Talk:Child sexual abuse

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Laws on CSA

I'm going to take a whack at rewriting the entire section and present it here for discussion within 48 hours. ZeroZ 12:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite is up on my user page. -ZeroZ 12:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sexual mistreatment

My uncited/unverified edit to this page with the section "sexual mistreatment of minors" was removed due to exclusionism due to the page being controversial. What do you think of the separate definition of "sexual mistreatment" of minors that involves exposing minors to sexual material/pornography and corrupting their mental, emotional, and psychological state? Is this topic already covered in this article or in sexual abuse, does it merit an article/stub article of its own, etc.?

See my original edit. -- Wykypydya 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for bringing this to Talk as I requested. Can you find some citations to scientific research to support your edit? Try looking at this research proposal I linked above [1]. You may find a reference to this topic there. Also look at this book which is on line, full text, especially this chapter, beginning on this page: [2]. I think your idea would be a good addition to the topic, but we need to discuss where it would be placed too. -Jmh123 22:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

problems with the "Prohibited activities" section

There are a couple of inaccurate or misleading claims about what is generally prohibited under CSA laws in the "Prohibited activities" section such as:

"sexual contact between related adults and related children which is incest"

Sexual activity betweens two related adults is not a crime in all U.S. states. Also I believe their is often a legal distinction made between closely related adults/children and distantly related adults/children.

"inducing a child to touch his/her genitals or another's genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification"

If a parent advocates masturbation as a safe alternative to sexual activities for their teen/preteen son or daughter and their son or daughter later masturbates in private because of this then in a sense they "induced a child to touch his/her genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification" but unless I'm mistaken no U.S. state would consider that a crime. I believe the activity would need to take place in the presence of the adult. If the part about "for the purpose of sexual gratification" was meant to refer to the inducer's sexual gratification then that should be made clear. If no one expresses any reason why I shouldn't make changes to these two statements then I will go ahead and fix them. --Cab88 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do. Thanks. -Jmh123 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you put your proposed changes here and then editors can comment on it? DPeterson^talk 00:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to change the sentences: to read:

• sexual contact between closely related children and in some jurisdictions related adults which is incest
• inducing a child to touch his/her genitals or another's genitals in one's presence for the purpose of sexual gratification"

Does the above rewrites seem satisfactory to everyone? --Cab88 02:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The second one is good, the first doesn't get the point across--makes it sound as if sex between closely related children is incest, but sex between children and closely related adults is in some jurisdictions not incest. What about:

• sexual contact between children and adults closely related to them, which is a form of incest -Jmh123 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In some U.S. States it is not illegal for closely related adults to have sex. It may still be incest but it is not illegal which is what I was trying to make clear. As DPeterson suggest below, I think the whole section should be rewritten and I'll wait for his/her rewrite proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I think I understand what you're saying. The thing is, the statement isn't meant to define incest. Does the addition in bold above address your question? I agree it's better to wait for the rewrite that's coming but I'm curious as to where we are not communicating. -Jmh123 05:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Prohibited Activities" is inaccurate, in that the language of many of the points only fuzzily reflects the relevant laws on the subject. Also, the format is problematic, as it suggests that the items included are an exhaustive list, or somehow more important as "types" of CSA. Absorbing the list into a more rigorous Laws section would be highly preferable. May I request that no decision be made on these items until I present the proposed section rewrite on the Laws section here tomorrow? With thanks, ZeroZ 06:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ZeroZ, that's a good idea. DPeterson^talk 10:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--that would be helpful. The writing is very awkward. -Jmh123 14:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not for nothing ... but aren't we discussing child sexual abuse? From what I've read, it seems some of you are debating whether incest (sex between related adults) is illegal in some jurisdictions ... instead shouldn't we be discussing sex between a child and an older relative? Or for that matter what's the difference? Sexual abuse is sexual abuse regardless of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator... right? (I think) Viper2k6 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence of child marriages

I recently added:

Nonetheless, many women are married before the age of 15, often to older men, without their consent, and with financial motivations: up to 20% in some nations and 50% in some regions. In some regions the arranged marriage of the Prophet Muhammed to a six-year-old girl, consummated at the age of nine,, is taken to illustrate the virtue of the practice.

In reference to a speedy revert I deleted a somewhat peripheral comment that the practice is vigorously defended, with reference to Submission (film) and murdered filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, which admittedly is somewhat more relevant to my POV than to the article.

Nonetheless, the overall statement is very important. The article currently gives the clear impression throughout that child molestation has been universally marginalized and occurs only in a criminal context, when in reality it remains the law of the land, and of God, in many places. 204.186.20.137 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

First, your comment was added to the head of the article, which is not an article on cross-cultural marriage practices, but on child sexual abuse. Presumably, if a culture permits child marriage, then within that culture, the practice is not regarded as child sexual abuse. Therefore your statement is not relevant to the article, and particularly in this location, which creates a misleading sense of the content of the article. Second, your comment does not contradict the statement, " Although these laws differ in detail, all set an age - typically falling somewhere between the typical onset of puberty and the age of majority - under which all sexual contact with adults is deemed abusive and illegal." This statement clearly states that the laws set an age under which etc etc. Clearly if a culture which permits a marriage such as the one you describe, then the age determined by that culture is met--and again, you are talking about sex within the context of a marriage, which is therefore legally sanctioned. Thirdly, Muhammed lived a long time ago; the reference pertains to current practices. Fourthly, your comment follows a statement on incest. None of the material you added is relevant to incest. -Jmh123 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

New proposal - reasons for child sexual abuse

I'd like to propose we add a section that describes the reasons for child sexual abuse.

Although I don't have a source to provide, I believe it's safe to say sexual abuse isn't always perpetrated by pedophiles - those who are sexually attracted to children. It can also be due to marital problems, alcohol/drugs, a form of punishment, etc.

Although the "Regressed Offenders" section touches on this a little bit, it doesn't do so in great detail.

I think the distinction between "pedophile" and "child sex offender" should be noted - because as someone has stated in the article, the word "pedophile" has unfortunately become a colloquialism to refer to child sex offenders.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

As to the proposed section, I'm not aware of any scholarly sources to support this either. To add this, we'll have to have some. As to the distinction you mention, the text as written is an effort to note just that. If you feel that there is a better way, please submit an alternative here in Talk and get some feedback from others. Thanks! Oh, and please remember to sign your posts using four tildes. (See right above the box you write your comments in.) -Jmh123 17:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There would have to be sources that meet the Wikipedia standard of being reliable and verifiable. If you can provide that along with your proposal then it can be reviewed here by others. RalphLender^talk 17:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, I found a few articles that give other reasons for sexual abuse, not related to pedophilia:

StopItNow.org

Scroll to "Causes of Child Sexual Assault"

Scroll to "But he's Married"

Two of the sources are from the same source (StopItNow.org), but it's worth a look. Let me know what you think. And thanks for reminding me to sign my name Jmh.

Viper2k6 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The first two sources are not scientific. Useful as the multitude of websites concerning these issues may be to some, we're trying hard here to stick to research, as it has been repeatedly suggested that there may be some disagreement between public perception and scientific findings. The middle source concludes that section with the following disclaimer:

To date there is a paucity of hard evidence to support either Finkelhor's model or the risk factors (Oates 1990). Oates believes that this can be used as an indication that child sexual abuse is a complicated phenomenon, with no simple solutions. Goddard and Carew (1993) contended that Finkelhor's model indicated more about how sexual abuse occurs rather than why it occurs. They argued that in order to understand sexual abuse, like other forms of child maltreatment, it is necessary to categorise and separate the various types of sexually abusive behaviour, given that different causative factors may be operating for each 'type' of abuse.

Sounds like a pretty complicated issue. There's been plenty of time to research Finkelhor's model since published. The Oates citation is to 1990, the other to 1993. Any researchers know of studies testing this? Let's make sure we get it right before adding anything. -Jmh123 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a very good point, and I do agree with you. However, shouldn't we update related articles as well? For example:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch - "child sex offender, also called "child sex abuser", or "child molester" (the latter term being deprecated for scholarly use). Some child sex criminals are also paedophiles, but not necessarily. It is idiomatically common, but not scholarly, to call all such persons paedophiles."

Pedophilia - "Occurrence in child sex offenders" - "A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is, despite all medical definitions, commonly assumed to be a pedophile, and referred to as such; however, there may be other motivations for the crime[21] (such as stress, marital problems, or the unavailability of an adult partner),[38] much as adult rape can have non-sexual reasons"

I agree that all claims should be cited even if there is general consensus, however these claims already exist elsewhere on Wikipedia. NOT TO SAY that Wikipedia should be cited as a verifiable source lol, but I feel there should be consistency amongst articles related to child sexual abuse and pedophilia. What are your thoughts?

Viper2k6 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To sum of what I just said: It seems as though you're stating that all child sex offenders are pedophiles - which would mean there's no such thing as regressed/situational offenders. Hence why I thought we could give a list of other possible (non pedophilic related) motivations.

However, if you want solid academic research before posting such information, then it would only be logical to remove such unverified claims from other child sex related articles (the ones I listed above) - until we come across such research.

Viper2k6 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave it alone for now and continue discussions. BTW, by definition, all child molesters/child sexual abusers are pedophiles per the DSM! DPeterson^talk 22:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

false. the dsm diagnosis requires the abuser continue their behavior for at least six months (and even then the dsm definition is clearly overbroad). ~[[kinda]] 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not false, you just added a minor detail. Regardless, molesting children is a mental illness per DSM and is also illegal and a crime. DPeterson^talk 22:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah, a 'minor detail' that proves false your ignorant claim that all child molesters are pedophiles "per the dsm." and no, molesting children is definitely not a mental illness per anyone but you. a persistent pattern of molesting children may be indicative of a mental illness, though. ~[[kinda]] 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well not just DPetersen and that's even on wikipedia. "Molesting children is a mental illness" is the soft approach, the hard approach says they are all criminals, and as an NPOV encycloepdia we should say both are true, SqueakBox 22:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PROTIP: a mental illness is a deleterious mental health condition, not an action. ~[[kinda]] 22:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on illegal actions and mentally ill behavior, per DSM. DPeterson^talk 23:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm kinda new here ... but I don't think it takes a regular to say that this conversation has become completely derailed. I think it'd only be logical to start a new category if we're to debate whether actions alone can be used to diagnosis pedophilia......can we at least agree on that? Viper2k6 06:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, folks have been busy elsewhere. Please wait and see if your concerns are addressed by the forthcoming changes in the legal section, and, if not, then feel free to start a new category. -Jmh123 21:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

quote

"Fear literally arises from the core of the brain, affecting all brain areas and their functions in rapidly expanding waves of neurchemical acticity...also important is a stress hormone called cortisol.", p. 64.

not only does this not explicitly support what it claims to, it appears to be speculative rather than empirical. i have never encountered any study supporting the claim made there in my research, and if a book just claims that rather than a study having found that, the statement should be either changed or removed, especially since empirical observations contradicts it. ~[[kinda]] 23:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You asked for the supporting quote and it has been provided. It adheres to the Wikipedia standard of being Wikipedia:Verifiability and therefore is appropriate. If you think it is not, cite the specific Wiki policy or standard it violates. DPeterson^talk 00:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

the issue is that the quote DOES NOT support the statement. i am quite sure that NO study has ever found elevated cortisol in csa survivors. you have not provided support for your claim that "studies" have. ~[[kinda]] 00:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is verifiable and meets standards...unless you can provide another policy it violates, it stands. DPeterson^talk 00:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

However, I recognize that I may be wrong, so let's see what other editors think and leave the article as it is untill we receive comments and build a consensus. DPeterson^talk 00:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

isn\t there a policy against adding misinformation? you still haven't provided any evidence csa survivors have elevated cortisol. ~[[kinda]] 00:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

quote provided...let's see what other editors say. DPeterson^talk 00:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

uhh.. the quote says cortisol is important. that's all. it does not support the statement. ~[[kinda]] 00:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

in fact i agree that cortisol is important in some way, seeing as csa victims are significantly _lacking_ in it in comparison to controls. it indicates that some part of the hpa axis has been damaged just as much as elevated cortisol. ~[[kinda]] 00:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should apply the same standards all around. Just because it's in a book doesn't mean that it is true, and I don't think Wikipedia policy makes that claim. Let's use our brains and investigate. Is the author of the book a reliable source on neurochemistry? What are his/her credentials? Is there science to support/negate the statement? And so on. -Jmh123 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

his speculation is theoretically reasonable, but none of the empirical research i have read supports it and some of it contradicts it. (though i do remember reading one study about [neglected?] orphans who were found to have elevated cortisol.) ~[[kinda]] 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Perry is a MD & Ph.D., (psychiatrist and psychologist) who has publised extensively about the effects of trauma on the brain and brain neuro-chemistry. He's treated the Branch Davidian kids and been called into many other prom cases. He has extensive research in this area, citations in his book. DPeterson^talk 00:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote doesn't say whether cortisol is lower or higher; it just says it's important. Does Perry reference any studies? The statement to which the quote has been added, and which the footnote to Perry follows, says that "other studies have been found." Can we cite studies he refers to? -Jmh123 01:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dumb questions: Do cortisol levels determine the size of the hippocampus and corpus callosum? Is the following part of the same argument, or an alternative hypothesis? "The authors hypothesized that the development of brain regions which myelinate over decades (such as the corpus callosum and hippocampus) may be disturbed by stress, because stress hormones such as cortisol supress the final mitosis of granule cells and thereby the production of the oligodendrocytes and Schwann cells that form the myelin sheath.[59]" How much of the "Neurological differences" section is directly related to this cortisol issue? Part of the problem, to this lay reader, is that the information is not presented clearly. -Jmh123 01:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

cortisol is just involved in some explanations for the observed differences. "Do cortisol levels determine the size of the hippocampus and corpus callosum?" more research is needed to answer this. ~[[kinda]] 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Read [[3]] and read the text and read the citations on the website. That is enough for now. It is all verifiable and meets the wikipedia policy standards for inclusion...but if you disagree try an RfC. DPeterson^talk 01:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

that page does not contain the word cortisol anywhere. and you're yet to give any verifiable study to support the statement. ~[[kinda]] 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the book and the page does have the work and quote...DPeterson^talk 01:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also see [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]] [[8]] DPeterson^talk 01:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be wrong and misleading but it should be included anyway, wikipedia does not claim to know the truth, it only speaks mirrors what other people say and beleive. If enough people beleive that the world is flat, then that will be the truth on wikipedia. Revolt against the modern world 11:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Rewrite of Laws Section

It's up. I'm still working on formatting citations. Please comment here. -ZeroZ 12:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice work. I have a question/concern about the line,

"Although the term pedophile is used colloquially to describe child sexual offenders, this is misleading, as not all child sexual offenders are principally sexually attracted to children, and not all pedophiles perpetrate child sexual abuse."

By DSM def., if the behavior has a 6-month hx, then the person is a pedophile. DPeterson^talk 13:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. To speak to your point, actual sexual activity with a minor is not necessary to fulfill Criterion A:

Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, OR behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children

Fantasies or urges by themselves, without any sexual activity would be sufficient to meet this criterion.

Even so, meeting Criterion A alone is not sufficient for a diagnosis of pedophilia. The subject must also meet Criterion B: (The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.) and Criterion C: (The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.)

So, a 30 year-old person who had recurrent sexually arousing fantasies about a 15 year-old person for more than six months, and who was so distressed by the fantasies that s/he had *never* acted on them would fit the diagnosis. Because of this, legal professionals increasingly prefer to limit the use of the term "pedophile" to psychiatric discussions. They instead use "CSA perpetrator," "child sexual offender," or "predatory pedophile" when describing a person who actually performs sexual activities, since it is that behavior which is the focus for legal professionals. -ZeroZ 18:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Another comment is that I think the introduction to the article should stay as it is with the inclusion of

Pedophilia is a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-IV-R[2]; the term pedophile is often used colloquially to denote a child sexual abuser. The assailants can be of either sex as can the victim. Child sexual abuse is illegal in all countries about which information is available.

DPeterson^talk 13:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a particular reason for wanting the pedophile definition in the intro? I really want to keep the terms for perpetrators all in one section ("Offender Terminology"), so as to bring out the distinction I discussed above. I limited the intro to a taxonomy of the term "child sexual abuse" to keep it relatively short. But to meet the concerns in your earlier comment, I have expanded the paragraph defining the term "pedophile" so as to clarify its use. Let me know what you think. -ZeroZ 18:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks very good--much more clear and cogent. Thanks for all the work. -Jmh123 16:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Right back at you, Jmh123. You, DPeterson, and the others have been doing a yeoman's job (several yeomen's jobs!) this past week. -ZeroZ 18:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since, by DSM def. most perps of child sexual abuse are pedophiles, it is prominent, and so I'd think that info belongs in the brief, summary, general intro. The three lines you suggest adding would be just fine.DPeterson^talk 19:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the terminology up to the Intro and you were right; it looks very good , I think. Since the definition is now up there in the intro, I removed the duplicative material from the "Offenders" section at the bottom of the article. BTW, the material on "regressed" and "fixated" offenders is unsourced, if we are keeping a task list. Cheers, ZeroZ 13:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming there's no objection from other quarters, and any issues with DPeterson are now resolved, I think you can implement these excellent changes at any time. -Jmh123 21:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! -ZeroZ 13:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Effects" - question about one sentence

Under Effects (middle of third paragraph) it states:

Their examination of a small sample of CSA-discordant twins also supported a causal link between child sexual and adult psychopathology

Did the author mean to say "between child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology"?

Viper2k6 02:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(From the Who Moved My Cheese Dept: "Effects" section is now titled "Effects of Child Sexual Abuse" and is located at section 2.1 of the article.) -ZeroZ 13:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, Viper. -Jmh123 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Question re def.

I think this line may be inaccurate and should be removed:

Although the term "pedophile" is used colloquially to refer to child sexual offenders, this is inaccurate and confusing, because not all child sexual offenders meet the diagnostic criteria of pedophilia, and not all pedophiles act on their fantasies or urges.

for the following reasons:

1. A person convicted of child sexual abuse will generally meet the DSM criteria in all but a few very rare instances. 2. The convict will have engaged in activity involving secual activity 3. Age difference 4. Caused sign impairment on social functioning.

What do other editors think of changing this to:

The term "pedophile" is used colloquially to refer to child sexual offenders, although not all pedophiles act on their fantasies or urges, child sexual abuse, the activity, is illegal and also a mental illness.

DPeterson^talk 13:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My preferred version would be similar to DPeterson's: The term "pedophile" is used colloquially to refer to child sexual offenders, but not all child sexual offenders meet the diagnostic criteria of pedophilia, and not all pedophiles act on their fantasies or urges. I think the stark form actually carries more meaning than the extra words do. I think both of you make good points though; I just don't think "inaccurate and confusing" accomplishes the desired myth debunking. I would support more text on that topic that spells it out as you do in your rationale, ZeroZ. -Jmh123 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this...JonesRD_talk 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your point is excellent; I'm revamping now (more below) -ZeroZ

SUPPORT CHANGE

1. _

DO NOT SUPPORT CHANGE

1. It's my understanding that the typical child sex offender is situational - someone who (1) is horny, (2) has no character or impulse control, and (3) has control over a child such as access to their girlfriend's daughter or whatever. And the person is perfectly capable of enjoying relations with a grown woman, and so is not a pedophile. And is not mentally ill, unless one wants to hold that criminals in general are mentally ill. Herostratus 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is the case. Do you have any citations to support that statement? My experience is that child sex offenders have a history of molesting children long before being caught. DPeterson^talk 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

1. My rationale is here, (begins six lines down from the top.) Also, this citation may be useful: Weinrott, M. and Saylor, M. Self-Report of Crimes Committed by Sex Offenders, 6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 286, 286-300 (1991) (In a study of sex offenders, intrafamilial child sexual offenders self-reported high degree of "crossover" sexual offenses, defined as rapes of non-related children and adult women). In other words, the relationship between the psychiatric diagnosis and the culpable criminal behavior is not one-to-one. To conflate them leads to the myth that if a person has adult relationships and doesn't hang around playgrounds in a raincoat, then that person is safe to have around the kids. That's the kind of myth it would be great to debunk here. -ZeroZ 14:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the suggestion above by "J" that what we need is more material...This is a complex issue and maybe a paragraph is needed instead of a line or two? What would you think about doing that...expand the material with the explainations you and I have written? DPeterson^talk 15:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, and Jmh123's point about avoiding adjectival description is well taken. I am going to rewrite that part of the intro now and add in the citation from our explanatory material. -ZeroZ03:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done; see my comments below, at section entitled "Intro". -ZeroZ 11:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Another line to be deleted

This line:

The relationship between child sexual abuse and its attributed symptoms is contested,[30][45][46][47][48] because child sexual abuse frequently occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment.[49]

may not be accurate. The last study, #49, does 'not' reach the conclusion that, "The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects." DPeterson^talk 13:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I prpose deleting this line. What do others think? DPeterson^talk 13:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete, definitely. -ZeroZ 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'm tempted to start a new section to do this, but that might be too much. Zero, the work you've done is fantastic! -Jmh123 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK...BTW, I don't mean to imply in any way, shape, or form, that I don't like the amazing work ZeroZ has done here...It is great. Now that the article is in better shape and we can focus more, I am finding a point or two that we might want to futher clarify. DPeterson^talk 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the concern to get it right is a good thing. -Jmh123 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

the last study supports the fact that csa is often confounded with other factors. that is why it is cited. and this methodological issue is widely known and many researchers are now considering it in their studies. keep, definitely. ~[[kinda]] 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what the study concluded, see my quote above. DPeterson^talk 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

what are you talking about? the study is only cited because it reviews some of the other literature, and it DOES support the "child sexual abuse frequently occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment" statement. the line you quoted does not contradict this. "Child sexual abuse is not randomly distributed through the population. It occurs more frequently in children from socially deprived and disorganised family backgrounds (Finkelhor and Baron 1986; Beitchman et al. 1991; Russell 1986; Peters 1988; Mullen et al. 1993)." ~[[kinda]] 20:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of the study was that,

The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects

, the damage to these dimensions (trust, intimacy, etc) then lead to the other problems in later life not that those other issues (poor family environ) are confounding variables! Therefore, the line must go. DPeterson^talk 20:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

you did not reply to the content of my response, you just threw out a red herring. the reference does indeed support what it is given to support, that child sexual abuse occurs alongside possible confounding variables often. that this happens does not mean that the negative effects of child sexual abuse in itself are not significant. it is simply recognized by csa researchers that other variables have a confounding effect, and that is why many studies now control for environment. nevertheless, i have changed the reference to a different study by mullen that looks at the issue in depth and indeed concludes that these variables are confounding and frequent. (but not that csa by itself is harmless!) ~[[kinda]] 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Query

Just reread the intro -- I don't agree with the new line that was added:

For individuals in late adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judement must be used.

But a person has to be 16 or older for this diagnosis. Persons younger than 16 *cannot* be diagnosed with pedophilia, according to the DSM-IV, because they don't fulfill Criterion C. (Of course, if someone younger than 16 commits child sexual abuse s/he *can* certainly be judged to be a sex offender.) Is there more information? -ZeroZ 03:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That line is a direct quote from the DSM-IV. RalphLender^talk 13:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I have edited the intro along the lines of our discussion here. Removed the adjectives, added reference material to support the discussion of terminology. The 11:09am edit was me; got logged out accidentally. The line I asked about in "Query," just above this section, I left alone until we can reach consensus. Cheers, ZeroZ 11:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

DELETION

your concerns HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, as i have already explained thrice. there are NOT any comments here which are relevant to the information you are removing. please cease deleting material without discussion. ~[[kinda]] 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion looks good to me, SqueakBox 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

no reason for removing this information has been given, by you or dpeterson. this is a very notable methodological issue in the study of csa effects, which countless studies have addressed. i don't understand dpeterson's insistence on deleting it without comment! ~[[kinda]] 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason is that these are a very minor point and we should not give undue weight to ti. But, if you disagree, a poll would the appropriate dispute resolution vehicle to go to. DPeterson^talk 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

very minor? are you kidding? it's a major methodological issue that is well-known among research psychologists, discussed in innumerable studies and now usually considered in any serious investigation into the effects of child sexual abuse. there is also piles of mainstream research which has proven environment is a reliable covariate of the harm. (recent research has confirmed that csa by itself typically causes harm, but environment can predict the level of harm.) the issue is even known outside of research psychology thanks to the politicization of rind. furthermore, our explanation of this methodological issue is a necessary introduction to summaries of studies which have controlled for it. ~[[kinda]] 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

also, you have apparently misunderstood Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight. please read it again: it makes it clear that a view such as this, (i.e. that the history of csa victims often has possible confounding variables, and that these variables may skew the results of studies which fail to control for them) which is generally accepted by research psychologists and has "easy to name prominent adherents" in fact, a single sentence hardly does justice for all the information on potentially confounding variables, and some are ignored here (if you're interested, begin at p. 173 of david finkelhor's a sourcebook on child sexual abuse. to give a random example of a study supporting this:

"Perceived family environment appears to be an important mediating variable in determining general level of adult psychological distress ... Subsequent adult impairment may be an effect not only of abuse but also of the context in which it is embedded." (Nash, et al. (1993), p.282)

briere & elliot note that "The most critical issue is wellknown to behavioral scientists: Does the statistical relationship between abuse and later distress reflect a causal phenomenon (i.e., does childhood sexual abuse have negative psychological impact), or is the relationship caused by other variables such as concomitant family dysfunction or the impact of other events during or after the abuse" (p.284)

of course, not all scientists believe it is wise to control for these covariates. briere & elliot also point out that sexual abuse may to some degree control family environment, or that sexual abuse may affect the subject's adult perception of their family environment. perhaps this information can be added if you would stop trying to remove any reference to this notable issue! ~[[kinda]] 21:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than just reverting, I'd suggest the proper dispute resolution procedure is to now hold an informal poll. DPeterson^talk 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

consensus is supposed to be gained by meaningful discussion. this is exactly what i am doing, and what you are ignoring. this notable information will remain for this reasons i have already explained until someone can articulate a valid reason for removing it. ~[[kinda]] 22:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I will support the deletion, SqueakBox 22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

well your response does not indicate why. no one has given a valid reason for removing it. "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation..." you are not doing this. i am trying to. stop being unreasonable. ~[[kinda]] 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Its only aim appears to be to try to minimise the undoubtedly real harm done by child sexual abuse and as such is an extreme minority view without notability, SqueakBox 23:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

what? the sentence's only aim is to inform of the undoubtedly real controversy over this issue, one that is, as briere and elliot said, "wellknown to behavioral scientists." and that this methodological issue exists is definitely not an "extreme minority view," according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight. and, for your information, neither i nor any other researcher who recognize the importance of internal validity is trying to "minimize" the harm of child sexual abuse. please stop making these undue accusations. ~[[kinda]] 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you took offence but let me reassure you I wasnt referring to wikipedia editors but to the authors of the report and the report in general, SqueakBox 23:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

which report? i personally believe rind has an agenda, but the others do not seem to be seeking the abolishment of the aoc (judging from their other work). it is important that the gulf between science and morality be kept large. ~[[kinda]] 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your last is an interesting statement if somewhat controversial, SqueakBox 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think all the arguments have been made at this point and suggest, Kind0, that an informal poll might be appropriate at this point. Everyone seems to have said their piece. But if you wish to continue debating some more, that's fine too. Why keep the gulf between science and morality large? I mean, child sexual abuse is illegal and abhorant. DPeterson^talk 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

read finkelhor's "What's wrong with sex between adults and children? Ethics and the problems of child abuse." science cannot justify its immorality, since some children are asymptomatic, and morality should not dictate the finding's of a study because then the study would not be scientific. (in other words, they undermine each other.) ethics is a philosophical and not scientific matter.

and again, consensus is supposed to be reached through...two-sided...discussion. ~[[kinda]] 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The notion of confounding variables is scientific. Some of the other language might be controversial. How about this?
Because child sexual abuse can occur alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse, some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse [40][55][56][57][58] and some have hypothesized "that abuse effects are at least in part the results of dysfunctional family dynamics that support sexual abuse and produce psychological disturbance (Fromuth, 1986) and that concomitant physical or psychological abuse may account for some of the difficulties otherwise attributed to sexual abuse (Briere & Runtz, 1990)."[59] XXX, however, says, "in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects." --Jmh123 00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

that is okay with me. ~[[kinda]] 00:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Finkelhor's view is a view and opinion. Incest and sexual abuse is pretty much taboo in prety much all societies. The children are "asymptomatic" 'DESPITE' having been molested by a Pedophile.DPeterson^talk 00:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

what is your point? ~[[kinda]] 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish you'd read all the comments before you begin trying to argue a point. As I said before, the studies do not make your point...the study says, "The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects." DPeterson^talk 00:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

maybe you should. that study is no longer present (despite there being no problem with its previous use there since it supported the statement.) the study i replaced it with, also by mullen, says: "Abuse of all types was more frequent in those from disturbed and disrupted family backgrounds. The background factors associated with reports of abuse were themselves often associated to the same range of negative adult outcomes as for abuse. Logistic regressions indicated that some, though not all, of the apparent associations between abuse and adult problems was accounted for by this matrix of childhood disadvantage from which abuse so often emerged." ~[[kinda]] 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about this?

Because child sexual abuse can occur alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse, some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse [40][55][56][57][58] and some have hypothesized "that abuse effects are at least in part the results of dysfunctional family dynamics that support sexual abuse and produce psychological disturbance (Fromuth, 1986) and that concomitant physical or psychological abuse may account for some of the difficulties otherwise attributed to sexual abuse (Briere & Runtz, 1990)."[59] XXX, however, says, "in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects." --Jmh123 00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

that is fine, but it might be better to present XXX as a hypothesis or quote a conclusion instead. ~[[kinda]] 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

here is my attempt at the other side: "However, some other researchers say that controlling for these variables can be misleading, because sexual abuse may impact family environment negatively or bias the child's later perception of their family environment." ok? ~[[kinda]] 00:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. XXX was supposed to be the name of the individual quoted, but I was too preoccupied elsewhere to go hunt it up. I prefer the direct quote myself. -Jmh123 01:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, i just meant that a hypothesis is not necessarily a statement of fact. maybe "says" could be changed to "hypothesizes." ~[[kinda]] 01:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok by me. So who said it? -Jmh123 01:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

nevermind, "says" makes sense.

the reference is: Mullen, P. & Fleming, J. (1998). "Long-term effects of child sexual abuse," Issues in child abuse prevention (9). Australia: National Child Protection Clearing House. ~[[kinda]] 01:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What an old and minor article. DPeterson^talk 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC) The paper, states just what I said, "The hypothesis advanced in this paper is that, in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects." In other words, child sexual abuse causes serious pyschological damage because of its damaging effects on "the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality." You've made my point, thank you. DPeterson^talk 01:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We are indeed trying to find a way to include this point, as mitigation for the other statement to which you have objected, using the quotation that you provided earlier. Fact is, confounding variables in any scientific study are possible, thus bringing up this possibility is not POV, but in order to provide balance, I added your quotation. -Jmh123 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK so we have this:

Because child sexual abuse can occur alongside other variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse, some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse.[40][55][56][57][58] Briere has hypothesized that "some part of the effects are a result of dysfunctional family dynamics and that concomitant physical or psychological abuse may account for some of the difficulties otherwise attributed to sexual abuse."(add fn to Briere, one or both) Martin and Fleming, however, argue that, "in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is due to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects." -Jmh123 01:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

These are not confounding variable, but are 'INTERVENING' variables. That is an enormous difference. DPeterson^talk 13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK-how about now? -Jmh123 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

no, dpeterson is wrong again. intervening variables are, by definition, confounding variables (if not controlled for). perhaps dpeterson is confusing confounding variables with spurious variables, the other type of confounding variable. it would pov to say absolutely that the variable is either intervening or spurious, but simply noting that it's a confounding variable is a neutral statement of fact. ~[[kinda]] 20:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. labeling an intervening variable as confounding or spurious is misleading. In this case the varibles intervene in the causal chain from molestation to psychological and symptomatic damange. DPeterson^talk 20:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

i did not label it as spurious, but intervening variables are confounding when not controlled for because they affect the dependent variables. this book excerpt expounds on this. ~[[kinda]] 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is intervening and not confounding in the sense most often taken. DPeterson^talk 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

that is not true. an intervening variable (according to you, family environment) which affects the dependent variable (psychological adjustment) and is not controlled for is, by definition, confounding with the independent variable (child sexual abuse). you have provided no logical refutation of this--you're just grasping for straws. and whether the confounding variable family environment is an intervening variable or a spurious variable is a matter of debate. ~[[kinda]] 22:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not according to me, according to the quote from the article, so it is not a matter for debate. We might as well agree to disgree and let this go and just accept the consensus to leave the section out. DPeterson^talk 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

consensus? those who agree with you here appear to have agreed with you on every dispute i can find, including those outside of this article. whenever i refute the ridiculous and extremely varied reasons ("grasping for straws") given for deleting this, the refuted editor either disappears or makes up a different and equally-absurd reason. you are mistaken about how consensus is built on wikipedia.

no, the article has never claimed family environment was an intervening variable. you did. ~[[kinda]] 22:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the deletion is good and see no need to add anything else. SamDavidson 18:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, nothing else needs to be added and the deletion is better. DPeterson^talk 20:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Build Consensus First

Please stop adding material before consensus has been reached, Kind0. There exists a consensus to leave out the material you keep adding. I'd suggest you conduct an informal poll first before you continue on your edit war. DPeterson^talk 22:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

as i have said, consensus on wikipedia is built through discussion. just as admins here can discount voters who don't explain themself, i do not see three or four people saying "me too" and then refusing to participate in two-sided discussion as the establishment of consensus. i have invited you and those who agree with you to participate repeatedly, and have clearly wasted a lot of energy typing words ignored. the burden is now on you to try "building consensus," wiki-style: with reasoned discussion. ~[[kinda]] 23:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am really tired of all the fighting. People are treating people who are not enemies like enemies and running them off (Joie, e.g.) and it's impossible to edit or comment for all the edit conflicts because everybody has to get the last word in. I'm going to abstain from this particular battle and come back in a week or two and see where things stand. A lot of improvements have been accomplished in this article, and Zero did a fantastic job. I know there is a history that has put everyone on edge and on the defensive, but this is no way to work. There's too much hostility and not enough communication. -Jmh123 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, take a breath, take a break, and build consensus, not just revert and revert. Editors may agree and not say more to avoid duplicating cogent arguments already made. That is what is going on here with others. A consensus seems to exist. but if you dispute that, the proper procedure is to hold an informal poll and/or file an RfC. I'd suggest you do both. But in any event, stop reverting as that is bordering on vandalism. DPeterson^talk 23:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments were directed toward kinda, Kind0, 'not' Jmh123...sorry if that was not clear. DPeterson^talk 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just making it clear that I didn't revert anything or vandalize anything, and am certainly not interested in escalating any battles. It would be helpful if your comments were not so general. -Jmh123 23:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

i have tried to develop consensus as wikipedia policy specifies: "through polite discussion and negotiation." jmh123 was the only person willing to do this, and s/he negotiated what might be a more acceptable version. you have rejected any attempt at two-sided discussion and negotiation, which is the proper path to consensus on wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. please attempt to follow wikipedia policy. ~[[kinda]] 23:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, since you are not happy with the results so far, your next steps can be to hold an informal poll (it does appear most editors diagree with you, but a poll will either confirm or deny that impression) and/or an RfC. I encourage you to do both. DPeterson^talk 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh...my...god

You guys had an edit war over the capitalization of sections and subsections? I think it's fair to say that this article may be doomed ...I mean, come on now. At least argue over something important like the content or possibility of bias in cited research. Viper2k6 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are anal about their grammar, but it's not that bad. Scroll a little in the diffs, and you'll see that the edit war is over something much more substantial. Someone just happened to fix the header capitalization while the article was in an unpopular state. --Askild 20:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted methodological issue

ἔλεγε δὲ καὶ ἓν μόνον ἀγαθὸν εἶναι, τὴν ἐπιστήμην, καὶ ἓν μόνον κακόν, τὴν ἀμαθίαν ...[9]

DPeterson (and a few others, to lesser extent) have insisted on removing the following information:

Because child sexual abuse often occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse,[55] some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse[40][56][57][58] and some have hypothesized "that abuse effects are at least in part the results of dysfunctional family dynamics that support sexual abuse and produce psychological disturbance (Fromuth, 1986) and that concomitant physical or psychological abuse may account for some of the difficulties otherwise attributed to sexual abuse (Briere & Runtz, 1990)."[59] Martin and Fleming, however, argue that, "in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is due to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects."[60]

Originally, DPeterson justified this by pointing out that the reference used to evidence our assertion that child sexual abuse occurs alongside possibly confounding variables hypothesized that *many* of the problems attributed to CSA were "second-order effects." (See #Another line to be deleted.) However, this criticism is invalid--the cited article only sources the claim that "child sexual abuse frequently occurs alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment." We do not claim that the relationship found between CSA and mental health problems is a spurious one, and we certainly do not cite that study to prove any such claim. The study is cited because of its summary of occurence alongside confounding variables: it says, "Child sexual abuse is not randomly distributed through the population. It occurs more frequently in children from socially deprived and disorganised family backgrounds (Finkelhor and Baron 1986; Beitchman et al. 1991; Russell 1986; Peters 1988; Mullen et al. 1993)." Additionally, although family environment, etc. certainly confounds with child sexual abuse and in this manner increases the found effect size of studies which fail to control for it, many studies have found that though the relationship between CSA and adult psychopathology lessens when family environment is controlled for, it does not disappear entirely. This is in accordance with that studies hypothesis: _many_ of the associations found are indeed valid.

Regardless, I replaced this source to avoid further bickering. I pointed this out multiple times, but DPeterson hasn't yet acknowledged my change. The new study, which is anyway better and published in a more academic forum, is by the same auther as the previous and concludes: "Abuse of all types was more frequent in those from disturbed and disrupted family backgrounds. The background factors associated with reports of abuse were themselves often associated to the same range of negative adult outcomes as for abuse. Logistic regressions indicated that some, though not all, of the apparent associations between abuse and adult problems was accounted for by this matrix of childhood disadvantage from which abuse so often emerged." This indisputably supports the statement. Thus, I conclude that this issue is resolved and no longer relevant. DPeterson is welcome to explain any more objections he may have.

DPeterson gave a different argument on 6 June. He said, "The reason is that these are a very minor point and we should not give undue weight to ti. [sic]." First, lets deal with the policy he cites, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight--a policy he has apparently not read. The policy says, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." A "tiny-minority view" is apparently a view held by a very, very few people, and one for which it isn't "easy to name prominent adherents" of.

For anyone familiar with the study of CSA effects, this methodological issue is notable and definitely not only considered by a "tiny minority." Briere & Elliot, in their 1993 paper discussing the issue, note that "The most critical issue is wellknown to behavioral scientists: Does the statistical relationship between abuse and later distress reflect a causal phenomenon (i.e., does childhood sexual abuse have negative psychological impact), or is the relationship caused by other variables such as concomitant family dysfunction or the impact of other events during or after the abuse" (p.284) Indeed, dozens of researchers have expounded on this methodological issue in papers, (eg. Berliner and Conte, 1993; Pope and Hudson, 1995; Levitt & Pinnell, 1995; etc.) and many studies now control for confounding variables (eg. Ageton, 1988; Nash et al. 1993; Roosa et al., 1999; Levitan et al, 2003; Kendler et al. 2000; Boney-McCoy & Finkelhor 1995; Fergusson et al. 1996; Fleming et al. 1999; Molnar, Berkman et al. 2001; Rind and Tromovitch, 1997; Rind et al., 1998; Widom, 1999; Mullen et al. 1993; Stein et al. 1988; Beitchman et al., 1991; Fromuth & Burk, 1989; Gidycz et al., 1995; Higgins & McCabe, 1994; Cole, 1988; Fromuth, 1986; Yama et al., 1992; Pallotta, 1992; etc.) Nash et al. concluded that: "Perceived family environment appears to be an important mediating variable in determining general level of adult psychological distress ... Subsequent adult impairment may be an effect not only of abuse but also of the context in which it is embedded." (Nash, et al. (1993), p.282) Additionally, those studies which do not control for family environment and other confounding variables now often note that their findings are limited by this (eg. Beitchman et al, 1992; Najman et al., 2005; etc.)

I believe I have demonstrated the notability of this issue. Following from this notability, it should be included per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Indeed, it is not even a minority view in the scientific realm, though I'm not sure how I would go about proving this. I am open to including other viewpoints, including Briere and Elliot's position, which can be summarized as follows: "However, some researchers say that controlling for these variables can be misleading, because sexual abuse may impact family environment negatively or bias the child's later perception of their family environment."

Finally to address DPeterson's claim that I must stop discussing this and poll instead: he is simply wrong. On Wikipedia, consensus is built through meaningful discussion, and polls can never establish consensus--see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. If DPeterson has no valid reason for excluding this, it should be in the article. A few of his friends saying "me too" is not relevant, per Wikipedia policy.

Over! ~[[kinda]] 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you, as so several other editors, and have restored the version that seems preferred by most editors, although not by you alone. DPeterson^talk 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"I disagree with you" doesn't cut it for discussion. Discuss your proposed edits. ~[[kinda]] 19:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I did, above. I urge you to read my comments in the sections above. You certainly are entitled to disagree, but most other editors here (all, perhaps) disagree with you, so reverting is really disruptive, I urge you to stop and listen to what the other editors have said.DPeterson^talk 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read and responded to all of your complaints. You have not done the same for me in turn... in particular, you still haven't acknowledged that Wikipedia is not a democracy and, contrary to Wikipedia policy, you base your reverts on appeals to the majority and refuse discussion.

Interestingly, I am not the first to notice this pattern in your behavior: "I contend this has always been a debate between me and AWeidman, and the "votes" here have been a sham. They have always been 1-1. Of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but AWeidman has been trying to stuff the ballot box from almost the beginning as if it was. He doesn't debate the issues, just has stalking horses (if not sock puppets) sign on and demand that I go along with his position because I'm supposedly the odd one out."[10]

Please desist ignoring Wikipedia policy. ~[[kinda]] 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Your conduct now constitues a Personal attack by accusing me of being a sockpuppet without any basis. You must stop this behavior. DPeterson^talk 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Without any basis? You copied and pasted complete lines onto User:DPeterson from User:AWeidman! ("My areas of expertise and my areas of interest are: Psychotherapy with children and adolescents" [...] "Attachment theory, Sir John Bowlby, the application of attachment theory" ... Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [...] Evaluation and Treatment Psychology [...] Cognitive Behavior Therapy [...] If you want to contact me you can just leave a message on my talk page. etc) But this isn't about your sockpuppets, really. Try addressing the actual issue for once: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Consensus is built through discussion. ~[[kinda]] 22:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no one is willing to provide any arguments against Kinda, Kinda's version should be restored. 00a00a0aa 23:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The arguments have been provided above and previously. DPeterson^talk 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

They have been refuted. Do you not understand what is meant by "discussion"? ~[[kinda]] 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, those cogent arguments have not been "refuted." You just disagree, which is certainly your right. But in this instance you are a minority of one, and one editor cannot hold an article hostage to a particular POV. Your POV is adequately represented in this article, to add more would be undue weight. Regards. DPeterson^talk 12:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What argument hasn't been refuted? And my range of POVs is irrelevant. I have demonstrated above the clear-cut notability of the concept you protest--an issue that is accepted by most research psychologists and is nowhere else described in the article. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and begin complying with it. ~[[kinda]] 23:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You may disagree, but it's not rational since the facts are against your point of view. I searched and it seems you have not addressed the issues raised by Kinda in a proper way. 00a00a0aa 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see that "disputed" section as relevant or necessary. It is undue weight. JohnsonRon 16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the section being disptued isn't relevant or necessary at all. DPeterson^talk 17:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, for all the reasons previously stated. RalphLender^talk 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to go against the grain here. That there may be variables that affect the results of psychological research is common knowledge. The section under debate states that it is important to control for such variables when conducting research on child sexual abuse, that studies which have controlled for certain variables have found reduced effects, but then adds a reference that emphasizes that sexual abuse does damage children and is the primary variable. Perhaps this phrase could be added at the end: ..."effects secondary to the primary variable, which is the sexual abuse." Adding Briere and Elliot's position as stated by kinda might be helpful as well: "However, some researchers say that controlling for these variables can be misleading, because sexual abuse may impact family environment negatively or bias the child's children's later perception of their family environment." My attempts to find a compromise earlier were abruptly dismissed, and the argumentativeness was such on both sides that I have stayed out of it since. Assessments of consensus have ignored my support to include the passage in some form.

I do think the effects section as a whole, once the "positive" section was added, still tends toward POV, and thus adding the disputed text could be construed as contributing to undue weight; however, that would be better served, in my opinion, by adding more new and current research findings and/or deleting some of the other references--to Rind, for example, who is cited four times in the entry, more than any other scholar, despite being a controversial figure whose bias now has been admitted in these talk pages. -Jmh123 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed alternative for full paragraph in which disputed text appeared:

Because child sexual abuse can occur alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse, some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse, and some have hypothesized "that abuse effects are at least in part the results of dysfunctional family dynamics that support sexual abuse and produce psychological disturbance (Fromuth, 1986) and that concomitant physical or psychological abuse may account for some of the difficulties otherwise attributed to sexual abuse (Briere & Runtz, 1990)." Martin and Fleming, however, argue that, "in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is due to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects" while the primary variable is the sexual abuse. Kendler et al. found an independent association of child sexual abuse with adverse psychological outcomes., and found that most of the relationship between severe forms of child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology in their sample could not be explained by family discord, because the effect size of this association decreased only slightly after they controlled for possible confounding variables. Their examination of a small sample of CSA-discordant twins also supported a causal link between child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology; the CSA-exposed subjects had a consistently higher risk for psychopathologic disorders than their CSA non-exposed twins. (full ref data is missing) After controlling for possible confounding variables, Widom (1999) found that child sexual abuse independently predicts the number of symptoms for PTSD a person displays. 37.5% of their sexually abused subjects, 32.7% of their physically abused subjects, and 20.4% of their control group met the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. The authors concluded, "Victims of child abuse (sexual and physical) and neglect are at increased risk for developing PTSD, but childhood victimization is not a sufficient condition. Family, individual, and lifestyle variables also place individuals at risk and contribute to the symptoms of PTSD."

This version flows more smoothly, and contextualizes the material beginning with Kendler more effectively than the previous version. -Jmh123 23:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Should also mention that some researchers are very sceptical of the theory about a casual connection. 00a00a0aa 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is ok, but I see two problems: "... secondary to the primary variable, which is the sexual abuse..." is not an actual quote, so it should either be in square brackets or placed outside the quote marks as a summary; and I cited sources other than Kendler et al. in the sentence about an independent link to psychological harm. So, we should either remove the other sources, add "and others" to Kendler, or add summaries of the other studies. I can do this... but the paragraph is becoming pretty long. What do you mean by "full ref data is missing"? ~[[kinda]] 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The botched quote was a case of not seeing the quotation marks. Sorry. Fixed that. I have a dickens of a time reading the text with all the ref codes and so forth. In this version there are multiple cites, dates in-text, in-text cites within quotes, and so on. Hard to follow. What I meant by full references missing is that if you follow the note to the bottom of the page (note 56 on the csa page), you see only teeny numbers. Something is missing. -Jmh123 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do they actually claim a causal/independant relationship? I haven't read them but it seems like quite a bold statement considering the state of the research in this area. 00a00a0aa 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Causality would be very difficult to actually prove. They generally say that the adverse outcomes found cannot be explained by the other factors controlled for. Nelson et al. (2002) says, "The most straightforward interpretation of our results is that there is a direct association between CSA and risk for adverse outcomes." (But also "...we cannot infer a causal link from results for CSA-discordant pairs. It remains possible that other unmeasured risk factors, for which twins are discordant, predict both increased risk of CSA and other outcomes.") Kendler et al. (2000) says, "We were particularly concerned with evaluating noncausal mechanisms of association between CSA and psychiatric and drug use disorders. This association might be noncausal because familial factors such as family discord and conflict predispose to CSA and psychopathology. Our results suggest that little of the CSA-psychopathology association could be explained by this association because the ORs declined only slightly when we controlled for a range of such potential covariates when reported either by the parents or by the twins. These results are broadly consistent with similar analyses reported by 3 other groups," and "Although other biases cannot be ruled out, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that CSA is causally related to an increased risk for psychiatric and substance abuse disorders," and "... the pattern of the findings for most disorders supported a causal interpretation of the association between CSA and psychiatric and drug abuse disorders because, despite both being raised in the same family environment, the twin exposed to CSA had a consistently elevated risk for psychopathologic disorders compared with her unexposed cotwin." ~[[kinda]] 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposal still has lots of problems...best just to leave it out as others suggest. For example, the lines:

Because child sexual abuse can occur alongside other possibly confounding variables, such as poor family environment and physical abuse,[5] some scholars argue it is important to control for those variables in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse[6][7][8][9], and some have hypothesized "that abuse effects are at least in part the results of dysfunctional family dynamics that support sexual abuse and produce psychological disturbance (Fromuth, 1986) and that concomitant physical or psychological abuse may account for some of the difficulties otherwise attributed to sexual abuse (Briere & Runtz, 1990)."[10]

have several problems. First, I don't think the term "confounding" is used in cite 5...I don't see that 6, 7, 8, and 9 state that they, "argue it is important..." The quote is from a very old cite...not really relevant. and, if you must propose using it, you do need a page number. I could go on...but this is indicative of the problems with this section and why it just should be left out completed as others have suggested. DPeterson^talk 00:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"First, I don't think the term confounding is used in cite 5." It is. "The quote is from a very old cite...not really relevant." Age is not relevant to relevancy. "I don't see that 6, 7, 8, and 9 state that they, argue it is important..." These were originally sources for the statement that it is a controversial issue. "if you must propose using it, you do need a page number." p. 199 ~[[kinda]] 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123, the paragraph you proposed shows your hard work. Still, having read through the material, I agree that the disputed section should be left out altogether, for all the reasons stated above. -ZeroZ 11:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the greatest methodological problem in the area is simply not an option. It will be included, in one form or another. 00a00a0aa 12:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ZeroZ, leave out this material and keep the section deleted. It just isn't relevant, useful, and contributes nothing to the article. It seems we have a growing agreement to delete it. RalphLender^talk 17:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. 00a00a0aa 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, RalphLender, it does look like there is a clear agreement or consensus among five or six editors and only one (or two?) who seem to disagree. Deletion is the plan now. SamDavidson 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see three distinct editors (DPeterson, ZeroZ, and SqueakBox) who support its exclusion, and three who do not (me, jmh123, 00a00a0aa). But who cares? How many times am I going to have explain that Wikipedia is not a democracy? Less "me too"-ing, and more actual discussion, please. ~[[kinda]] 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as I've probably said before, SqueakBox 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are five of six editors who wish to delete this and only Kinda seems opposed.DPeterson^talk 23:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Quoting myself, for the record, once again: "That there may be variables that affect the results of psychological research is common knowledge. The section under debate states that it is important to control for such variables when conducting research on child sexual abuse." In simple language, while we often do agree, I do not agree with you on this one. -Jmh123 23:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we re-write the text so that everybody agrees to it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it could be tried, but I think the material is just not relevant and representsWikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight. But, sure, I'm willing to look at any suggestions. DPeterson^talk 00:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There have already been suggestions. What is the problem with Jmh's version?

And how could you possibly conclude that a well-known methodological issue in the study of child sexual abuse effects is "not relevant" to the effects of child sexual abuse? I've already shown that this issue is far more notable than is required for one or two sentences. It qualifies for an article of its own, by Wikipedia standards. ~[[kinda]] 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole deal is very strange, either its a matter of lack of knowledge or bad faith, I will assume the first. 00a00a0aa

The previous suggestions were did not address the concerns raised in this and other sections above. But if otherw want to take a stab a developing a compromise, that's fine with me. As it stands now, most editors agree this is not a releveant section and gives undue weight...But If Will Beback or otherw want to try something different, I am open to that. DPeterson^talk 00:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[personal attack removed] there is no majority favouring your position yet. Your concerns have been responded to. The few raised in this section are either absurd (irrelevant, undue weight) or ignorant (undue weight, "these cites I haven't read might not say that"). I am open to your participation in discussion, still. ~[[kinda]] 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a registered user in other wikis, and I just happened to have read the whole discussion page. I find repulsive that people with clear pro-paedophile viewpoints are even allowed to write about this issue in Wikipedia, their lack of humanity and empathy is self-evident in their quest to find pathetic materialistic justifications to approach the issue of children sexual abuse from a "it's not always negative for the kid's health" point, while completely ignoring the clear psychological and human side-effects .

[personal comments removed] ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Emanuele  --81.125.177.1 07:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem doesn't usually come when editors have unusual viewpoints, it comes when they push them into prominent places in a articles. This article could use additional input if you'd like to comment on the material itself. This isn't the right page to comment on editors themselves though. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I see a clear majority favoring deleting this section. I am infavor of doing just that, and so are several others...I count at least five other editors in favor of that. Listen, if you think that is not correct, then perhaps a poll is now in order. I will start that below. RalphLender^talk 12:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

POLL TO DELETE THIS SECTION

• 'AGREE' to delete. RalphLender^talk 12:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG OPPOSE to delete (and to poll about it). 00a00a0aa 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - as 00a00a0aa says -- number29^(Talk) 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - in favor of deletion of citation to Rind following deleted material, rewrite of the deleted material, and rewrite of the section that follows deleted material. -Jmh123 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - this deletion is unjustifiable. ~[[kinda]] 18:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG AGREE! Just not of significance. MarkWood 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, however, I am interested in seeing Jmh123's proposal...maybe you could create a new section for that and editors could comment on it there then. DPeterson^talk 21:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You've already seen and rejected it. Just clarifying the specifics for my "vote." -Jmh123 21:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• AGREE Either keep the article as is, without this section...or go with the suggestion in the section, "Go with This?" below. JonesRD_talk 17:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• 'Agree' SamDavidson 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, SqueakBox 19:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

SUGGESTION FOR COMPROMISE

How about the following:

Some writers argue it is important to control for variables that may be associated with child sexual abuse, such as physical abusele, in studies which measure the effects of sexual abuse[40][57]. Martin and Fleming, however, argue that, "in most cases, the fundamental damage inflicted by child sexual abuse is due to the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, agency and sexuality, and that many of the mental health problems of adult life associated with histories of child sexual abuse are second-order effects."[60]

DPeterson^talk 23:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Go with This?

1. Yes DPeterson^talk 01:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
2. No I don't see any improvement, this issue is much larger than this version shows. 00a00a0aa 08:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
3. ok As I said above, the entire section should stay deleted as the current article stands. However, in the interests of ending the arguments, I'll support this compromise to include the two lines proposed. RalphLender^talk 12:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Yeah this is OK. Herostratus 15:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
5. YES this is OK. JonesRD_talk 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
6. 'Yes' SamDavidson 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Agree. Thanks for finding compromise language. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Agree, SqueakBox 19:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
9. no, does not address WHY some scholars believe it should be controlled for (it confounds). ~[[kinda]] 23:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Agree. -ZeroZ 09:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Agree. MarkWood 14:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
12. No. For the record. -Jmh123 15:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The above proposal has broad agreement. Please add it to the effects of child abuse section at the end. Thanks. DPeterson^talk 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see there is agreement. I will unprotect the page. Everyone should avoid restarting the edit warring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no agreement yet. 00a00a0aa 14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Only you disagree and Kinda...You cannot hold the article hostage to your minority views which are POV and not acceptable to the consensus of editors here. DPeterson^talk 15:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You confuse Majority voting with consensus, they are NOT the same thing. As long as there are unsettled factual issues in which there is clear disagreement then there can be no consensus. We are not holding the article hostage, YOU are by not addressing these issues in a constructive way. Voting doesn't make these issues go away. 00a00a0aa 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the wikipedia statement on consensus and you will see that what we have here is consensus. The issues have been discussed in detail and agreement reached among nearly all/most editors here. You may continue to disagree, but there is really nothing more to say on the subject that hasn't already been said, hence, time to move on. DPeterson^talk 20:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no real responce have been given to either Kinda nor Jmh123 this is clearly not the case. And how many of the voters do even understand what they are voting about? 1? 2? 00a00a0aa 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

The revision is an improvement, but, in my opinion, it is not as effective as it could be as an topical introduction to the studies which follow in that paragraph, studies which, other than Rind, highlight results in studies in which significant effects are found even when variables are controlled for. Diminishing the issue diminishes the power of the response. See below for an alternative possibility. I have made several changes throughout in attempt to emphasize the topic of the paragraph. Rather than leading with Rind, I think it is more effective to lead with a general statement about the issue that Rind raised. -Jmh123 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

first, please reread the paragraph as it is written in the current entry:

Rind et al.'s[47] disputed 1998 meta-analysis of studies using college student samples concluded that the relationship between poorer adjustment and child sexual abuse is generally found nonsignificant in studies which control for these variables.[55] Other more current studies, however, have found an independent association of child sexual abuse with adverse psychological outcomes.[56][40][43] Kendler et al. (2000) found that most of the relationship between severe forms of child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology in their sample could not be explained by family discord, because the effect size of this association decreased only slightly after they controlled for possible confounding variables. Their examination of a small sample of CSA-discordant twins also supported a causal link between child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology; the CSA-exposed subjects had a consistently higher risk for psychopathologic disorders than their CSA non-exposed twins.[56] After controlling for possible confounding variables, Widom (1999) found that child sexual abuse independently predicts the number of symptoms for PTSD a person displays. 37.5% of their sexually abused subjects, 32.7% of their physically abused subjects, and 20.4% of their control group met the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. The authors concluded, "Victims of child abuse (sexual and physical) and neglect are at increased risk for developing PTSD, but childhood victimization is not a sufficient condition. Family, individual, and lifestyle variables also place individuals at risk and contribute to the symptoms of PTSD."[42]

proposed revision of paragraph:

Some scholars argue that research into the effects of child sexual abuse must control for possibly confounding variables such as poor family environment and physical abuse [cite], and one controversial study concluded that the relationship between poorer adjustment and child sexual abuse is generally insignificant in studies which control for these variables. (cite Rind here) However, other researchers have countered that controlling for these variables can be misleading, because sexual abuse may impact family environment negatively or bias the child's later perception of their family environment. (cite Martin and Fleming) Some more current studies that have addressed this issue by controlling for possibly confounding variables have found significant effects due to child sexual abuse. For example, Kendler et al. found an independent association of child sexual abuse with adverse psychological outcomes.[7][6][12], and found that most of the relationship between severe forms of child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology in their sample could not be explained by family discord, because the effect size of this association decreased only slightly after they controlled for possible confounding variables. Their examination of a small sample of CSA-discordant twins also supported a causal link between child sexual abuse and adult psychopathology; the CSA-exposed subjects had a consistently higher risk for psychopathologic disorders than their CSA non-exposed twins.[7] (full ref data is missing) After controlling for possible confounding variables, Widom found that child sexual abuse independently predicts the number of symptoms for PTSD a person displays. 37.5% of their sexually abused subjects, 32.7% of their physically abused subjects, and 20.4% of their control group met the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. [13] (delete final sentence from current entry, as the conclusion conflates physical and sexual abuse, and therefore reaches beyond the topic at hand.)

---

This is good. I suggest:

• "sexual abuse must control for" be changed to "sexual abuse should control for"
• "one controversial study" be changed to "Rind et al (1998)," both so we can include a wikilink and because other studies have reached similar conclusions.
• (cite Martin and Fleming) be (cite Briere and Elliot)

Also, [7][6][12] should be before "For example, Kendler," and some parts seem poorly placed. Briere and Elliot initially appear to be responding to Rind, and "However, more current studies" seems like a reply to Briere and Elliot. Confusing... ~[[kinda]] 23:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

---

This is not an acceptable proposal. But the one above has the approval of all editors, except these two. DPeterson^talk 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, three editors are against and many of the yay sayers are just the usual voting crew. 00a00a0aa 09:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not ok...The first proposal above is much better and has the support of 9 of 11 editors. MarkWood 14:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This has no bearing, voting crews should not decide factual issues. 00a00a0aa 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have a consensus and the changes were made per overwhelming agreement on the compromise alternative. Time to move on to other issues. DPeterson^talk 15:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

---

This is a good start, It's good enough to be included in the article. 00a00a0aa 09:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't acceptable. There the first proposal above, which has the support of 9 of 11 editors is much better and clearly is the version that has the broadest agreement. MarkWood 14:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Factual issues should not be decided by who can rally up the most friends, it should be decided through arguments and at this point the version of DPeterson is clearly inferior, as shown in discussion. 00a00a0aa 14:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have a consensus on the factual issues here and the changes were made per overwhelming agreement on the compromise alternative, which is balanced and NPOV. Time to move on to other issues. DPeterson^talk 15:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the factual issues and no agreement on the compromise alternative. In fact, the newest alternative proposest by Jmh123 has no arguments against it at this point and thus has more power than your version which has many issues which have been shown already. At this point we should use Jmh123's version as this is byfar the strongest in terms of factual agreement. 00a00a0aa 15:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Only you disagree and Kinda...You cannot hold the article hostage to your minority views which are POV and not acceptable to the consensus of editors here. If you continue to act in a disruptive manner by reverting accepted edits you do risk being sanctioned by an administrator. DPeterson^talk 15:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, and that pesky Jmh123 whom you absolutely refuse to acknowledge. I don't mind that others don't accept my compromises, but I really mind being "erased" by you throughout this entire discussion. Looks like the matter is settled regardless. -Jmh123 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not pesky....I've responded when I had something to add. I'd not seen you vote on the proposal and so I did not know if that meant support, oppose, or abstain. I am sorry if you felt ignored. Not my intention. While I may not always agree with your thoughts I don't always disgree either; again, sorry if my actions/inactions were a bother to you. DPeterson^talk 16:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

STOP PERSONAL ATTACKS

[[kinda]] Accusations of me as a "sockpuppet" are clearly a Personal attack. I ask you to stop immediately and apologize for making a knowlingly false statment. DPeterson^talk 22:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC) The evidence is at [[11]] DPeterson^talk 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

this is a red herring. ~[[kinda]] 22:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a very serious offense and I do deserve and expect an apology. Personal attacks are quite serious here on Wikipedia. DPeterson^talk 22:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did not make a personal attack. I expect you to either discuss the methodology issue or stop removing it. ~[[kinda]] 22:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Making false accusations of sockpuppetry is a very serious offense and is a Personal attack, an apology is in order. DPeterson^talk 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete others talk page material

00a00a0aa, do not delete other editor's comments on talk pages, that is considered vandalism and there can be very serious sanctions for that. DPeterson^talk 22:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Child sexual abuse; this is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DPeterson^talk 23:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123, please do not delete other editor's comments on talk pages as you just did to me on this page. That is considered vandalism and there can be very serious sanctions for that. Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Child sexual abuse; this is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DPeterson^talk 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, comments which are not germane to improving the article may be removed from article talk pages. Comments about editors and their behavior should be placed either on their talk pages, or in forums set up for user discussions, like RfC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. I gotta say I'm over my head here. I've never been attacked by a member of my own "team" before. I think it's time for some more experienced folks to step in and try to do something about this mess. -Jmh123 03:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's all try to be on the same team: the Wikipedia team. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Trying to be. -Jmh123 04:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's move along to ArbCom already

When people are trying to remove material that have major impact on the research area while claiming that it is undue weight to even include it, then we have major problem. It doesn't matter if it is ignorance or in bad faith, it just isn't possible to edit this article under such conditions. Let's settle this in ArbCom and get it done already. 00a00a0aa 00:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia dipute resolution documents. The proper steps would be first to hold an informal poll, then work toward compromise, then, do an RfC, then, if all else fails, you can file a request for Mediation. AbCom would reject any request at this point as premature. So, if you really want to reach consensus, let's start with an informal poll and see where various interested parties stand and you could also file an RfC. DPeterson^talk 00:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Even the idea of polling this shows how serious the matter is. 00a00a0aa 00:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom very rarely handles content disputes. ArbCom states: "The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes." While this does appear to be an interpersonal dispute, you are a long way from the point where they will be willing to take your case--I doubt very much that even the Mediation committee would take this case at this point. Their policy states that "a genuine desire on the part of the parties to find a positive solution to the dispute and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives" is expected. -Jmh123 02:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So lets not. To be honest 00a00a0aa you would be the last person I would expect to want arbcom attention, SqueakBox 03:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say your section title is very Spanish! SqueakBox 03:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's just continue as usual then. I'm sure everything will work itself out in the end. 00a00a0aa 08:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

South Africa

I propose to integrate the new South Africa material into our layout more thoroughly. The first paragraph, which discusses South African law, certainly should remain where it is, in the Legal section. But I would like the other two paragraphs, discussing incidence and the "virgins/AIDS cure" offender rationale, moved to the Medical section (perhaps to the Epidemiology and Offenders subsections, respectively). -ZeroZ 09:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. MarkWood 14:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can support that. DPeterson^talk 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. South Africa edits are done. -ZeroZ 13:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Kendler

Can i get a full reference to Kendler et al. (2000), it seems to be missing in the article. 00a00a0aa 09:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I found this in the article history: Kendler, K. S., Bulik, C. M., Silberg, J., Hettema, J. M., Myers, J., & Prescott, C. A. (2000). "Childhood sexual abuse and adult psychiatric and substance use disorders in women: An epidemiological and cotwin control analysis," Archives of General Psychiatry, 57 , 953-959.

Levitan

Rind et al.'s[47] controversial 1998 meta-analysis of studies using college student samples concluded that the relationship between poorer adjustment and child sexual abuse is generally found nonsignificant in studies which control for these variables.[55] Other more current studies, however, have found an independent association of child sexual abuse with adverse psychological outcomes.[56][40][43]

Does the other "more current" studies control for those variables? I skimmed through Levitan and did not find that it was the case in the study. I could be wrong so before I do anything drastic, feel free to comment on this. 00a00a0aa 09:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope Kinda will be returning to explain why he/she posted, then deleted the quotation from Levitan that verified controls for other variables. -Jmh123 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I read the study title from the above section without checking the author, so I quoted the wrong study. I will try to verify levitan... ~[[kinda]] 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -Jmh123 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Other, more current studies have found an independent association of child abuse with adverse psychological outcomes see references 56, 40, 43, et. DPeterson^talk 12:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If they do not control for the variables, why are they written as a response to the first statement? I guess you won't mind if I make it more clear then. 00a00a0aa 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

00a00a0aa, your edit creates a contradiction in terms. DPeterson, if you know the literature, please respond from that knowledge. Repeating the text of the entry back does not respond to the question asked. Those with the POV that child sexual abuse is not harmful are well-versed in studies that support their POV. What we need at this point is argument from the research literature of mainstream psychology. Argument from that literature will be the most powerful response in these situations. 00a00a0aa, just because you checked one study doesn't mean the others didn't control for those variables. Until that is indicated, I will remove Levitan rather than use your revision. -Jmh123 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

00a00a0aa, it is important that this entry not put undue weight on the POV that sexual abuse is good for children, as that is not the mainstream scientific view on this topic. Please refrain from making edits to bring the entry closer to that POV. You are not operating from consensus in this matter. -Jmh123 15:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is claiming that. but it is mainstream view that some children do not experience any negative effects and thus we should bring forth that research. 00a00a0aa 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That is already stated in the entry. How many times should it be stated is the issue. -Jmh123 17:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the problem lies in the sentence because it gives a explanation on why some say its positive, but it offers only one viewpoint and this is a problem. So feel free to rewrite the sentence or re-include the Sandfort study. Btw, when you say that a study is old, you should be well aware that it is very common to cite studies that old among professional researchers, so beware of making such mistakes again. 00a00a0aa 18:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard to get a lot of detail into an edit comment. If a study is twenty years old, it has either revolutionized the perspective of the discipline on this issue, or it hasn't. It has either spawned further research to confirm or deny, or it hasn't. In either case, there would be more recent cites available. Therefore, using a study that old to support a controversial statement just won't cut it. -Jmh123 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that new laws have come to place which makes such research almost impossible nowadays. Since the research in methodologically good and cited in pro-literature there should be no problem. 00a00a0aa 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Should I cite Judith Miller's NY Times articles on WMD on Wikipedia? The Times is a reliable source, after all. But her reporting on this issue has since been discredited. You have provided no cites in recent neutral, scientific literature to support your argument. Besides, as I have already stated, there is material in the entry to support the general view you wish to support. Enough is enough. -Jmh123 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I will remove or rewrite the line as it is now, because it is biased. The age of an article is only a problem if you have more current research that have advanced the field beyond the old, since this is not the case, you have no argument there at all. 00a00a0aa 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that there has not been subsequent research in this area. Please allow time for a response. Thanks. -Jmh123 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Take your time, I hope you don't mind if I restore the source meanwhile. 00a00a0aa 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do. You know that you don't have consensus. I will request page protection if necessary. -Jmh123 22:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You stopped being rational now, I will way a few days until you calm down. 00a00a0aa 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly rational and calm, thanks. The study is already cited--see the beginning of the paragraph in which you tried to cite it again. The point, as I said, has been made. There is no need to include another reference to the same study repeating the same idea. -Jmh123 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please dont make persoanl attacks against people you disagree with, SqueakBox 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by 00a00a00a are really uncalled for and not the point here. DPeterson^talk 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jmh123's edits are fine. The studies cited find an independent association of child abuse with adverse psychological outcomes...what else do you want? DPeterson^talk 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand is if they also control for family environment which is the key issue here. If they don't then they should not be used as a counterargument against Rind, as they are now. If they don't control then the issue is separate and should be separated from the Rind conclusions. 00a00a0aa 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that none of these studies did control for family environment? "Independent association" indicates that they did. Look, I'm not going to hang around here arguing back and forth with you all day--not my style. I can ask for the page to be protected if you prefer. You know perfectly well these are controversial issues that have been debated ad nauseum on talk page after talk page after talk page. Your POV is expressed in the entry. If you try to use the entry to give undue weight to that POV, it will be removed. You are using your extensive knowledge of research that says what you want to hear to try to bias the entry in favor of a non-mainstream POV. -Jmh123 18:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We are dealing with a very difficult area here, how do you actually give correct weight to different areas of the research? The usual solution is systematic approaches which are possible to duplicate by other researchers, and we could try such an approach here. The problem is that it may not work for very long on wikipedia since even if we make a good version, it will get hacked to pieces as usual in a short amount of time. We could try to make the readers aware of the larger ideological approaches that researchers have to this area, basically the victomological approach versus the "liberal" approach, which I think describes the two sides pretty well. We coukd inform the readers of the methodological problems of this area and so forth. Basically giving them the tools to make better values, rather than relying on us to make them for them. Just some ideas, we both want a good article so lets try to find a good approach that works for both of us. 00a00a0aa 19:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The studies cited address the methodological issues and make the point just fine that child sexual abuse is a very damaging event in the life of a child, irrespective of other issues and dynamics that may also be occuring, despite what Pedophiles and Pro-Pedophilia advocates may wish for. DPeterson^talk 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Productive editing

Edit warring over "however" is pitiful. Let's first figure out, here on this talk page, what we want to say and then let's say it, rather than the other way around. I've protected the page for a couple of days to give us all a chance to take some deep breaths and carry on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. BTW, I wasn't rem the "however," merely restoring a prev version and that word got deleted in that move by mistake...I actually agree with Jmh123 on the inclusion of that word in the text...DPeterson^talk 12:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not edit warring over "however". This was the passage that was added and removed multiple times: "Sandfort concludes that there are children whom, without many problems, enjoys friendship and sexual experiences with adults." ref to Sandfort, T. (1987). Boys on their contacts with men: A study of sexually expressed friendships, New York: Global Academic Publishers, 1987. I agree that edit warring is pitiful--just didn't want to see this particular one mischaracterized. Thanks. -Jmh123 13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There's always a "good" reason to revert. IN any case, it's been found that the two editors with whom you were editing were in violation of Wikipedia policies and their accounts have been blocked. I've removed the article protection. Without that disruption I expect editing to be much more productive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...that's my expectation too. DPeterson^talk 18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but at the same time I don't think the problem has been resolved. If anyone's noticed, I came on here once to contribute to the article and then left because...consensus doesn't seem to be one of our strengths. Um...if you want my opinion on the matter, I think everyone's so caught up in their own views that they're not really open to change. Or, they'll say that they're open to change, but then reject every opposing suggestion. I also noticed a lot of personal attacks...for example anytime someone suggests the possibility of there not being a causal relationship between CSA and negative effects, they're automatically labeled a pro-pedophile activist...which not only is an absurd statement to make, but it's also irrelevant either way.

Also, on a side note (since everyone's so anal about giving "undue weight" to unimportant issues), why does the article focus so much on the legalities of sexual abuse? About 1/3 of the article focuses on the laws in place prohibiting sexual abuse ...which is useful if I actually planned on abusing a child, but not good if I'm here to get an introduction to the topic. Would it not make sense to include sections on prevalence, children at risk, child grooming, and prevention? I mean Wikipedia is the 4th search result on Google for child sexual abuse ... in a sense, you almost have a responsibility to give an accurate introduction to the topic. And as a potential parent seeking information, all I'm going to leave here knowing is what legally constitutes sexual abuse/molestation. Is that really your goal here? I don't know...I'm gonna go to bed now. Though I strongly hope that you consider everything I've said... Viper2k6 05:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There certainly are deficiencies in the article. If editors get a break from those who assert that child sexual abuse is a good thing then they have a better opportunity to address those deficiencies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over the effects section to try to smooth over the discontinuities caused by merging the "positive" section into this section awhile back. I deleted no studies, just did some rearranging, approaching this from the point of view of a writer and editor. In my opinion, there were areas that leaned a little too hard towards a POV, and I did some rephrasing in those areas. The only sentence I deleted was the final one. The sentence immediately prior makes the same point, but doesn't get on a bully pulpit about it. -Jmh123 14:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In the epidemiology section there were three references to websites. One was a copy of a scholarly paper, and I replaced that with the actual reference. The other two were links to sites where self-published books are advertised, so I removed these. I don't think that the statements themselves are controversial, so I didn't delete them, but others may disagree or may wish to find better support for them. -Jmh123 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The importance of information about child sexual abuse laws

Addressing Viper2k6's comment: while I am sure many sorts of information can and should be included in the article, there are excellent reasons to begin with and to include thorough information on the legal issues around child sexual abuse.

First, because child sexual abuse constitutes a set of crimes, a clear statement about the acts that constitute those crimes is useful for readers. Most people are unfamiliar with the method in which such crimes are reported by law enforcement nationwide, and definition of the terms provides a common language.

Second, earlier versions of this article tended toward weasel language in describing the nature of the criminal acts and their punishment. An argument I have seen advanced for that weasel language was that state laws differ in their specifics. That argument, however, badly misrepresents the relative uniformity in the elements of child sexual abuse law and in the trend toward increasing sanctions for adult perpetrators. Therefore, a discussion of certain legal commonalities, such as the inability of minors to consent, provides basic information for persons consulting the article as a general reference.

Third, modern inquiry into medical issues, such as prevalence, or sociological issues, such as risk of victimization, proceed from recognition of the crime of child sexual abuse in local, national, and international laws. The most complete discussion of offender motivations cannot describe the elements of a crime, or the legal response of a community or nation in addressing criminal acts. (As an analogy, a complete description of kleptomaniac motivation cannot substitute for information on the crime of robbery.) Medical information is vital in illuminating sequelae of child abuse, and psychology offers information on the motivation of some offenders. But these disciplines do not speak to, and cannot substitute for clear statements about, the fact that our culture, our laws, and the laws of other cultures judge sexual activity with children as crimes. Whatever else may be added, clear information about child sexual abuse as a set of criminal and civil offenses constitutes a basic requirement for this article. -ZeroZ 10:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. Can we begin improving the article with the additon of this material now? DPeterson^talk 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Touché...that was very well thought out. I guess...if anyone wants to add sections on the topics I mentioned, I'd be obviously be in support of that too. Where in the article it should belong, may be up for debate. Viper2k6 12:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you have suggested some useful additions. Why don't you dig up some sources and do some writing yourself? You can propose new sections here on talk to get feedback from other editors. -Jmh123 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

South Africa edit

Done. Moved the "virgin/AIDS cure myth" material into the Epidemiology subsection. It now follows (in a new paragraph) immediately after: female sexual abuse of males is often seen as 'desirable' and/or beneficial by judges, mass media pundits and other authorities. Of course, if it works better elsewhere within the Medical section, do move it. Cheers. -ZeroZ 13:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: "Children at risk"

Obviously may need some work (citations, rephrasing), but it's a start:

Any child can be a victim of child sexual abuse. However in the U.S., most recent studies show that Caucasian children account for the highest percentage of child sexual abuse, second being Hispanics, and third being African Americans.1 The average age group for child sexual abuse is 8-11, with an average age of 9.9 for boys and 9.6 for girls. Additionally, children who are on the brink of puberty are at a high risk for abuse, as many child sex offenders will take advantage of their developing sexual curiosity. Furthermore, children who lack confidence or do not have strong social support (i.e. friends, family, etc) are at a much higher risk for sexual abuse, as many sex offenders will seek out such children. Lastly, children with special needs (i.e. lacking a father figure, living in poverty) are also at a higher risk for abuse because many offenders will shower such children with attention and gifts only to abuse their relationship at a more opportune time. Despite this however, it should be noted that sexual abuse occurs in both lower and upper class families, and is not limited to any specific demographic. Viper2k6 14:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are off to a great start and this would be a useful addition to the entry. Please look for more citations and continue to work on this section. In terms of style, "additionally," "furthermore," "lastly," and the like probably aren't necessary, but otherwise it looks very good. Oh, and "special needs" has a specific meaning within the field of intellectual and physical disabilities, so perhaps a different term? Looks like there's room here for an additional sentence or two on child grooming and a Wikilink. I like where you are going with this and look forward to more. -Jmh123 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Very nice start. I agree with Jmh123's suggested improvements. Why not add it now to the prevelance section and then any minor edits can be made there? RalphLender^talk

I wouldn't recommend doing that until there are citations for all claims, OK? -Jmh123 16:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well we could just post it until someone notices.....but yeah, I'll try to get some citations first lol Viper2k6 18:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Jmh123 is right. Given the high conflict on this page it is probably best to get all the cites in there. I like the proposed section with the amendments suggested...let's just get the cites in so that we can avoid any needless conflicts and reverts. DPeterson^talk 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted section as POV and not relevant

I deleted

Questions have been raised on the issue of the indiscriminate use of value-laden negative terms to describe all child-adult sexual contacts as "it is not scientifically sound to assume that violation of the social norms lead to harm for the child or adolescent". It has been shown that the use of negative terms have a negative biasing effect on how people judge child-adult sexual contacts.

because this material is pedophilia POV. One reference is clearly not empirical and the other is by a highly disputed author. Generally, because of the conflictual nature of this article, substantive additions are discussed here first (SEE THE HEADER TO THIS PAGE). I suggest other editors comment on this added block by new editor User:Drogheda. DPeterson^talk 18:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Both are based on empirical research and the topic is relevant and the issue have been raised by many scientists over the years. Your complaints are clearly wrong and POV themselves. Drogheda 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Same old, same old. This POV is represented already in the entry. There is a section in "effects" regarding possible biasing effects, and Rind is already cited multiple times to support everything under the sun. There is no need for this additional section. -Jmh123 18:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This deals with the terminology, a clearly needed addition since its absent here but highly debated issue in research. Drogheda 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)