Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion on 7 Feb 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents


[edit] Talk page archives

[edit] Ham & Eggs

New subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Ham & Eggs. This contains a list of users who have made substantial contributions to project articles and have been indef blocked. This is to facilitate sockpuppet checks. The list is not complete. Herostratus (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to add a few more that I know of, if you incorporate the purpose of garnering evidence for and against the blocks as a reason for listing these editors. digitalemotion 07:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of books featuring pedophilia

Is there some reason that the recently-created article List of books featuring pedophilia, which substantially overlaps the former "Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in Fiction (Boys)" article, is not listed on the Pedophilia Article Watch project page? SocJan (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Child sexuality issue

I'm considering nominating Child-on-child sexual abuse for deletion as a POV fork of Child sexuality. The article describes "non-normative" peer contacts as sexual abuse, but the concept of "normative" sexual behavior is entirely relative, and unlike child sexual abuse, it has no legal definition. See Talk:Child-on-child_sexual_abuse#Supporting my contentions

Alternatively, it could be moved to coercive child peer sexual behavior or whatnot and the content changed to reflect this more narrow but neutrally-determinable category.

Comments? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That topic does not appear to be a POV fork of Child sexuality. It might be possible to merge it into child sexual abuse, but merging would balloon an already large article, and the topic appears to be notable enough for a separate page. Here are a few references from a quick search:
"Conclusions: Children victimized by other children manifested elevated levels of emotional and behavioral problems and were not significantly different from those who had been sexually abused by adults."
"Conclusions: The findings suggest that child peer sexual abuse may be associated with adverse outcomes."
"A substantial proportion of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by adolescents and even younger children.... Important findings that emerged from this investigation are that victims of both adult and juvenile perpetrators suffer an array of negative, psychological and behavioral sequelae. "
  • Weiner, Irving B. et al, Handbook of Psychology, p437, John Wiley and Sons 2003:
"Factors that suggest national incidence figures represent an understimate of child sexual abuse victims include the exclusion of child-on-child sexual abuse data, as well as victims' and professionals' underreporting."
  • Ellis, Rodney A. et al, Essentials of Child Welfare, p49, John Wiley and Sons 2003:
"Child-on-child sexual abuse has become relatively common in child welfare cases. It may occur within the family or by another child outside the family... Disturbingly, it also happens to children in foster care."
That seems like enough to support a WP:Verifiable topic page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
While it may be in the same realm of Child sexuality, CoCS clearly has purview outside the CS article. But, if we're going to follow precedent, it should be deleted outright just as Adult-child sex was, even though it had unique content. Since most of it is overlap, and could be covered peripherally in the CS or CSA article, "our" past "decisions" and "consensus" would demand it. • VigilancePrime • • • 07:20 (UTC) 2 Mar '08
I would contend, however, that the term itself is firmly established in research AND clinical practice, and therefore the title should remain as is. Like many other psychological subjects, it may or may not be well known to the general public. This is sometimes advantageous to avoid "labeling" issues as pointed out by AnotherSolipsist earlier. However, I feel it may have greater value to stand on its own as a subject. I will be the first to admit it's got some kinks that need working out, but I feel it can be done effectively. There are two extremes that we want to avoid, which will be elaborated on the talk page. Legitimus (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this has been sorted out now. As long as no one objects, can we archive this thread or whatever is the procedure? Legitimus (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just leave it, it'll be archived in good time. Herostratus (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of pedophilia in terminology section

The problem with this "working definition" is that it is complete original research.

"Paedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent and peripubescent children which is experienced as being so important that it dominates the person's inner sexual or romantic life."

Both the OED and the DSM define pedophilia to include acting out. That it is hypothetically possible for someone to be a pedophile and not sexually abuse children does not completely redefine pedophilia to exclude offenders. The definition of pedophilia includes offenders and nonoffenders. There is no special word for pedophiles who do not sexually abuse children (and pedophile is certainly not it). The OR working definition above has created a great deal of confusion, I think, as there are now editors not only claiming that pedophilia does not include offenders, but that pedophilia specifically means not offending. (And that the category nonoffending pedophiles is very large; comprises most pedophiles. There is absolutely no research stating that there is a large group of nonoffending pedophiles somewhere. The fact that there is no term to refer to such a group speaks for itself.) I believe that the working definition needs to reflect the mainstream definitions used in the real world. -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Where have you seen anyone claiming that pedophile and pedophilia specifically refers to non-offenders? I haven't seen anyone saying that. As to the def, I don't know if anyone much actually refers to it, but do you have an alternative to suggest? Herostratus (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, SocJan is insisting on the article talkpages of the various "sexual abuse and pedophilia in <fill in the blank> that Wikipedia has it's own definition of pedophilia, and that this is the one that must be used.

—This is part of a comment by PetraSchelm , which was interrupted by the following:
The remark above does not accurately state my position.
In the first place, I have never referenced the terminology section of this PAW article.
Let me spell out what I have consistently said (but clearly have not communicated -- to at least one editor):
It is reasonable to anticipate that a user of Wikipedia who encounters the term "paedophilia" or "pedophilia" in any Wikipedia article might seek and read the Wikipedia entry Pedophilia. Therefore it is reasonable to ask anyone who uses "pedophilia/paedophilia" -- especially in an entry's title -- to pay attention to what the Wikipedia entry Pedophilia says.
This common sense observation is far from equivalent to "insisting on the article talkpages [ . . . ] that Wikipedia has its own definition of pedophilia".
Just to be completely clear, let me quote in full what I actually did say on one of those talk pages where I am alleged to be "insisting" that "Wikipedia has its own definition of pedophilia" (Talk:List_of_books_portraying_paedophilia_or_sexual_abuse_of_minors#Titles_of_pedophilia-related_literature_list_articles):
"The Wikipedia Pedophilia entry acknowledges and presents in NPOV language the various definitions found in dictionaries and professional manuals, doing just what Wikipedia is meant to do: neutrally describing controversy and disagreement when in fact there is controversy and disagreement. Again I state: The Wikipedia entry on Pedophilia simply must be our touchstone. Is it your assertion, PetraSchelm, that the Wikipedia entry Pedophilia is OR? If so, please edit it. If anyone believes it to be poorly written or in some other way defective, then he or she should fix it.
PetraSchelm (several paragraphs [earlier on this same talk page]) says:
[ . . . ] implying that the defintion of pedophilia is somehow controversial to anyone other than a few hundred people in pro-pedophile organizations is disruptive.
I have already politely asked several times here that we all assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks on other editors. No one should state or imply that anyone else must be a pro-pedophile activist or fellow-traveler. One editor participating in this discussion was already suspended once in recent days for just this sort of behavior. SocJan (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not like to interrupt Talk page comments. I will not have to do so in the future if I am quoted with some care (or if my name is left out). In response to my simple request that we all pay attention to definitions, I have had positions and motives attributed to me that come dangerously close to accusing me of an agenda generally thought in these parts to be despicable. No one who bothers to read Talk pages with any care would find that credible, but I thought we were supposed to avoid that sort of thing? SocJan (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The "alternative" --the commonly accepted defintion in the real world, which Wikipedia is supposed to reflect--is obviously the OED, DSM, and ICD-10.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Here is direct quote from SocJan, from the talkpage of the theatre article: "Since this is Wikipedia, the relevant discussion of the meaning of Pedophilia must be the one found here in Wikipedia." SocJan (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

—This is part of a comment by PetraSchelm , which was interrupted by the following:
Misleading: The "here" to which I was referring (in the passage quoted immediately above) was the Wikipedia article Pedophilia, not the definition found at PAW, as a reader of this out-of-context quotation might, in this context, infer. (See also my previous clarification of my position, above.) SocJan (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop strawmanning other editors and misrepresenting sources, Petra.
—This is part of a comment by AnotherSolipsist , which was interrupted by the following: Please stop insulting me and making false accusations. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The DSM-IV-TR requires that the person's interests are either "acted on" or cause marked distress. A person who has "acted on" their desires by masturbating is usually considered diagnosable (e.g., Finkelhor says in A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse that a paedophile must have "had some sexual contact with a child" or "masturbated to sexual fantasies involving children" to be defined as such).
—This is part of a comment by AnotherSolipsist , which was interrupted by the following: Yes, exactly, whic is why I have repeatedly stated that the term pedophile includes offenders and nonoffenders. There is no term for pedophiles who are not offenders, and pedophile is not it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have access to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "paedophile," but a reliable secondary source cites it as "a person with paedophilia, i.e. an abnormal especially sexual love of children." Meanwhile, the ICD-10 says that paedophilia is "[a] sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."
No one (certainly not Tony or the Project page) is claiming that all paedophiles abstain from molesting children, but the fact that a significant portion do is well-known and supported by the literature (a recent example is Freel, 2003[1]). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong on both counts. First, Tony has told Mysteryquest that pedophilia=not offending, that only CSA refers to offending. This is incorrect. Second, the study you refer to was of 92 people, and as a self-report questionnaire of extremely low evidentiary value per accepted standards in science. Also, nowhere does it make the claim that a large number of pedophiles are not offenders (it makes the claim that some of the men who answered the questionnaire self-reported that they felt sexually attracted to children, but also self-reported that they had not acted on the attraction. The self-reports are not verified by any cross-check.) Also, you are misrepresenting the conclusions of this study, as it was a study of whether or not men are primarily pedophiles (as opposed to women), not in any way a study of the number of pedophiles who do not sexually abuse children. Nowehere is there any study that supports your idea that "a significant portion" of pedophiles abstain from molesting children.
Meanwhile, the main point is that the working defintion in the project is original research, and is giving people like Tony and SocJan the mistaken impression that this OR defintion is to be used in project articles, which is currently creating confusion on the talkpages of articles. A stop needs to be put to this, and we can start by completely repudiating the idea that a Wikipedia project can create its own OR definition of a term.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Tony's right; paedophilia does not imply child sexual abuse. To recognize that isn't to deny that paedophiles can abuse children, it's to say that using the word is not a synonym for CSA.
I'm not misrepresenting Freel's study. He convincingly argues that it's illogical to believe most of these men abuse children, based on his data, and points out that "[i]f someone is fully inhibited from sexually abusing children, no amount of emotional congruence, sexual arousal, or blockage will lead them to abuse children." Gordon Hall came to the same conclusion in 1995. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, you're absolutely wrong: the defintion of pedophilia includes acting out. Again, there is not special word for pedophiles who do not offend, and pedophile is not it. Also, you did represent the study: you claimed it is an example of the assertion that a significant of portion of pedophiles do not offend, and that this is supported by the literature. There is no such literature, and that study does not support your assertion in any way.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    The DSM, ICD, and OED which you so admire do not define paedophilia to include acting out, nor do they define it to exclude acting out. Both of these extremes are obviously wrong, and the second is believed by no one except your strawmen.
    As for your last claim, I suggest you try reading the study or the literature beyond abstracts. It's there. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As I have repeatedly stated, pedophile includes both offenders and nonoffenders, according to the DSM and the OED. That it includes nonoffenders does not mean it can be used synonymously to mean nonoffenders, since it always implies both. There is no word for pedophiles who are not offenders, and pedophile is certainly not it. Regarding your study, not only have I read it before, but I analyzed it on this page to demonstrate that it in no way supports your claim. (I get the impression that maybe you are accustomed to citing studies thinking no one knows how to analyze them to see of they support your claims, perhaps? If so, that's over.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    There's an important semantic difference between paedophilia includes offending and "paedophile" includes offenders. Likewise, there's a difference between Paedophilia does not imply child sexual abuse and No paedophile sexually abuses children. It's apparent that you're missing these differences.
    Your analysis is obvious guesswork. The authors didn't ask participants to report whether they had abused children, contrary to your claim. The support I mentioned is in the Discussion section, pp. 491-492.
    And no, I would appreciate if people actually read the studies I cite, as that would only help my argument. Where this is not possible, I'd be happy to send them a copy by email. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly, it's complete semantics. The important thing to establish, again, hopefully for the last time, is that there is no word for pedophiles who do not offend and pedophile is certainly not it. When and if there is ever such a word, people can go ahead and use it. In the meantime, using "pedophile" as a synonym for nonoffender, in order to have such a word, is not acceptable.
  • (And your study doesn't support your claim, and was furthermore a self report questionnaire given to a sample size of 92. Even attempting to cite it is OR and SYN, because you are trying to draw a conclusion that the study authors did not draw, regarding something they were not studying.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    For the last time, no one is claiming "paedophile" means "nonoffender." You're misinterpreting Tony and PAW's definition, and everyone but you can see that. And using "paedophile" as another word for "child molester" is also unacceptable.
    I'm not drawing any conclusion the authors did not draw. They explicitly state on page 491 that a significantly smaller portion of the sample was likely to molest children than feel attracted to them. They go on to explain that inhibitions against having sex with children are widespread in the male population, and point out that males who have these inhibitions will not molest children, regardless of the level of their sexual interest. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wrong again on both counts. Tony did say that, and I quoted it verbatim; and the defintion here needs to be changed. (As well as general perception.) I think you are suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Also, the study you have cited in no way supports the claim that a "significant portion" of pedophiles are not offenders. A self-report questionnaire with a sample size of 92, conducted to determine if more men than women are pedophiles does not support your claim. It is the very defintion of OR to make a synthetic argument about a study which was not conducted for the purpose of studying the claim you want to make about it. (And the study you are citing has pathetically low evidentiary value because it is a self-report questionaire, and because the sample size has zero statistical power). There is no study anywhere which supports your claim that a "significant portion" of pedophiles are not offenders.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    Here's what Tony said: "Pedophilia means sexual attraction to children. It does not imply sexual abuse." An analogical statement would be "Islam is a religion. The term does not imply suicide bombing." (Not to compare Islam to paedophilia.) Does that mean, to you, that no Muslim has ever taken jihad too far?
    Self-report has its failings, but in this case, they would only cause an underestimation of attraction to children. Since subjects were not asked to confess any crimes, there's no similar risk of underestimation of child molestation, which makes your criticism totally irrelevant, and perhaps even owing to my argument. I'm repeating the author's conclusion on p.491 that a significant portion of child-attracted persons do not molest children. I'm not adding to it, and I'm certainly not synthesizing anything. You're just accusing me of violating random policies; a red herring, just like your argument that a point not central to the purpose of the study someone must be nonexistant. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you one of those people who is incapable of admitting he is wrong (or not) and dropping it? No Wiki project can make up its own OR defintions (note Hero's "OK" below) and there is no study anywhere which supports the claim that a significant portion of pedophiles are not offenders. No amount of tendentious semantics (a violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) will change or obscure those facts. Not here. Not anymore.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    Your citation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is certainly amusing. Here's a few things you've refused to hear: No one has claimed that paedophiles are, definitionally, not child molesters. Rather, they have claimed that paedophiles aren't necessarily paedophiles. You respond to this point, every time, by merely reasserting the truth of your statement, a bare assertion. The literature, with which you are clearly unfamiliar, recognizes that a significant portion of paedophiles abstain from child molester. Freel explicitly says so; how is repeating this statement of his WP:OR? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Since pedophile includes offenders and nonoffenders, it cannot be used as a term to signify nonoffenders, which is what Tony used it to mean. Yes, using the word pedophile implies sexual offending. One would have to have qualify the use of the term, "nonoffending pedophile"; it can never be used to mean "nonoffender." There is no word for pedophiles who are not offenders, and pedophile is not it. And nowhere in the literature is there any study which supports your claim that a "signifcant portion" of pedophiles are not offenders. Freel does not support your OR claim of the study, which was a self report questionare of 92 people, male and female, designed to determine if pedophiles are primarily male. You really need to read WP:SYN. Also, even if it had been a study designed to determine if there are pedophiles who do not offend, a self-report questionare of 92 people would not be of sufficent evidentiary value to support your claim. The FBI estimates that less than %10 of all sex offenses are reported or prosecuted--the opposite is the case, in other words. It is not there are a "significant portion" of pedophiles who are not offenders, it is that there are a significant portion of pedophiles who have not been prosecuted. About %90 of them, probably.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


OK. Herostratus (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Are people likely to confess to a criminal offence? Via self-reporting, I'd've thought people would almost always deny commiting a serious crime- unless they'd already been convicted for that offence, or they have an erm, interesting psychological state.Merkin's mum 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
People can make their reputation out of having committed criminal offences, see Howard Marks but obviously not from pedopohile based crimes. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, getting back to the beginning, Petra is absolutely right that as a general rule PAW has no real right to define a term. The PAW definition (which I wrote, modified from a source document) should be and has been deleted and should be replaced by a listing of other non-OR definitions - such as the OED, DSM, and other dictionaries and reputable sources. My original intent in writing the definition was to clarify the definition sometimes used colloquially of pedophile as meaning child molester is not scholarly - e.g., "Convicted pedophile executed, film at 11" However, this can be done better by reference to dictionaries etc. (although one concern of this is, is it OK to copy the definition of a word from a copyrighted dictionary?) Another point re the DSM for example is that we aren't a medical text and we are not necessarily bound to be limited to only medical definitions for human conditions. This is why I synthesized the definition from a non-medical source. However, all that being said, this can be fixed by offering a variety of sources rather than our own, much as we did for the term "child". Herostratus (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The definite article "the" in English implies a well-defined object or concept. "Bring me the book" implies that you know which book, exactly, is being requested.
"The" definition of pedophilia simply is not that clear. "Pedophilia" is used colloquially and is not consistently defined even in the medico/psychological literature -- as anyone who carefully reads Pedophilia and other encyclopedic sources will realize. Any discussion of "the" definition of pedophilia (as in "the defintion of pedophilia includes acting out") wilfully ignores both scholarly controversy and a significant degree of confusion among the non-specialist reading public.
The problem we are struggling with here is that when "pedophilia" appears in the titles of Wikipedia entries, editors working on those entries have a history of introducing material that assumes variant definitions and then arguing with each other over those inclusions without coming to grips that their disagreements tend to be, at root, definitional. Is it so very wrong to point up this persistent pattern?
It is quite legitimate to have an encyclopedia entry that discusses a word -- especially a word central to controversy -- and how it is or has been used in different ways at different times and in different places and contexts. Vaclav Havel has written with much feeling on how difficult it is to discuss ideas once characterized as "socialism" or any of its synonyms after all those words were thoroughly and cynically debased in the 20th century. Such a topic is encyclopedic and not legitimately restricted to dictionaries.
My position is that the Wikipedia entry Pedophilia should be a touchstone for all articles that use the word "pedophilia". Let's make Pedophilia as good as we can. Then perhaps each article with "paedophilia/pedophilia" in its title could refer to appropriate passages in Pedophilia in its introduction, to help its readers understand what the particular entry that they have reached is trying to do. (At least when disputes break out, editors might refer to passages in Pedophilia to make their points.)
Of course the challenge is not to develop a single consensus Wikipedia definition! That's a straw man. The challenge is that Wikipedia needs a place where we present in NPOV fashion the denotations and connotations of "pedophilia" in its various contexts (e.g., medical/psychological; legal/law enforcement; media; common parlance), sorting them out well enough for the term to be used unambiguously in the various Wikipedia articles where it is appropriate.
Having experienced the remarkably robust reaction that even mildly raising this topic provokes in some quarters, I do so here with some trepidation. Some of us would just like to avoid another year of having to remove books from lists that mischaracterize their contents. And then (too often) having our motives and personal positions attacked directly or indirectly when we make modest suggestions that we had some hope might improve clarity. SocJan (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public notice

It's not OK in talk pages to refer child abuse experts as "victimologists". This is too similar to the proscribed usage "so-called victims". We can't expect to recruit and retain regular editors in an environment where this terminology is in use, and users can expect the same sanctions as would be expected for (say) calling Simon Wiesenthal a "victimologist". Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. See my talk. I think the title "public notice" and term "not OK" are in themselves inappropriate, and require an apparently needless revision of official terminology. Lambton T/C 18:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The term "victimologists" does not apply to this topic. It has its uses, particularly in criminology, but researchers into how children are harmed by sexual abuse are not victimologists. Using that term in this context is a diversion that needlessly inflames an already charged editing atmosphere, adding another obstacle to productive collaboration. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
How exactly is the term inflammatory? And how can you argue against it when it is in professional use? Lambton T/C 19:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against its professional use. I'm not arguing about anything. The use of that characterization on child abuse-related talk pages is counter-productive. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not an attack. Please clarify how it is either an attack or "counter-productive". Lambton T/C 20:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but this seems to be a rather pointless and distracting argument, from both sides. ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is distracting. But he's right. Victimology really is a professional term, and quite a good sociological descriptor for CSA subscribers such as David Finkelhor. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it is a pejorative term as used in insane rants by pseudoscientists such as David Riegl: [2]. And Finkelhor is not a "CSA subscriber." Trying to depict the mainstream as "victimologists" and "CSA subscribers" is (absurdly) inflammatory. There is no pro-life/pro-choice debate here; there is a fringe group and a vast majority. But even in the pro-life/pro-choice debate, it is not acceptable to call the pro-choice side "pro-abortion" or the pro-life side "anti-choice."-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
"No, it is a pejorative term"
I can only direct you towards victimological writings.
"as used in insane rants by pseudoscientists such as David Riegl"
Riegel may as well be an enlightened, forthright dissenter against majority abuse of the scientific model. It really means nothing to the point at hand.
"And Finkelhor is not a "CSA subscriber.""
He is. All of his work has been done within the assumptions of CSA theory.
"Trying to depict the mainstream as "victimologists" and "CSA subscribers" is (absurdly) inflammatory."
I think that you misunderstand the term. I wouldn't read too much into it, or lose sweat over it.
"But even in the pro-life/pro-choice debate, it is not acceptable to call the pro-choice side "pro-abortion" or the pro-life side "anti-choice.""
The science debate is a lot more open than the public one. No one denies that. In fact, it is far more open than you yourself paint it with appeals to ideas of "fringe minority" that better suit political movements such as PP activism. Daniel Lièvre (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
In the Wiki Abortion Project, they agreed to call pro-life pro-life, and pro-choice pro-choice in all abortion related articles and talkpages. Because that is what people who hold those views call themselves IRL; and because that is what produced a more harmonious and productive editing environment. Here, we refer to pro pedophile activists as pro-pedophile activists, because that is what they call themselves. We do not refer to them in general as babyfu**ers, for example, in talkpage discussions, even if that is what other people have called them, because that would be intentionally rude and inflammatory. David Finkelhor is an expert in the field of child sexual abuse. Some people like David Reigl have called him a "victimologist," imputing motives Finkelhor does not profess, in the same derogatory way that calling a pro-choice person "pro-abortion" falsely imputes motives. That is not what Finkelhor calls himself, or what anyone else except PPAs calls him. Therefore it is inflammatory, inappropriate, not conducive to collaborative editing, etc to call researchers in the field of child sexual abuse "victimologists" or "CSA subscribers," or anything else except researchers in child sexual abuse. We report on debates; we do not carry them out by namecalling.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I applaud PetraSchelm's acknowledgment here that it is not conducive to a harmonious and productive editing environment to label people (and the positions they hold) in ways quite different from those they use to describe themselves. For example, I have been astonished at the ease with which other editors insinuate that I must be a "pro-pedophile activist".
When an editor raises a question or makes a point that has also been raised or made by people thought to be "pro-pedophile activists", the response ought not be to brush aside that contribution on the grounds that such questions or points are raised only by a handful of pro-pedophile activists and sympathizers (which amounts to accusing the editor of being one).
Seeing "pro-pedophilia activism" around every other corner is just as wrong-headed as refusing to see it anywhere. It is excellent that PetraSchelm supports careful use of labels assigned to people and their positions, and acknowledges that doing so cuts both ways in discussions of emotionally charged issues such as abortion and pedophilia. Assuming good faith and treating people and their ideas with respect does make sense and improves the editing environment at Wikipedia. In her fourth week,PetraSchelm shows considerable growth as an editor. SocJan (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to seem insensitive to anyone, but who cares?! It's obvious that some people really take this to heart, but this semantic distinction really doesn't impact the article itself or its improvement. Can't you guys just get along, and agree not to throw controversial labels around? ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Herostratus and Jovin Lambton obviously care, as Hero posted a public notice asking that the term "victimologist" not be used, and Jovin protested; responded by using the term in capital letters; wants to know why it is "counterproductive" etc. You agree that the matter is settled now?--Hero's public notice is in effect, and it has been clarified why using "victimologist" is counterproductive?-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally think the whole issue has been blown way out of proportion, and all the bickering is quite counterproductive. Some editors seem to be aching for a dispute, when there's no real need to focus on something so petty right now. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean Daniel Lievre, who is now blocked? And you agree the matter is settled now?--Hero's public notice is in effect, and it has been clarified why using "victimologist" is counterproductive?-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm more content, as long as the pointless bickering has stopped. However, even if Herostratus's self-declared public notice is now "in effect," the notice itself was a bit much and quite distrating from issues that really matter. ~ Homologeo (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the term

Also has precedent in John Money and Agustin Malon. But considering the self-fulfiling nature of this term's offensiveness, what's the good in using it? Lambton T/C 05:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)