predator. Women who prey upon boys often get off scott free because society sees ALL sex with boys as a 'good' thing. This is not only insane but stupid too. Somehow we need to show the whole story here.
  • 'positive' and 'negative' are in the eye of the beholders. We need to establish some standards for what effects are indeed detrimental and what effects are indeed beneficial. Kipnis in The Female Thing (2006) suggests that "kindly older women" who molest or commit statutory rape against young men are providing a therapuetic "education" for those young men.Imagine a 'kindly older' MAN using the same inane logic to suggest he was 'helping' a young woman he committed (consensual) statutory rape against. The (feminista as opposed to reason-able) feminists would blow their tops in outraged indignation about any dirty old man who took a young innocent angel but they romanticize the opposite situation shamelessly. What are the standards by which we judge positive or negative effects here? Are they non-sexist standards or they reverse-sexist steoreotypes that reflect the ignorance, social double standards and cultural denial that predominate vis a vis female sexual abuse.
  • We need to show the power and control disparities between any child and and any adult in sexual situations. NO real consent is possible unless the child is able to understand and choose to have sex with a full understanding of the consequences. Heck even adults who have sex with other adults acknowledge the danger and risks therein. To say that a child is able to 'consent' on an equal, informed basis with an adult is to stretch things far to far.
  • We need to make distinctions between sexual initiation by a child and the responsibility all adults have to treat a child as a child. Many young people today come from desperate situations where they need love and respect from adults and will offer sex for 'fatherhood' , 'motherhood' or whatever but that doesn't mean that the adult is free to sexually abuse the child. Decent adults (women and men) control their urges and allow the child to grow to adulthood with his or her peers. To take advantage of a child's innocence even when that child is precocious, provocative and 'apparently' mature is merely another form of child sexual abuse. Adults who prey on children often would like to have this seen as 'consent' when it really is statutory rape. 128.111.95.12 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not an article against child sexual abuse but a article about child sexual abuse. We thus need to make sure that we separate advocasy from fact, and I beleive that you fail to do so in all your points here.
  1. The article uses only consent, not informed consent, just as the researchers do, so this is not an issue.
  2. This an old myth, debunked many times since then. Martin Seligman has written the most clear dismissal of this myth already in 1994.
  3. They usually use self defined consent, just as they do with the oposite. This all very normal way to conduct this type of research so nothing strange here.
  4. Consent is by definition possible between children and adults, Rind already explained that in one of the references, please read them. Informed consent is not used among adults either so this is a punch in the air.
  5. You can write about responsibility in another section, in the effects section only effect related material should be included. Again, this is not an advocacy article, there are organisations for that kind of work. V.☢.B 09:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Squeakbox's change sub sect tile to Allegedly positive
I'm reverting this change until it is better explained. Any psychological observation can be called "alleged" and pointing this out explicitly is unnecessary and distracting. If the intent of the edit is to point out that the cited material says "allegedly positive" instead of "postive" then fine, but change the section's text to match. If the intent of the edit is to claim that the cited author's observations of positive outcomes are in fact not necessarily positive, then add other material to bolster that claim before changing the section title. The section title should reflect the section content and the content of the cited references. Dfpc 16:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Voice of Britain beat me to the edit. Dfpc 16:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
We are not here to promote the cause of pedophilia, an extreme minority POV, but to write a neutral encyclopedia article, SqueakBox 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Correct, so we all seem to agree with Dfpc then. Great! V.☢.B 17:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You what? I think you are missing the point, SqueakBox 17:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about child sexual abuse, which is 'ILLEGAL.' It is not meant to present some fringe group's POV. Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia whose purpose is to present information in a NPOV. JonesRDtalk 17:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Making out that child sexual abuse is really positive, and making that as prominent as possible, is a violation of NPOV and hence I am tagging the article for this reason, SqueakBox 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
As you can see, no where in the article does it say that CSA should not be illegal. I do not support any other cause more than you do, so lets keep to the facts shall we? Already in 1979 mainstream researcher David Finkelhor pointed out that not all children are harmed and that positive cases do exist. He is perhaps the most cited in the whole field and extremely respected, he has spend enormous time fighting against child sexual abuse and he is often by critics accused of overly negative towards child sex. So he is a poster child for the modern view of child sexual abuse. So we are not talking about any fringe group's POV but of mainstream researchers views. You are, as many others, just about 40 years behind research and while not a major problem, it is still a problem since you edit in this article. V.☢.B 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You tag is way off ofcourse since the article simply states what peer reviews research does. There are positive cases and not including this fact would be POV. The article is however weighting alot more towards the negative cases despite them being in about the same number as the positive and neutral. This is also biased, but I think its ok, I don't expect this article to be nominated for the nobel prize. V.☢.B 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
We are ... here ... to write a neutral encyclopedia article, SqueakBox 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Exactly. Do that by balancing the content. If 75% of scientific articles say child sexual abuse does approximately x amount of harm, then any article that says it does much more than x amount of harm should be balanced by an article that says it does less than x amount of harm, assuming such research exists. However, my complaint was about changing the title of the section without either 1) making corresponding changes to the section or 2) discussing here why the section title does not reflect the current content of the section. Until one of those two is done, the "alleged" should be kept out of the title. Dfpc 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
We are not here to promote paedophilia, and given the common usage and beliefs around this term this article is way OTT balanced in favour of pro paedophilia philosophy. I think this a reflection of the editors involved in this articl;e and not a reflection of how things are in the world re this subject. This article is embarrassing. What I would like to see is the entire sectuion removed, its such an extreme minority POV that it fails notability, and we only have to include notable POV's, SqueakBox 17:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The whole article is based on peer reviewed research. V.☢.B 17:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
While we should include the full range of scientific viewpoints, in balance with their importance and numbre, we don't need to separate out "positive" ones. That's an articifial distinction. Better to integrate the material with the other viewpoints. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this for the simple reason that we already have alot of issues with accurasy and clarity in the text already. We should separate more rather than less, its very hard already to see what is what and much information is lost in the mixing. Besides, positive cases are usually separated in the literature so I don't see why we should be revolutionaries here. V.☢.B 17:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If positive cases are treated separately then maybe they deserve an article of their own. Do you have an example of a paper which deals only with positive cases? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 18:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we can break it out if it becomes to big, but the neurological section is more acute for that in such case. However I think that's not really such a big problem right now for either part. Okami deals only with positive cases as one example. Lets be honest here, the real reason you wanto do this is because you are annoyed that the material is included at all, but I ask, should we really hide facts from the wikipedia readers? Lets keep all facts out in the open instead, let the readers form their own minds and opinions. V.☢.B 18:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It isnt about hiding facts, its about not including unnotable facts. And not alienating our readership, SqueakBox 18:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
But that's not the case here since the fact comes from peer reviewed research and covers a major part of the cases in CSA. Aha, alienating the readership... So you want a Readership non-alienation POV rather than NPOV. That's explains alot. Thanks. V.☢.B 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Could someone with access to Rind provide the age of the young person quoted in the "postive" section? Thank you. User:128.111.95.12, I don't see a unified "we" here, quite the contrary, but there is no reason why the perspectives you cite, properly backed by research and/or referenced statements by authorities, cannot be added to the entry. -Jmh123 19:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
12 years old. Voice of Britain 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to intergrate the section at this point. Please seek consensus first. Thanks. V.☢.B 21:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I saw repetition of statements and citations in the effects and positive effects sections. In addition, the effects section already contained both 'sides' of this controversy, so I boldly combined the two sections. If there is no consensus to combine, then the repetition should be removed. There should be a negative effects section and a positive effects section--not a negative & positive effects section and a positive effects section. This is not neutrality. -Jmh123 22:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
What repetition are you talking about? Perhaps you are right, but I'd to know which one you are talking about. At any rate, no consensus at this point to merge the sections, lets talk it through first. V.☢.B 22:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus isnt the only factor to be considered, we have to policies like NPOV etc as well and I strongly support teh combining because of NPOV concerns, SqueakBox 22:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
NPOV strongly suggest the opposite of what you claim, so since there is no consensus at this point, it should be talked through first. V.☢.B 22:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
No it doesnt, it says we must include all significant views, it doesnt say we must give added weight to extreme fringe views (which the positive impact views are) in order to make an article like this be a balance between the belief that child sexual abuse is wrong and the belief that it is actually fine, SqueakBox 22:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about the neurologial section? Yes, I agree that it has way too much weight and I have mentioned this before and it definately is a problem. The ratio over positive and neutral cases vs negative cases is about 50/50 so we probably should expand the positive section for now. Good thinking there, then we will be closer to NPOV. V.☢.B 22:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh? I think you misunderstood me there. In no way do I think the allegedly positive impact should have a 50/50 weight because it is a fringe belief that barely deserves than a mention if we are to keep the article NPOV. That clearer for you? SqueakBox 22:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
So you don't find it problematic that a major meta-analysis of mainstream research goes against your beleif that this is a fringe idea? I mean, what facts do you have to support your speculation? V.☢.B 22:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Mainstream attitudes to child sexual abuse. Have you read the BBC site recently? eg this, this and this amongst many others, SqueakBox 22:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
So we have mainstream science vs mainstream opinion. I guess we can include both if that is to your liking, feel free to write your own section about that. Mainstream research will stay though, anything else is a cover up of facts. V.☢.B 22:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I had never seen this entry before yesterday. I endeavored to improve it. Nothing was "lost" but the anecdote by the 12-year-old, which had been given undue evidentiary weight, in my opinion. Perhaps you would prefer that an anecdote describing a less than positive experience of child sexual abuse be included somewhere in the entry instead? Every other point and citation from the 'positive' section was included in my revision. Sometimes an outsider's perspective can be helpful when conflicts between editors have resulted a loss of perspective regarding the quality of an entry. I have no desire to engage in wrangling or contentious exchanges so I'll come back when things have calmed down. -Jmh123 22:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Instead of removing information, why not add some negative anecdote if you feel there is a undue weight issue? One of each would bring good weight to the article. The problem with undue weight issue is that I beleive we should use science as the basis for this and others seem to think we should use public opinion. The error of public opinion is ofcourse that the theory of evolution would be a "fringe idea" in that perspective. Let science and fact be the basis, or we can just let conservapedia take over it all. V.☢.B 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
We are not a science encyclopedia but inspired by Jimbo's vision of being an encyclopedia of everything notable. Science, law, public opinion and other significant factors all need to be taken into consideration and the illegality of child sexual abuse is one of the most important factors we need to include, IMO. Can VoB source that the science he brings here is mainstrem, please, SqueakBox 23:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to go to the theory of evolution article and push your view there. They will be happy know that the theory is a minority opinion and should leave the majority of the space to the opinion of those who do not beleive in it. Well, we got one which was published in Psychological Bulletin and they are extremely strict in what the accept and they only accept things that are of a broad interest. And then we have Coxell which is named as Mainstream research by Rind so we are surely in the mainstream here. You can't get much more mainstream than that. You have however not provided even one source to support your claims. Feel free to do so any time soon. V.☢.B 23:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You what? I have no issues in the theory of evolution but I am certain you cannot source that pedophilia anywhere in the world has the mainstream acceptance of creationism in America. Your comment is a bit off to be honest. Can you source that pro pedophilia is in any way mainstream? as your claim re Rind bering mainstream is not proven. If you can please do, if not please can we begin to create an NPOV article re this subject, SqueakBox 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that annecdotes belong in an encyclopeida article...anyone know if there is any Wikip. statements on this? DPetersontalk 22:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, its a quote from an interview with a boy from a peer reviewed study. So it fills the criteria for inclusion 'very easily. V.☢.B 22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesnt sound that reliable to me and given that what, say 1 in 10,000 abused children alleges to have a positive experience, we should indeed be including the obviously negative on this one and not giving any much weight to the allegedly positive, SqueakBox 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Now you are into pure speculation, and tripping in fantasy land. Read the sources we have provided that clearly proofs your ideas to be very wrong. V.☢.B 23:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I await with bated breath your sourcing this somewhat bold claim, SqueakBox 23:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's cite wikipedia for once: "A meta-analysis of 59 studies found that boys reacted positively or neutral in 66% of the cases while girls reacted positive or neutral in 28% of the cases.[5]" One in 10.000 is 0.01% which is very wrong. V.☢.B 23:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like an unsourcede or minority view that needs deleting. Can you tell me where we say this, please? SqueakBox 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Breaking out Legal sections

I suggest we break out the legal section and dedicate a new article to the laws on CSA. With time, almost all nations will add their laws to the article and the situation will become unmanagable, we should act proactively and make new article already so we can focus better on all issues involved. Another benefit is that other articles who wanto referens to the law only then can do so much more easily. V.☢.B 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Get some consensus before doing this. The article is not too long and by removing this section we make the article more pro paedophile POV, SqueakBox 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop acting like a child please, you didn't complain before and now you got one edit voted down and want to get back. Seriously, whats going on here? V.☢.B 17:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Please remain civil and cease the personal attacks. Child indeed! Another one for the Rfc, SqueakBox 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
On a more serious note, I gave several reasons for why it should be split, any problems with them? And how on earth is separating two different issues into their real articles making the article more pro pedophile POV? It makes no sense at all. V.☢.B 17:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do take civility and NPA seriously. I can see no reason to split this article as it is short. If we were to greatly expand the legal section it might be arguable but not currently,so yes, when it becomes unmanageable we shoul;d split but not before. If readers have difficulty reading finding stuff in articles thwey should use the search button on their web browsers, SqueakBox 18:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is not short by any standard. Let laws be in articles about laws, its pure logic. V.☢.B 18:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose breaking out this section. Information and a chart about laws does belong here...see, for example, the article Adoption, which does this quite well. DPetersontalk 18:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not a main issue since it doesn't concern damage control but rather a sense of aestethics. Can someone please spend some time on the section if it is to remain, it is in awful shape at this point. btw, I Strongly agree to breaking outV.☢.B 18:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The adoption article points to other main articles in their sub section, and I think this is wise. We should apply the same approach here. Feel free to write about the legal status in a summary and then point to the main article. This is a compromise which should make all partys happy. V.☢.B 18:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like it split. The content concerned goes beyond mere age of consent and beyond the generalised topic of CSA, in to a series of minor complications. The volume will only increases, and already seems to be straining at the reasonable capacity of this article. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 18:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Quality of editing

User:SqueakBox. Your behavior is getting more and more strange and it seems that you are holding some deep beleif that other editors have an agenda, could you please speak it out clearly and let us know exactly what you are thinking. It seems pointless to keep up these petty "wars" and I would you to let your heart out so we can clear any missunderstanding. V.☢.B 17:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please direct personal comments to my talk page. I bet you cant find one concrete example of my behaviour being strange. All I want is NPOV articles on this subject and as we arent close to getting that I feel impelled to keep editing a subject I find distatsteful to say the least of it. After 2 and a half years plus on wikipedia I have learnt to edit what is important rather than just what I like, SqueakBox 18:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an issue for the whole article so I think it should be here. I gave you a concrete example earlier on the breaking out part. Can you tell what is NPOV here, can you for example tell us the rates of positive/neutral and negative cases in the literature? If not, then how can you judge the balance of the article? V.☢.B 18:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not an issue for the whole article. Please focus on the issues not the editors. IMO paedophilia articles which activelty promote a pro paedophilia viewpoint or fail to reflect how society currently views these issues (ie common usage) is POV, SqueakBox 18:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
"activelty promote a pro paedophilia viewpoint" Where does the article do this??? V.☢.B 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
In the positive and consensual cases section, that is why I tagged it. Here is another being removed by DPetersen [1], SqueakBox 18:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Any specific examples? You haven't shown anything of the kind sofar. V.☢.B 18:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I just gave 2 specific examples. Nuff said, SqueakBox 18:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You only claimed it was POV, but provided no proof of any kind to prove your point. V.☢.B 18:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You have completely lost me now. What do you mean proof? SqueakBox 18:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You know, the stuff you use to back up your claims. Its quite popular these days. V.☢.B 18:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid Personal Attacks and do Assume good faith and avoid making arguments about editors. The discussion should remain focused on content and material. The comments directd toward SqueakBox are not called for or relevant to a content dispute. DPetersontalk 18:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Likewise. V.☢.B 18:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? DPetersen is doing nothing of the sort and certainly has not created a section intended to discuss any of the editors here, SqueakBox 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to the amended title, it is sometimes very poor, I must say. For example changing the title of a section to 'allegedly positive or consensual'. Really, we should be taking the survey participant's word for it, as we do with negative cases. Although theories of covert psychological manipulation, self-justification, and on the other side, retrospective moral re-interpretation of events do exist, the variable popularity of these should not be used to justify weasling around what is after all the said word of those involved. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 18:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO the whole section should be removed as an extreme minority viewpoint failing notability, and if not then follow Will's idea of merging it, SqueakBox 18:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You fail to understand that the section is not a 'viewpoint'. The section refers to what Rind and others have established to be a large proportion of the incidents being described by the title of our article. That some shriek, disagree and attack the researchers is irrelevant, as their conclusions have been reached via the use of non clinical, non legal samples, and backed up by peer review. As long as some once 'abused' adults who celebrate or show indifference to their experiences exist, so should this section. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 19:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm more interested with talk page formatting than this discussion, but while I'm here I'm going to point out that it is isn't very good to proclaim someone else's "failure" to understand something, nor is it good to characterize their mute text as "shrieking". Please everyone keep your eye on the dove at the top of the page (and help me with the archive box at the top if you know how to fix the formatting.) Peace... Joie de Vivre 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Why shouldn't I point out where someone fails to understand what I see as a fundamental ethic in editing an article without subjective bias? The term is in wide use, as a pointer to misconceptions. And no, I did not characterise anyone's opinions as 'shrieking'. My point relates to the unpopularity that SqueakBox was claiming to merit consideration. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 19:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Oooook then. It's not that you shouldn't point it out, it's that you shouldn't attack people and be rude. You did certainly use the word "shriek", saying "that some (people) shriek... is irrelevant", it's not hard to figure out what you meant. Good luck and please calm down. Joie de Vivre 19:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Pardon our frustration, having to deal with this stuff on a daily basis consumes alot of energy which had been better spent on the article instead. I just wish people would stick to the areas where they have knowledge so we could avoid the endless disputes which are based on ones sides unfounded beleifs vs another sides facts. V.☢.B 19:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Lets just make this clear - at no point did I accuse SqueakBox of 'shrieking'. Pointing out nonexistent infractions and telling others to calm down when all they did is use one misunderstood term of common usage and one reference to social hysteria, is far more likely to lead to conflict. βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 20:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
V?B, I can understand that editing can be frustrating if the same issues come up again and again. However, WP:NPA does not say "Comment on content, not the contributor... except if you are sick of discussing the same thing over over and over again." If you find yourself annoyed from repetitious discussion, it's still every editor's responsibility to remain civil. If a given editor cannot do that for whatever reason, it is their responsibility to step back. Joie de Vivre 20:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Joie de Vivre here. Please keep comments on content not editors. The conduct of VoB and V?B is not conducive or helpful here and does not adhere to Assume good faith or Avoiding Personal attacks. Let's stay focued on content. DPetersontalk 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Positive cases part 2

It's getting clogged.

You what? I have no issues in the theory of evolution but I am certain you cannot source that pedophilia anywhere in the world has the mainstream acceptance of creationism in America. Your comment is a bit off to be honest. Can you source that pro pedophilia is in any way mainstream? as your claim re Rind bering mainstream is not proven. If you can please do, if not please can we begin to create an NPOV article re this subject, SqueakBox 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Its about fact vs opinion. The opinion part gets less than 1/7th in that article, so we should have the same ratio here for consistency. Psychological Bulletin is mainstream, google it if you must... V.☢.B 00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an unsourcede or minority view that needs deleting. Can you tell me where we say this, please? SqueakBox 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is from Psychological Bulletin, by American Psychological Association. It's as good as it gets since that's the #1 journal in the field. Try find a better source :) V.☢.B 00:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The opinion is utterly fringe and so should have no part in an NPOV article here. Please stop trying to use this article to promotr your fringe pro pedophile views, SqueakBox 00:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 148,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide.

Seriously, this is getting silly, can't you just admit you where wrong? V.☢.B 00:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to admit I am wrong. When I am (lol). But opposing paedophiles attempting to create POV on this set of articles is not a case in hand, SqueakBox

You just claimed that APA was not mainstream, this is like saying the earth is being flat. This is no longer about POV but about you having no knowledge in this area but still have very strong opinions. I don't really see how you can make any judgement at all in this area if you don't even know about Americal Psychological Association. V.☢.B 00:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I am claiming your pro pedophilia views are not mainstreeam which is something different altogether. I am not American so if I show an ignorance about that country, well that's me, SqueakBox 00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I just showed that the source used was published by the journal from the largest organisation for psychologists worldwide. This source also completely proved you wrong. This also means that you consider APA to publish pro pedophilia views which is highly remarkable and very dubious opinion. Now tell us, what source do you cite that beats Psychological Bulletin? V.☢.B 00:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • One article in a peer-reviewed journal does not represent the unanimous view of the association that published that journal. It is not a statement of the policy of the American Psychological Association on this issue. It is one article, and there are other articles cited in this entry, also published in peer-reviewed journals, that contradict that article. A review of the literature will not reveal that the preponderance of the research suggests that child sexual abuse is harmless. Child sexual abuse is a crime. That is a fact. It is not the job of Wikipedia to sway public opinion towards minority views regarding controverial issues. One should not expect Wikipedia to cater to those who feel unjustly treated by social norms or the legal system, or to give undue weight to the POV of a small minority. -Jmh123 01:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The article states no opinion about pro pedophilia or changing any laws. What the **** are you raving about? V.☢.B 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jmh123 on this one. I won't repeat those cogent statements. DPetersontalk 01:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Me too, SqueakBox 01:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Its the worst strawman argument I have ever seen, he sets up over 3 positions which I do not support and which does not exist in the article and then attacks them as if they did. By far the most blatant rhetoric attack I have witnessed on wikipedia sofar. Why can you guys get away with accusation of pro pedophilia activism? Seems like a very serious offence to me, please explain. V.☢.B 01:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
i can imagine these guys actually doing a cursory review of the literature (as opposed to fox news) and then launching a schlesinger-esque attack on the "pro-pedophile conspiracy" which the majority of sexual abuse researchers must belong to. even dallam would be attacked for conceding that child sexual abuse is not always harmful in his critique of rind et al. perhaps they should begin their libel there, at the source --science-- instead of sjooting the messenger here. blah.Kinda0 01:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You sound sane, please stick around. V.☢.B 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Offence? What we're like breaking the law or something? Please avoid Wikipedia:Legal threats and the like, SqueakBox 01:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not a threat since I clearly states that its apparently completely acceptable behavior here so stop trying to claim it is. It is very disturbing that you all the time accuse your fellow editors of being pro-pedophile, this is very wrong and an attack of very low form. Do you wanto win at all costs despite being wrong factually? Do you wanto chase away opoents so you can remove facts as you please? I can't spend all days here just fighting with you, I can't spend all days with people who are ignorant about the most basic facts in this area. Is this how you want it to end? You alone, with a bad and biased article? V.☢.B 01:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not interested in winning, merely in NPOVing this set of articles. I absolutely am not ignorant about this area neither are the great majority of people on this planet, especially the majority of parents. I do know about life and am just applying common sense. If you want to claim you know more about life than me I would suggest you are blowing against the wind. Given your failure to clarify what kind of an offence I am talking about I need to contemplate on where we are going with your rfc, SqueakBox 01:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
So now you are making threats yourself, how appropriate. You claimed one i 10000 had positive experience, this is showing complete ignorance of the subject you are discussing and editing. Common sense simply means common beleif, and this has included the world being flat and other less than brilliant ideas. Create a section of popular opinon and stick to it, you can roam free there, just keep out of the science parts cause you obviously have no clue at all in that area. V.☢.B 01:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I aint making no threat. That is ridiculous and shows you dont understandd the power of judiciary (or perhaps you do) let alone of the arbcom. How you can compare your possible legal threats with wikipedia stuff is beyond me (all the arbcom can do at worse is ban someone, hardly disruptive to a life path). Please let me know whether you are making a legal threat or not? We overcame the world is flat theory when Columbus discovered where I am living right now, and while it took us a bit longer to figure out paedophilia I think we have mastered the subject as a human race in 2007. I'll ignore your advice about how to edit the article for what I hope are obvious reasons. You were asked a while back about your alleged expertise in this area and we still await your answer, ~~ SqueakBox 02:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You've lost it. I will work under the assumption that you are ******* ******* ****** V.☢.B 02:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What have I lost (he says grabbing his wallet and keys). Please work under the assumption I want an answer to what exxactly you meant when saying "Seems like a very serious offence to me", SqueakBox 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The political poison of non-orthodox positions on sensitive subjects and its impact on WP:UNDUE

Elsewhere on this talk page several editors are debating the weight that should be given the pro-pedophilia point of view. That's all fine. Undue weight should not be given to a small-minority point of view. However, we have a major problem: We cannot measure how small that point of view is due to the realpolitik surrounding pedophilia. If you read the literature over the last 20 years since the Day care sexual abuse hysteria and particularly since the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases of a few years ago, it will appear that the pro-pedophile minority is very small indeed. However, the political consequences of taking any position other than the orthodox one of "sex with children is always bad, 100% of the time, and anyone who says otherwise is promoting evil" has had a chilling effect on research and publications that might suggest otherwise. Authors and publishers of publications such as the Rind Report (1998), Harmful to Minors, and others have suffered harm to their professional reputation and threats of funding cuts for daring to speak anything other than the party line. In the case of the University of Minnesota Press and the American Psychological Association, lawmakers got involved and threatened sanctions. With this kind of chilling effect, what may appear to be a very very small minority opinion may actually be a very small minority opinion or even a small minority opinion. The fact that it is a small minority opinion is not in dispute, the dispute is over how small and what defines WP:UNDUE. Of course, we could throw up our hands and declare that Wikipedia's sense of UNDUE is a reflection of the larger community, and if the scientific community is chilled then Wikipedia should reflect that. Dfpc 01:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The argument is not over positive cases really but about causality. At any rate, this is getting out of hand, some serious sect feelings here. If science isn't good enough, then we are all doomed. V.☢.B 01:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


rind et al.'s 1998/1997 studies are cited in a fair amount of child sexual abuse literature actually, though sometimes with caveats. (for example Angelini 1998, Padayachi 2000, Oellerich 2001, Carballo-Dieguez 2002, DeLamater 2005) i don't understand the relevance of children aggressively persuing sex in the effects section however. paolucci et al.'s meta-analysis oddly cites the ideas of pro-pedophile activists brongersma, chiswick, and sandfort before most other opinions. i do not support excluding certain studies or opinions which have been reviewed in much of the other literature. Kinda0 01:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

The removal of the entire positive section is nothing but censorship. If there is any sane voices left, speak up now. V.☢.B 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Positive and consensual cases edit war getting out of hand

The edit war between SqueakBox, DPeterson, Herostratus, and others(?) on one side and Voice of Britain and others(?) on the other is getting out of hand. Before anyone reverts it let's hash it out here and get outside input if necessary. For those of us who aren't following the debate above closely: If you have an opinion on why this section should stay, be deleted, or stay with changes, please concisely state your position here. Thank you. Dfpc 02:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

rind et al.'s 1998/1997 studies are cited in a fair amount of child sexual abuse literature actually, though sometimes with caveats. (for example Angelini 1998, Padayachi 2000, Oellerich 2001, Carballo-Dieguez 2002, DeLamater 2005) paolucci et al.'s meta-analysis even oddly cites the ideas of pro-pedophile activists brongersma, chiswick, and sandfort before most other opinions. i do not support excluding certain studies or opinions which have been included in much of the other literature, and the editors for doing so have not provided a satisfactory argument to support their position.Kinda0 02:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It has become blatantly obvious that some people here have no interest whatsoever in creating a NPOV article, and censoring facts seem to not be beyond them. Anyone with a sane mind should take this fight here and now, we are facing ignorance of the worst kind and as our ancestors we should fight for the freedom of information. V.☢.B 02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I have protected the page for an hour. It will give you all time to discuss the issues here. From your friendly neighborhood uninterested in the topic 3rd party.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing to discuss, we either follow facts or we don't. It comes down to that, how do we speed things along? V.☢.B 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No sociology Wikipedia article includes all available research. It's simply an impossible task. Even when there is a good faith effort to have NPOV, minority opinions and obscure papers are rarely included in any encyclopedic sociology article. Despite appearances, Wikipedia is not unabridged. The question is not "should we include all the facts," the question is, how significant does a fact have to be before it is worthy of inclusion. This is a matter for legitimate debate. So, let's debate. Dfpc 02:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Its impossible to debate factual issues with people who ignore facts. That is why this is pointless and should be speeded up to whatever instance needed to get it resolved. Is 20-50% of all children relevant or not? To me its obvious but I'm only following facts and logic, so what do I know? V.☢.B 02:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Kungfuadam, if the edit war continues, I'd be OK with re-protecting the page until the dispute is resolved or several days pass and it becomes obvious it never will be without outside help. If that happens, it'll be time for outside experts, mediation, arbitration, or other intervention. Dfpc 02:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the high emotion of some people here in the last hour, I think Wikipedia would benefit if we all slept on it. A 12 or 24 hour lock won't kill anyone and we will all be cooler-headed tomorrow. I hope. Dfpc 03:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I see you took my 24 and raised me 48 more. They say Jesus rose from the dead in less than 3 days, so that should be enough time to at least agree on how to solve the problem. Dfpc 03:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Dont think it;ll do much good but it certainly wont do any harm. The resolution of this one is likely to take more than just a break, SqueakBox 03:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Come on people, come to some consensus, and stop edit warring... (i.e., the edit war that is going on 20 May)--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

They ignore and delete fact. What we do? Please tell me. V.☢.B 02:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Lets remove the pro paedophile anecdotes that have no place here. Perhaps we need to address the whole issue of the group of pro paedophile activists who refuse to allow good faith editors to even begin to tackle the task of making these a series of NPOV paedophile articles. Do we as wikipedia want to support a pro paedophile agenda from users who intimidate their fellow editors with legal threatsd et al? Who really thinks child sexual abuse is really wanted by the victims? Other than their criminal perpetrators and wannabes. What is this? It deserves to be on a boy chat site not a serious encyclopedia, SqueakBox 02:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

READ THE BLOODY RESEARCH! We have provided a shitload of sources, take some time off and actually read them. Jesus... V.☢.B 02:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I read it and it made me more sure than ever of my position, SqueakBox 02:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

give me a break. is accusing your opponent of having a 'pro pedophile agenda' your only mode of debate? this article should be a complete mosaic of the fruits of science, and although this has not yet been accomplished, your obsession with deleting facts well-known to child sexual abuse researchers isn't helping us get there. oh, and nice accusation of criminal activity there, hypocrite. Kinda0 02:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Please, everyone read Wikipedia's policy on revert wars- WP:3RR. Even if a position is blatantly wrong, the answer is not a revert war. The proper way to handle disputes is on the talk page.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop the Personal attacks and watch your language...I can appreciate your frustation being a minority view that is not fully accepted, but please, let's focus on the issus, not personalities. DPetersontalk 02:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
funny that you directed that to me and not squeakbox, who just freaking implied anyone who disagrees or with him (anyone mildly familiar with the literature) is a child sexual abuser. hmm. definitely not an attack there. Kinda0 02:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that you deleted facts. Go figure. V.☢.B 02:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
me?Kinda0 02:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No, DPeterson, you have acted as a hero sofar. V.☢.B 02:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
KindaO. I am sorry, my comments got put in place in the wrong seqeucne and were directed to Voice of Britain's use of "shitload" etc...not to your comments or thoughts. I appologize if I was unclear and offended you. DPetersontalk 02:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling for an expert

Unless someone gives me a darn good reason not to, I'm going to add {{expert-subject|Sexology and sexuality}} sometime Sunday or Monday. Maybe if we get some more real sex experts in here we can make a better article. It might not be a bad idea to have Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality or a similar group oversee this article. Dfpc 02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, whatever happens I want to get a result. It is pointless to waste my time arguing with ignorant people, I'd rather win or lose everything fast so I can get something useful done instead of this madness. V.☢.B 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is about the sexual abuse of children. Relevant experts would be in Psychology, Child Welfare, and Social Work. DPetersontalk 02:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Psychotherapy helps too. Exoperts arent lacking here, SqueakBox 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And witchcraft aswell, that surely will be the icing of the cake. On a serious note, a real researcher with a strong sense of justice and beleif in fact over fiction is all that needs. His area is not important. V.☢.B 02:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
DPeterson, I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology but didn't find anything on Child Welfare or Social Work. If you could find something related it would help. The expert-subject tag works best if there is an active WikiProject to put after the {{expert-subject| Dfpc 03:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Find someone who is not recomended by one side of the argument... That much should be obvious? V.☢.B 03:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that is me! But you dont want me it appears. There is only resol;ution to paedophilia on wikipedia and that is NPOV. This is a case of one user against 3 and VoB hasd been blocked 3 times for edit warring on this article. So it is clearly a case that needs more apropriate admin interventiont han we have seen so far (but no problems with l;ocking the article albeit defending the POV of this one user), SqueakBox 02:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable with an expert or better yet experts that aren't already invested in this article. I'd prefer at least 3 "fresh blood" experts, with at least 1 each with "pro" and "anti" personal opinions but excluding anyone who is incapable of setting aside their personal opinion when editing articles. Dfpc 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but trying to find a pro expert is like the proverbial needle in the haystack. We absolutely do not lack expertise here, the only problem is pro child child abuser activists destroying this article by any means with their pro pedophile POV. As they have promised us they would do on their boy and girl chat sites, something the wikipedia foundation is aware of, SqueakBox 03:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
who here is a "pro child abuser activist?" Kinda0 03:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
At least one "Pro-child-abuser activist" I mean self-admitted pedophile got banned from Wikipedia, in part or possibly in full because he dared to say he was a pedophile on his user page. As a consequence, any other pedophile will be gun-shy about admitting it. In effect, there's a "don't ask don't tell" policy on pedophiles editing Wikipedia right now. I know some pedophiles who happen to be experts on this subject matter. I have faith that they can edit with NPOV. However, I doubt they will be willing to mediate or arbitrate what will look to them like a pissing match. Personally, I hope we can all get some sleep and come back tomorrow and sit down and have a nice cup of tea. Dfpc 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well lets concentrate on the edits nott he editors. In this and other articles we see a consistently pro pedophilia belief pushed by a number of editors. I think its time this stoppoed and we created some genuinely NOPOV articles on this subject, SqueakBox 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

i would appreciate if we could do that, yes. but you seem to reply to any argument with personal accusations against the author. please stop doing this. Kinda0 03:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure that is the case. I have endlessly explained arguments here. Child sexual abuse is illeagal and most human being s really hate child sexual abuse which is why we punish perpetatrors harshly. This needs to be reflected in this set of articles but instead we find endless POV pushing that gloriofies, glamifies etc pedophilia and abusing children. Wikipedia is more or less now claiming that actually pedofilia is fine and most children benefit from being abused in spite of this not being a mainstream belief but that of a tiny minority, mostly of convicted criminals so hated they have to be protected from other prisoners. Our job is to interpret life in an encyclopedic way, it is not to promote an extreme minority belief that most users wont touch with a barge pole (as many have made clear to me) because of the shame that pedophiles have to endure (and rightly to my POV), SqueakBox 03:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
as many of the researchers (berlin, finkelhorn, rind, etc.) who acknowledge the full spectrum of consequences of child sexual abuse have articulated, lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wronfulness. reflecting the current state of scientific research is hardly equal to claiming that child sexual abuse is ethically ok, and neither our article nor any of the research supporting it glorifies child abuse. if you want to add the media's opinion that being molested slays one's soul or whatever nbc is saying today, go ahead. Kinda0 03:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"but instead we find endless POV pushing that gloriofies, glamifies etc pedophilia and abusing children." You couldn't even refrain in one of your posts? Impressive. V.☢.B 03:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Squeakbox said Child sexual abuse is illeagal and most human being s really hate child sexual abuse which is why we punish perpetatrors harshly. This needs to be reflected in this set of articles.... In many parts of the West up until the 1970s, the same thing was said of homosexuals. It still is in some countries. My point is that illegality and social unacceptance do not necessarily match what they should in a perfect world. Now, should Wikipedia try to match the world as it is, or should it try to match the world as the editors of this article think the world should be? If it is the latter, how do we handle differences of opinion? To put it another way, if this were 1950, and this was an article about homosexuality, should we strive for an article that accurately reflected the 1950 opinion of homosexuality, or should we give "undue weight" to minority-opinion valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, evidence that is widely accepted 57 years later? This is not an easy question and has no right answer. Perhaps other controversial topics have dealt with this very issue and we can follow Wiki-precedent. Dfpc 03:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Black/white mariages like mine were illegal in South Africa till recently (in my lifetime) and in America until not so long ago so please assume myu awareness of this fact. But murder is as hated as ever. Why? Because one person victimises another. Same with child abuse because there is nop consenting. And uterly different from mixed race marriages or homosexualityn where consenting adults are involved, SqueakBox 03:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
We should follow the facts, the majority of the population in the world do not beleive in evolution, should we follow their opinion or facts? V.☢.B 03:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolute rubbish though wikipedia does give ample space to creationism which is far more mainstream than either pedophilia or wanting to kill people (whioch some people glorify, eg Mara Salvatrucha. So we should indeed follow consensus and not glorify murder, child abuse or other horrific crimes, SqueakBox 03:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between glorifying something and not vilifying it. VoB wants scientific evidence to be presented. Assuming the evidence is valid, it should be presented unless there are WP:UNDUE considerations. Whether WP:UNDUE is triggered is the very question we are debating today. Dfpc 04:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
VoB, I think you hit the nail on the head. However, with Wikipedia, the answer may very well be that we follow popular opinion. A few minutes ago I asked what the Wiki-precedent is. Dfpc 04:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why mediation is pointless, I beleive in facts, he doesn't. These positions can never unite. 03:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I believe in facts. The fact is our socities put child abusers away for along time and are repulsed by them, SqueakBox 03:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It's hard not to insult you when you act this stupid, but I will refrain from it this time. V.☢.B 03:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
then add that! it is not contradictory to the facts already included in the article. maybe we need a section about perception of child sexual abuse.Kinda0 03:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, SqueakBox 04:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I suggest mediation and if it doesnt work we probably need an arbitration case because this one isnt going to get sorted tonight, SqueakBox 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration right away, mediation is pointless. Its not like people like you are going to stop unless you get banned or forbidden to edit anymore, or you manage to ban oponents... V.☢.B 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Self-fullfilling prophecy? If a key party such as yourself won't participate in mediation, then 1 of 3 things will happen: Everyone will "see the light" and join you, everyone will ignore you for refusing to participate in mediation, or mediation will fail and it will go to arbitration. I can all but guarantee that the first won't happen for you or your opponents. If we can't get this thing sorted on our own, please give mediation a chance. Dfpc 03:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Mediation can only work if SqueakBox starts to absorb the facts that exists on this subject, and this will never happen. I will never back down from facts or logic, so the situation is impossible. No point in wasting any time. If you convince SquakBox to remove himself from here then I will gladly mediate with the others. V.☢.B 03:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Mediation is very unlikely to work if any editor is inflexible. This means you too Voice of Britain. Dfpc 03:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I am very flexible, but there is no point in mediation if SqueakBox is included. V.☢.B 03:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
VoB, you said I will never back down from facts or logic, so the situation is impossible. If the consensus is that small-minority scientific evidence should be ignored based on WP:UNDUE provided that the vast majority of scientific evidence contradicts the small-minority evidence, would you go along with deleting the small-minority evidence? Let me give an example: There are several scientific theories on the best way to treat a child with attachment disorder. Some of these theories are very fringe. However, that doesn't mean the science behind them is invalid. It may mean that the results are a statistical fluke that won't hold up under repeated experiments. Or it may be that their experiment hasn't been repeated enough to convince the rest of the scientific community. In an article on the subject, should Wikipedia give any space to these fringe scientific studies, and if so, how much? Remember WP:UNDUE. As it happens, there is an article dedicated to one of those fringe treatments and it is locked due to a content dispute. Dfpc 04:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Dont be silly. Me being banned for promoting the paedophile POV I am promoting isnt going to happen becuase all I am promoting is the utterly mainstream belief that its wrong to abuse children. And I dont wish to ban the opposition merely to work with them. Please reconsider as mediation is an excellent way of resolving disputes and arbcom would likely happen behind closed doors so it wouldnt be a platform for you or anyone, SqueakBox 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Its obvious that you are a lost cause. As long as you are here there is no point in mediation. If you dissapear then perhaps there is some possibilites to mediate with the others. If you remain, no hope at all. V.☢.B 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Check my contribs and go figure. But please reconsider, SqueakBox 03:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Mediation usually (always?) must be attempted before arbitration. I'd suggest just moving to filing a Mediation request and giving it a try. Either all involved will agree, and that can move forward, or there will be some who will refuse, and then the next step in dispute resolution will occur. If all agree to Mediation and it produces an agreeable result, 'great.' If it fails, then the next step in the dispute resolution process can be taken. In any event, moving to filing a request for Mediation may be the best next step to take. DPetersontalk 14:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
We need to wait till VoB is unbanned and I will make the request next Saturday, SqueakBox 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree, we must wait. It's the fair thing to do. Dfpc 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Voice of Britain blocked for 1 week

Voice of Britain is blocked for a week, see User talk:Voice of Britain and User talk:H. With that in mind, I think we should semi-protect the article, re-protect it shortly before VoB's block expires, then resume the debate we started a few hours ago. If VoB promises not to edit-war then re-protecting or semi-protecting may not be necessary. Dfpc 04:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection is only used in instances of heavy vandalism, which I haven't seen recently on this article. Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection. If everyone agrees to stop reverting the admin who protected the article might agree to lift it. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I have unprotected the page. Let me stress again, since I was accused on my talk page. I have no opinion or care what revision is on the page. I took action only to stop the edit warring. The version that I protected by no means stated my opinion, I am not supporting either position. I am still your friendly neighborhood uninterested third party.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Admins always lock to the wrong version, SqueakBox 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

cortisol

"However, other more recent studies do find an increase in cortosol levels among victims of child sexual abuse and trauma and damage to various parts of the brain"

please cite the studies that found this. also one of the books you cite is from 1999, four years before mcnally's book. Kinda0 16:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The second text is 2007. DPetersontalk 16:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
studies please? Kinda0 16:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The text by Dr. Bruce Perry was published in 2007 and includes a variety of verifiable material...I'm not sure what you are asking for? DPetersontalk 16:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
the studies he references to evidence the claim that that sexually abused children tend towards increased cortisol. i would like to include these in the article, preferably with a little information about the subjects/methods as i did with king et al... kinda 16:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The text presents a lot of studies; some Dr. Perry's work, some that of others. I just thought the basic reference for the one line would suffice here. DPetersontalk 17:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
at least one study published in a peer-reviewed journal would be nice. is perry's book a primary source? kinda 17:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Perry's book includes his original work, cites his published studies, and studies of others. I just don't have the time to research a journal article...the book lists a number though. DPetersontalk 19:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
can you give me one of the citations? kinda 20:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't have the time to do that...The book is readily available though. DPetersontalk 20:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rind?

The Rind study does a lot of heavy lifting in this entry, and I wondered if it was at all controversial. There is a Wikipedia article specifically on the Rind study, but it also is tagged for NPOV issues. A search of the American Psychologist and the Psychological Bulletin databases indicates that there have been a number of articles, statements, debates and so forth within those pages regarding this study. (I'm not talking about outside controversies--there are those too--but controversies with the professional scientific community.) I wonder why this entry, which relies so heavily on Rind, does not mention that the study is controversial, or present arguments specifically opposing that study. I'm confused by those here who have debated on the basis that the study is science and therefore incontrovertible. The suggestion of such statements is that the science is unopposed. It appears, as is often the case, in science as in other fields, that there is not a single, indisputable point of view on this matter. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full text articles. Here's a link to some of the abstracts that came up in my search: abstracts concerning Rind research. Obviously if psychologists are debating these issues amongst themselves, we will not be able to resolve that debate here. The Rind study was published. It is controversial. It says + Opponents say = NPOV. No? -Jmh123 18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good information. I'd not realized how controversial the Rind material was. I agree that stating it is controversial and then stating what each side says is NPOV and would be consistent with Wikipedia policies and practices regarding controversial subjects. DPetersontalk 19:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

weasel words?

where? ~[[kinda]] 00:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a whole section devoted tot his. In this context positive is a weasel word and is huighly disputed, as you klnow, SqueakBox 01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
the relationships are positive by evaluation of the victims. is this not clear? ~[[kinda]] 01:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Allegedly. But that's not the issue. Far more children suffer than dont and yet we are claiming in a weasel way that its all just great. Thus positive is hugely weasel in this case, and indeed the section should be removed, SqueakBox 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
please point out where we make such an absurd claim. as far as i can see, we just state that a minority of abused children reflect on their abuse positively. this fact is hardly disputable. ~[[kinda]] 01:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
In an utterly POV way by giving it far too much prominence when it is so obscure it shouldnt be here at all as unnotable. When the weasel word title is removed it is quickl;y reverted and until this gets sorted the weasel tagg is required. We are trying to build an encyclopedia and this means neutrality,. These tags are for disputes where neutrality is disputed and this giving fake prominence to the alleged positive impacts of serious criminal offences is weasel. Its the kind of input we would expect from pedophiles and convicted sex offenders not neutral encyclopedia writers, SqueakBox 01:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
yet again with your idiotic implications. is david finkelhorn a pedophile and convicted sex offender, hmm? i guess every author of the dozens upon dozens of studies that have found a portion of children loook upon their abuse positively is part of some VAST PEDOPHILE CONSPIRACY that wabts to legalize child sexual abuse. as for weasel words, you still haven't explained how anything on this page violates the guidlines at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. if anything, undue weight is the only issue, but i don't think that's the case because i personally feel 10-20% of child sexual abuse victims make up a notable percent. they shouldn't be made 'unpersons' just because they don't comply with your prejudices. ~[[kinda]] 02:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read the Wikipedia article on weasel words. In this article and context, positive is a weasel word, as I read the Wiki description of the term weasel. The tag belongs and should stay. User:kinda0 disputes this, and so the tag belongs because there is a dispute regarding the neutrality of the article. Once consensus is reached the tag can be removed. On this I have to say that to try to build a case that illegal activity is postive is a real problem. I suppose I could argue that bank robbery has some very positive effects for the robber, if the robber is not caught, but I think we'd all agree that is a weasel-type statment per the wiki article and general consensus and just plain common sense. DPetersontalk 02:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
i did, but the positive claims are properly attributed so there should be no conflict. also, i'm not trying to argue anything. i believe 10 to 20% of molestation victims make up a minority significant enough to be included. ~[[kinda]] 02:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We should not re-interpret the quoted responses of those involved in the studies simply because they support 'fringe beliefs'. NPOV should not be used to play around with emergent facts which are obtained via study and direct quotations from those involved. Needless to say, I support both the section and the use of "positive" βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ 13:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.