This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pedophilia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I have done some re-structuring and padding with a few references, but this really needs a comprehensive quality and completeness review by an expert Timpo (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Timpo, you should review WP:Manual of Style so that you become familiar with the appropriate times to capitalize headings or portions of headings. Other issues are that you capitalize non-heading words that should not be capitalized, and you sometimes forget to add a period at the end of a sentence or you violate WP:REFPUNCT by placing a punctuation after the reference. I've tweaked your text before. See here and here, before Legitimuschanged what you'd added. So, again, become better familiarized with WP:Manual of Style so that cleaning up your text is not left up to others. Editors have been known to remove text simply because it substantially goes against WP:Manual of Style. I'm waiting to see if Legitimus will alter your text again, before I tweak your text again.
As for your expert-tag, it doesn't take an expert to fix up this article. But I'm not going to contest the tag at this time. I have barely edited this article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
So far the content itself is pretty good though. It reads a little funny, but I'm not skilled enough at primary writing and style to provide a proper critique. Feel free to edit, Flyer. I'd like to add more biology but I need to find the right books since this is a bit outside my own expertise. I'm thinking popular mainstream medical textbooks.Legitimus (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Missed this one. Also, the Christianity and Islam sections are a bit off-topic since they don't mention children. While the text can be taken to apply to children as well, it is best for this article to have text that specifically focuses on children and especially child sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
More tweaks. I will make more every now and then to this article, especially when needed. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Much better article now, well done and thanks - it looks OK now - I am not an expert, but if someone better informed agrees, ¿maybe the expert tag should go?. Thanks for the tips. Generally I use capitals for what I think are 'proper' nouns like Punishment Tables (specific documents), and I do tend to capitalize headings. The others are 'cut and paste' links to be sure I spell correctly (I can be a bit dyslexic, so the spell-check is always on, but (like me) it is not a perfect solution - regards, Timpo (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course I agree with removing the expert-tag. And as for using capitals...and capitalizing headings, just make sure that you no longer format Wikipedia articles improperly (including forgetting to add periods); it's improper on Wikipedia, per, like I pointed to above, WP:Manual of Style. Formatting articles like that leaves others to clean up after you. Flyer22 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
"Confucius is said to have stated: "I have never seen one who loves virtue as much as he loves sex." Confucius in 'Analects'"
I have a copy of The Analects and I believe that this passage is 9.18 (chapter 9, paragraph 18). Although I don't speak Archaic Chinese, the translation for the passage goes like "The Master said, 'I have not seen one who loves virtue as he loves beauty.'" (子曰：「吾未見好德如好色者也。」) in the Chinese Text Project and "The Master Said: 'I've never seen someone who enjoys Virtue as much as (he) enjoys the beauty of women." in Sinedino Giorgio translation to Portuguese (published by UNESP in 2012, ISBN 978-85-393-0227-7).
Although one may interpret the passage like in the way that is written on the article (that he meant, literally, sex), Zhu Xi commentary explains the situation in which Confucius said that, which leaves no doubt that he wasn't talking about sex, but simply about women.
I suggest this quote gets removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I originally inserted the following observation on the criticism of Kinsey's studies, namely that his studies involved sexual acts being committed on children: "though this criticism in and of itself neither invalidates nor confirms Kinsey's findings, residing more in ad hominem territory". This is a valid observation as, much as we me have cause to balk at Kinsey's use of child subjects, his methodology would have been speculative and unsound without using child subjects. This particular criticism of Kinsey is therefore not valid, calling into question his character rather than his methodology. My observation was removed without good reason, and I am reinstating it. Gloriousgee (talk 08:49, 8 January 2014 (GMT)
If Gloriousgee had actually bothered to read further into Kinsey's work, it would be quite obvious that his argument is pointless: Kinsey's entire dataset was from the diary of a single pedophile, and he intentionally obscured it to make it look like multiple sources. It's not ad-hominem; Kinsey lied and used a faulty source. I think it's about high time I updated that section to spell out the whole story, because it seems like nobody ever heard "Part II."Legitimus (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)