Talk:Sexual abuse

Footnote #4

I'm not sure where do i post this. I was trying to find for a complaint button without success, thus I choose to write it here, hoping someone would take this into concern. The footnote # 4 on this article leads to a very disturbing website that promotes hatred againts Islam. Also, the website contains list of other blogs which are more extreme than the website itself. I have nothing againts the particular article that was meant to be inserted in the footnote though, but i do see alot of biased and hate comments posted below the article in that website,for example a comment suggesting an ethnic cleansing of Muslims. Links attached to the websites suggest these kind of page names :Burning the Koran for freedom, Creeping Sharia,Islamo nazism, Stop Islamisation of Europe, Why Islam is not a religion of peace, etc. I agree you can't stop people from spreading lies, and you can't stop them from reading lies too. But being an unbiased and neutral org Wikipedia is itself, it should not the least participate in linking people into hate promoting websites like these.Articles in Wikipedia should refer to reliable sources as it says in the guidelines for editors but what I see here, it's exposing the readers to a source which contains more personal opinions than generally accepted knowledge. I strongly suggest Christians and people from other religions to check on the rest of the footnotes too so they can voice out if they link to misleading websites as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryazadeh (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the right place to discuss article changes. However, Wikipedia is not in the business of censoring content for the reasons you describe. With that said, the source is a blog, which is generally frowned upon. If you can find another source, ideally a news article from a prominent paper, or even a blog with more notability, it would serve as a great replacement. And by the way, welcome to wikipedia! Jess_talk|_edits 21:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Your concerns are absolutely correct--that site is a blog, which fail WP:RS in almost all cases. As such, I have removed the reference. Without a valid reference, I went ahead and removed Islam from the list, as this is such a serious allegation that we need at least one valid source. If anyone has a reliable source to support abuse in Islam, they may re-add with citation, of course. If you ever see a blog being used as a reliable source, please feel free to remove the source, and consider removing the information as well, especially if it is contentious. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I (very sloppily) undid most of your change. I left out the source being discussed here, since it really is out of place, but the other content seems appropriate. Sex abuse issues with Islam seem to be popping up all the time, and given that we have at least one QS stating as much, that should be left in with a CN tag until we can find a suitable replacement. The Jehova's Witnesses have a whole article devoted to sex abuse cases as well, which is already linked. That seems to be well sourced, so if you'd like to pull in something from that article to this one, that would be ok - though not technically necessary. Also, as a sidenote, you removed my edit in an edit conflict when replying. I undid that for you, but it's just something to look out for :) All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 23:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Apologies, as I didn't mean to delete your comment--there must have been some sort of edit conflict (I was rushing to finish that before getting ready for work). While I think Mann_jess was wrong to reinsert Islam without a valid reference, I guess it can stay in for a while to see if someone can reference it. Of course, we are always allowed to delete any unsourced info, and the burden to find the source lies on those who want to include the info, so if anyone else wants to delete it now they are more than welcome to do so.

(ec)Also, I must disagree with what you (Mann_jess) say about blogs. There is almost no such thing as a "blog with more notability." Per WP:SPS, there are really only 3 situations in which blogs are acceptable sources: when they are giving information about the subjection (in which case there are a whole bunch of special criteria such as a lack of undue self-promotion), when the "blog" isn't really a blog but actually an article in an reliable online newspaper that has editorial control that just uses the word "blog" to sound modern (often because they allow reader comments), or when the writer of the blog is a verified expert in the field (in which case you must be absolutely certain of the identity of the writer and must be able to prove the person meets the status of expert, and even then it would be a case-by-case basis). The only possible reason I could imagine to use a blog as a reference for this piece of information would be if there was a well known scholar (university professor, etc.) who was well-known as an expert on the practical aspects of one or more Islamic sects (i.e., not an Islamic religious scholar/Quranic expert, but an expert in the social and political nature of Islam). But in that case, since this is a general sentence, why not cite the reliable works for which the expert is known?

(ec--responding to your 23:32 comment): I agree with the re-addition of the JW--I should have noticed the wikilink to the page on their abuses. I still strongly disagree with the re-addition of Islam, but that's because, in general, I think that information should be sourced before adding, not added in the hope/expectation a source will turn up later (i.e., I'm an immediatist). Furthermore, I think that when we're alleging something like sexual abuse, we need to be extra sure to have a strong, reliable source first. But, of course, others have different editing philosophies, so I figure it can stay in, at least for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, as you said, there are cases where a blog is acceptable as a reliable source. There are, indeed, blogs which do have notability and a reputation for checking facts which we use elsewhere on the site. I agree that in this case a blog isn't ideal, and it should be a simple matter of google searching to find a worthy replacement from a newspaper or book. I would agree with you that the content should be removed until such a time, except that we had a QS in its place up until today. CN tags are there to be used for a reason, and I think this is a good one - it gives our editors a chance to find a suitable replacement without negatively impacting the article content in the interim. There's no need to rush these things, and if we don't have an editor step up and provide a source in a reasonable time, it should be removed. Jess_talk|_edits 03:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of victims advocacy link

I removed the Canadian sexual abuse victim's advocacy link, because I believe that link is in clear violation of WP:EL. The nutshell summary of WP:EL reads, "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Per this, the standard for inclusion on external links is quite high. Take a look at WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE. This link definitely doesn't meet any of the WP:ELYES guidelines. There is no indication on that site that it is a particularly reliable source; rather, per it's About page, "SexAssault.ca is a Canadian victims advocacy website founded by Philanthropist Mark Zinck." There is no info provided to give any reason to believe that the site creators have any particular knowledge or expertise in the field, or that the information is in any way reliable. As such, I don't believe it is appropriate to include that link. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of sexually abused child

I just joined Wikipedia so I don't have the authority to make changes to this topic yet, but perhaps I can persuade someone else to? I think the picture of the sexually abused child should be removed because: 1. The child has not provided permission for his/her picture to be used on Wikipedia. 2. The picture is exploitative of the child and should have never been taken or published in the first place. Just because the child is anonymous and the individual is likely no longer alive today doesn't mean it's ok to use his/her photo. Imagine if we posted a picture of a child who was sexually abused last year? Laws would prevent this. 3. The picture serves absolutely no purpose in enhancing the information about the topic except to affect the reader's emotions. Surely we can feel emotional about the horrors of child sexual abuse without looking at a photo. 4. The picture also serves to perpetuate harmful stereotypes that "this is what an abused child looks like"- listless and battered. The face of child sexual abuse is not obvious and it is diverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joy3482 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right and I have removed the picture. I had not looked at this article in several years and had I noticed it before I would have removed it sooner. I don't know what the back story is with that photo but some tosser kept trying to insert it into other articles too.Legitimus (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Or not. Seems some other user accused me of censorship, though had he read the talk page he would see it was nothing of the sort. Well, whoever has a serious argument in favor of keeping the image, please post.Legitimus (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about the picture being included. But I can understand the "this is what an abused child looks like - listless and battered" opposition. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know where this picture is from? I am not even clear what I am looking at other than a child who looks physically ill. My concern is that someone just took a random photo of a sick child and added a description, which is all kinds of wrong.

But also, this is a subject that should never have a face assigned to it. It doesn't illustrate anything about the subject. None of my textbooks contain any photos about sexual abuse other than pictures of perpetrators, or clean smiling family photos of well-known victims.Legitimus (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Through sheer exposure, I have long ago stopped having much emotional reaction to such cases at all. (Imagine the difference between a regular person seeing a car accident victim versus a surgeon who long ago developed the "skin" needed to remain objective and focused on treatment. I still don't believe that the photo belongs, however, simply because the photo does not reasonably depict the actual issue. The great, great majority of victims are visually indistingishable from children who are not sexually abused. What is visible is the (non-sexual) violence, such as this victim shows. I have therefore re-removed the pic.— James Cantor (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Legitimus, I don't know where the picture is from. And I understand your concern about someone having been deceptive with the description. I agree with you and James on why the picture should be excluded. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think the child in that photo is deceased. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this really needed?

"Bad Touch" redirects here. For the song, see The Bad Touch.- I've heard young children use that terminology. I've heard Adults use that terminology to young children.It just seems rather mocking to have it here. Is there an actual need for it? I just have the mental picture of a bloodhound gang fan having a herp derp moment upon finding this page as opposed to the opposite.24.115.19.178 (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bulletpoint lacks sufficient detail.

"Saying sexually suggestive statements towards a child (child molestation)." I'm sorry is this saying that saying sexually suggestive statements to , towards, or at a child is Child molestation? I mean if so wouldn't the Character that Julia Roberts plays in the Stepmom be committing Child molestation while talking to her future stepdaughter. Roberts tells her future stepdaughter to insult a boy at school who previously humiliated her, telling him that she doesn't waste her time with "losers who don't even know what snowblowing is." That's just a rather tame and innocent example. further more and honestly as written it seems more like sexual harassment tan anything else as it is written.24.115.19.178 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)